For the IAS

  • Posted on: 12 October 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

For the IAS: How to tell good theory from bad theory?

- We’re flooded with information and the universities are only making it worse: unreadable studies which only function as support for the status quo (see below) *. The decision-making elite doesn’t care if or what you think and the universities keep pumping out decision-makers by the thousands each year. There is literally a population waiting in line to make your decisions for you. Can it not also be said that the IAS wants to think for you?

- Why is it that so much of the work of the IAS is so unconvincing? Perhaps we’ve lost sight of the ability to tell good theory from bad. It is clear that academics suffer from tunnel-vision and there are the formal questions of writing in an academic form, whichever one you use. Perhaps the very form of the essay now renders it useless, unless the essay itself can be redone. This is true for rationalized historical forms that refuse emotion.

- Why is it the IAS hasn’t picked up on the recent ideas in educational presentations, say, from Howard Gardner’s “Multiple Intelligences”? Why write theory to exclude emotion, poem, picture, experience, sound? Why has the IAS no videos? We haven’t kept up with the times. We’ve fallen behind and we can’t admit our techne’ is outdated. Instead, we’re left with silly A-news trolls. How outlandish it is to attempt education! Don’t you think every resource will be required?

- At the opposite extreme is the garbage that stands for avant-garde academia. Hyper-complicated graphing-images with text which is too small to be read with the naked eye. “Specialist-Only” publications which you don’t really need to read because your boss will be reading it ‘for’ you. Hyper-theory which makes no mention of actual people inhabiting cities (again, see below). *
- At the very least, can’t we require that what stands for anarchist theory make connections to a big picture? Must it not include emotion, perception, a sense of history, illustrations, pictures, examples? What about the ‘Grain of the Voice’? We have to find multiple ways to illustrate and present our ideas in order to address enormously complicated issues. Perhaps it is only anarchist, anti-authoritarian, mutual aid which will save the essay and education from the blather of middle class idiots.

- Isn’t it the same to require evolution in education as it is in gender and race?

*Infra Eco Logi Urbanism



srsly wtf is this shit... or what about UFOs, and how are they are pertinent to the International Association of Sociologists?

orthodox science is hung up on a mechanical concept of man which is the basis of anthropomorphic modeling of all organisms, cells, plants, ‘biotic entities’ and the concept of ‘intelligence’ derives from this mechanical view. thus science is currently scratching its head about ‘the amazing intelligence of plants’ and ‘the intelligent engineering skills of slime mold’ and the ‘chemical gradient seeking skills of blood-cells and other cells.

when scientists start with this ‘independent machine’ model of biotic entities, ‘intelligence’ is a reverse engineered concept used to explain the ‘problem-solving’ abilities of the ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself.

in other words, the orthodox concept of intelligence is not modern physics compatible; i.e. in the non-euclidian space of modern physics ‘independent machine beings’ are impossible. field is an epigenetic influence that actualizes genetic expression; i.e. ‘genetic expression’ cannot be reduced to the one-sided terms of independent entities with their own internal process driven and directed behaviour that reside, operate and interact in an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame, a habitat that is notionally ‘independent’ of the ‘independent entities’ that reside, operate and interact within it; i.e. in the relational view of modern physics, the ‘inhabitants’ are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum’ [inhabitants and habitat are a non-duality].

so, good on Howard Gardner for stirring things up, as they need to be stirred up by suggesting multiple forms of intelligence. he did not go so far as relativity, but he disturbed the tranquillity of the binary logical status quo.
in non-euclidian [spherical] space, and in the ‘wave’ view, there is reciprocal back-reflection that is inductively actualizing the forward transmission, kind of like baseball where ‘what happens’ is not one-sidedly determined by the assertive actions of hitters, but is reciprocally complemented by the back-pressure of ‘fielding’ (including hitting). similarly, the asserting transmission of electricity through a field-effect ‘solid-space’ [solid-state] transistor is reciprocally complemented by the backpressure in the solid energy-charged plenum.

the understanding that ‘relations are all there is’ [epigenetic field influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression] is a live modern theory but it is having trouble competing with the Western religious and mainstream science belief that is anchored to the concept of our human self as an ‘independent being’ with our own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour, which the biological sciences have anthropomorphically imposed on all ‘biota’, hence constraining the definition of ‘intelligence’ in terms of a uni-directional problem-solving capacity.

