'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

169 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
Haha, Lamarck was pre-genetic

Haha, Lamarck was pre-genetic and a pseudo-mystic at a height of the Romantic movement in Europe, his socalled inherited traits theory had nothing to do with chromosome mutation and selection in the genetic model, but rather a,,,,,hahuh, reference to an unknown spiritual ether which permeated the soul of all life. At least Humboldt had his feet on solid exploratory ground and did field observation, unlike Lamarck, who devised his theories from the musty corridores of laboratories and trendy cafes of gay Paris.

Anonymous (not verified)
Lol, his complexifying

Lol, his complexifying "fluids and ethers" etching organs out of cellular tissue, LMAO, realllllllllly, this is an insult to intelligence!

emile
Reply to #52 re Lamarck's role in modern evolutionary biology

“Ever since Darwin and the neo-Darwinians came to dominate the interpretation of evolutionary theory and its history, Lamarck has been ignored, misrepresented and stereotyped. The same was about to happen in the year of Darwin's bicentennial, but thanks to Snait Gissis and Eva Jablonka, Lamarck has finally received the serious attention his work deserves. The editors have assembled a group of world-class scholars—historians, philosophers, and evolutionary developmental biologists—to produce a far more accurate, comprehensive, and exciting portrait of Lamarck as one of the most sophisticated, knowledgeable, and influential naturalists of his day. The series of essays in this volume are an interdisciplinary tour de force.”
—Garland Allen , Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis

“The reemergence of Lamarckian themes is one of the most striking developments in modern biology. This book unites the work of historians and scientists to throw light on the legacy of Lamarck’s theory, its eclipse in the twentieth century, and its triumphant return to center stage in the twenty-first. It marks a transformation of biology itself but also of how we write the history of evolutionism.”
—Peter Bowler, Queen's University Belfast

From MIT Press
Transformations of Lamarckism
From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology

Edited by Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka

Overview
In 1809—the year of Charles Darwin’s birth—Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published Philosophie zoologique, the first comprehensive and systematic theory of biological evolution. The Lamarckian approach emphasizes the generation of developmental variations; Darwinism stresses selection. Lamarck’s ideas were eventually eclipsed by Darwinian concepts, especially after the emergence of the Modern Synthesis in the twentieth century. The different approaches—which can be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive—have important implications for the kinds of questions biologists ask and for the type of research they conduct. Lamarckism has been evolving—or, in Lamarckian terminology, transforming—since Philosophie zoologique's description of biological processes mediated by "subtle fluids." Essays in this book focus on new developments in biology that make Lamarck’s ideas relevant not only to modern empirical and theoretical research but also to problems in the philosophy of biology. Contributors discuss the historical transformations of Lamarckism from the 1820s to the 1940s, and the different understandings of Lamarck and Lamarckism; the Modern Synthesis and its emphasis on Mendelian genetics; theoretical and experimental research on such "Lamarckian" topics as plasticity, soft (epigenetic) inheritance, and individuality; and the importance of a developmental approach to evolution in the philosophy of biology. The book shows the advantages of a "Lamarckian" perspective on evolution. Indeed, the development-oriented approach it presents is becoming central to current evolutionary studies—as can be seen in the burgeoning field of Evo-Devo. Transformations of Lamarckism makes a unique contribution to this research.

Anonymous (not verified)
If you cut off a mouse's tail

If you cut off a mouse's tail, and it has kids, they still have tails. Lamarck is wrong. /thread

Anonymous (not verified)
it makes no sense to remove

it makes no sense to remove emiles comments when theyre in actual dialogue with another commenter, that just makes shit confusing.

Anonymous (not verified)
It'd make more sense to

It'd make more sense to include a link to the original thread (and a link here from the original thread) - but Emile's comments are nearly always replies to someone else. Well, 10% reply and 90% copypasta of his own posts.

Anonymous (not verified)
Which is probably an

Which is probably an adjustment of his strategy from back when they