while there are many phenomena ranging from autistic savants through ‘irreducible complexity’ as in ecosystems where mutually dependent relations are the basis of the participating forms rather than the forms being the basis of the relations, these are always treated as ‘exceptions’ so as not to have to upgrade the simple binary dualist biological sciences theory with its sacred ‘independent being’ foundation.

exceptions which clearly demonstrate that ‘relativity’ prevails in biological phenomena and ‘relationally complexifies’ the understanding of ‘what is intelligence’ includes the case of the ‘intelligence of the bees’, as discussed by Maurice Maeterlinck (Nobel prize in literature) in his 1901 book; ‘The life of the Bee’;

Scientists suspected that the cells that bees constructed were a mathematical/geometrical optimum for solving the problem of storage so as to minimize quantities of materials (shared walls) and unusable space (as in the spaces between packed spheres which is 37% of the total space, reducing usable storage space to 63%). That there were a mathematical optimum was proven at that time (late 19th century). the following is an except from ‘the life of the bee’ which probes its amazing intelligence, and then explores the results of more intuitive inquiry by Buffon, which suggests a sort of kinetic intelligence of the type explored in our current era by Gardner [bodily-kinesthetic intelligence would have to deal with situational back-pressure];

“Again, it has been demonstrated that, by making the bottoms of the cells to consist of three planes meeting in a point, there is a saving of material and labour in no way inconsiderable. The bees, as if acquainted with these principles of solid geometry, follow them most accurately. It is a curious mathematical problem at what precise angle the three planes which compose the bottom of a cell ought to meet, in order to make the greatest possible saving, or the least expense of material and labour.* This is one of the problems which belong to the higher parts of mathematics. It has accordingly been resolved by some mathematicians, particularly by the ingenious Maclaurin, by a fluctionary calculation which is to be found in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London. He has determined precisely the angle required, and he found, by the most exact mensuration the subject would admit, that it is the very angle in which the three planes at the bottom of the cell of a honey comb do actually meet."
*Reaumur suggested the following problem to the celebrated mathematician Koenig: "Of all possible hexagonal cells with pyramidal base composed of three equal and similar rhombs, to find the one whose construction would need the least material." Koenig's answer was, the cell that had for its base three rhombs whose large angle was 109 deg 26', and the small 70 deg 34'. Another savant, Maraldi, had measured as exactly as possible the angles of the rhombs constructed by the bees, and discovered the larger to be 109 deg 28', and the other 70 deg 32'. Between the two solutions there was a difference, therefore, of only 2'. It is probable that the error, if error there be, should be attributed to Maraldi rather than to the bees; for it is impossible for any instrument to measure the angles of the cells, which are not very clearly defined, with infallible precision.
I myself do not believe that the bees indulge in these abstruse calculations; but, on the other hand, it seems equally impossible to me that such astounding results can be due to chance alone, or to the mere force of circumstance.
There is a theory, originally propounded by Buffon and now revived, which assumes that the bees have not the least intention of constructing hexagons with a pyramidal base, but that their desire is merely to contrive round cells in the wax; only, that as their neighbours, and those at work on the opposite side of the comb, are digging at the same moment and with the same intentions, the points where the cells meet must of necessity become hexagonal. Besides, it is said, this is precisely what happens to crystals, the scales of certain kinds of fish, soap-bubbles, etc., as it happens in the following experiment that Buffon suggested. "If," he said, "you fill a dish with peas or any other cylindrical bean, pour as much water into it as the space between the beans will allow, close it carefully and then boil the water, you will find that all these cylinders have become six-sided columns. And the reason is evident, being indeed purely mechanical; each of the cylindrical beans tends, as it swells, to occupy the utmost possible space within a given space; wherefore it follows that the reciprocal compression compels them all to become hexagonal.
Similarly each bee seeks to occupy the utmost possible space within a given space, with the necessary result that, its body being cylindrical, the cells become hexagonal for the same reason as before, viz., the working of reciprocal obstacles."

“reciprocal compression” is what one encounters in non-euclidian space, as discussed by Einstein in ‘Geometry and Experience’. non-euclidian space better models the relational complexities in the physical reality of our actual experience, and illustrates how convection cells form [Bénard convection cells are hexagonal]. as fluid is heated from below and tries to expand sideways along the bottom of the heated vessel, it bumps into fluid expanding in the opposite direction towards it so that the pressure builds at points along the bottom of the container and the flow turns up and away from the heated base, cooling as it does and at the same time, contracting, so that it contracts inward and then descends downward, forming packed hexagonal cells for the same reason cited by Buffon.

these hexagonal cells are a case of epigenetic inductive influence actualizing genetic expression [i.e. sink and source or receiving and transmitting are mutually influencing in a non-dual relational dynamic]. it is tempting to treat the cell as if it were a ‘thing-in-itself’, assign it a name and speak of it using subject verb-predicate constructs; ‘it is growing larger, it is circulating faster, but there is no ‘it’ that is ‘doing’ anything, the fluid-plenum is relationally transforming, as is the general case in nature in the Machian, Bohmian, Schroedingerian world wherein ‘relations are all there is’.

don’t hold your breath waiting for the gatekeepers of science to let go of their ‘independent being’ model for biota, which started from Western religious belief in a supernatural God which explains how humans could be so good at problem-solving; i.e. it was their God-given intelligence that has no dependence on the space they are included in since Creation has put them into the garden as separate items. God was, in Nietzsche’s view, an error of grammar; ‘I am that I am’. Western science, in order not to make too big a break with the Western religious tradition, invented absolute space and absolute time as an operating theatre or ‘habitat’ independent of its ‘inhabitants’ so as to preserve their ‘independence’ [as Whorf notes, this void space derives from the noun-and-verb language-and-grammar architecture]. Christianity would not want science to make buddhists or vedics out of the lot of them [intelligence being immanent in nature so that, as Emerson also says, the intelligence of nature not only inhabits the organism, it creates it]. Meanwhile, Schroedinger et al had no problems with the relational interpretation of modern physics being more supportive of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta than the Western religions; Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

letting go of ‘independent being’ is not a trivial matter and ‘science’ and the ‘biological sciences’ are keeping the dam from breaking. it is not trivial because ‘independent being’ is the foundation of sovereigntism and capitalism. these concepts depend on mass belief in the ‘independence’ of the sovereign state and the ‘independence’ of the corporate machine; i.e. the anthropomorphism anchored to man’s little-sagacity ego-self has been extended not only to all ‘biota’ but to all relational complexes (relational forms) in the transforming relational continuum, ... treating them as ‘local systems’ whose behaviour can be explained in terms of their notional internal components and processes; e.g. their internal intelligence and ‘intention’ as if they are independent ‘doers’ of cause-and-result ‘deeds’ aka ‘machines’ or ‘cyborgs’. thanks to the idealization of absolute space and absolute time as an insulating, independentizing container, the independent being model is indeed logically possible and internally consistent [although inherently subjective and incomplete], and is being used to hold at bay, the findings of modern physics of inhabitant-habitat non-duality, which would pull the rug out from under sovereigntism and capitalism.

using the model of the ‘independent being’, which continues to be supported by orthodox biological sciences and by science in general, the rich man can continue to claim that he is fully and solely responsible for his doer-deed results, and Western justice can continue to claim that the criminal and terrorist are fully and solely responsible for the results of their actions [ignoring the inductive influence of the rich monopolizers of essential resources of the common living space such as colonizer and their offspring]. independent being also leads to the notion of fair playing field win/lose competition where the productive achievements of the doer-of-the-deed are fully and solely attributable to the competencies of the doer-of-the-deed (hitter). and, no, say the monopolist cronies, the fielding is not rigged by monopolist cronies, and a man’s productive achievements are due to nothing other than that man’s producing competencies, as is the only possibility once one assumes ‘independent beings’ with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours who reside in an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre.

there are a few scientists who try to point out what a shabby state science is in, like François Lurçat in ‘De la Science a l’Ignorance’ but such publishing is not easy to do because it is politically incorrect, just like calling bullshit on anthropogenic global warming is politically incorrect. Lurçat was old and bulletproof (professor emeritus in physics at the University of Paris) and no longer had to follow the orthodox protocols as do young people starting careers in science. Mach, in his day was also bulletproof and simply, in his words ‘Quit the Church of Physics’ when they tried to hold his feet to the orthodox fire.

are anarchists ‘brave enough’, psychologically, to let go of the ‘independent being’ anthropomorphism? ... to get in touch with their ‘bigger sagacity natural Self’ with all its natural sensory complexity and let go of their ‘little sagacity ego-self’ that clings desperately to its notion of ‘independent being and free-will’, it’s powerboater control-freak destination-optimizing/achiever mode rather than its sailboater amor-fati voyage-optimizer/harmonizing mode?

the data is telling us that we are not ‘there’ quite yet but i would think [intuitively] that we could back off somewhat on Nietzsche’s (1890) estimate of 200 years.

Where did this come from, who wrote it, what the fuck is going on here? Context? Anything?

Yeah, I'm not really even sure what this article is about. I suspect that, if I had a little more background info, I would probably agree with a lot of what is being said here; but, as it stands, I am left with the feeling that I have arrived late to someone else's conversation and don't really even know the subject being discussed. My initial assumption was that the letters "IAS" referred to the Institute for Anarchist Studies but, considering that the anonymous author never comes right out and says what they stand for, I could be wrong.

i assumed that IAS stood for the Institute of Advanced Studies, the braintrust in Princeton that Einstein was in, that looks at the biggest of the big pictures (not very well, evidently) and that the message in the anonymous essay is that science-in-education is not evolving and that those inquiring into the biggest of the big picture views (IAS) have not included some of the most essential phenomena in their portal; i.e. they do not have the "salmon of wisdom" in the net they are pulling in.

in my view, whoever wrote it is bringing forth for discussion, one of the most relevant questions of our modern era.

If what you say is true, then the article would have benefitted significantly from an explanation of what exactly the "IAS" is along with a little historical background to orient the uninitiated reader toward the ensuing discussion. This all sounds very interesting but, having never heard of the Institute of Advanced Studies before today, this is the first I'm hearing about it.

mcluhan's 'understanding media' message is that ambiguity as in 'hot media' can be a good thing because if you fill in too many blanks, the reader/listener/viewer is put onto a set of railroad tracks that will railroad you into taking the inquiry in a particular direction even though the original phenomenon might have supported inquiry in a number of different directions; e.g. as in the science topic itself, particle physicists discovered that the questions you ask determine the answers you get [Wheeler's 'surprise version of the game of twenty questions']

“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon” – Niels Bohr

we don’t directly observe what a phenomenon ‘is’ but the way in which we measure it co-determines what it is; i.e. the circuitry in our volt-ohmmeter when plugged into the object circuitry we are measuring will co-shape the behaviour we measure; e.g. a measuring instrument with high conductivity can alter the measured object behaviour significantly. in the realm of social behaviour, if we use our wallet to measure female ‘moral turpitude’, as with the volt-ohmmeter, the conductivity of the measuring instrument [whether there is $5.00 or $5,000,000.00 in it] will make a difference.

since our Western reality ignores ‘epigenetic influence’ and goes with its one-sided visual observation of ‘what things do’, it is the female’s local, visible, material behaviour that is ‘real’, regardless of context; i.e. regardless of the field of epigenetic influence that actualizes her behaviour ['Miss Saigon' had to prostitute to feed her parents and then to feed the baby from having been exploited as a sex toy].

jean valjean [1848 revolution era] was put in jail for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread. irrelevant to the court proceeding was the epigenetic influence that actualized his thieving behaviour; i.e. he could no longer bear to hear starving children cry as they were put to bed hungry. the slave was hung for striking his ‘master’; i.e. the visual observation of ‘what things do’ is what Western science and culture uses as their 'operative reality'. 'What things do' is 'secondary appearance' that we capture semantically, which drops out (fails to incorporate) the natural precedence of epigenetic influence that, being 'relational', is non-local, non-visible and non-material, that actualizes genetic expression that is local, visible, tangible.

ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country; e.g. kill a bunch of Gooks, Cong, Hajis and take your place amongst the proud lineage of our nation’s most courageous and celebrated heroes.

excuse the ramble, ... the freedom of hot media can be very seductive.

wtf even is this. why the fuck does anews even still exist at this point? take it down so i stop winding up here when i let my typing fingers go on auto-pilot.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.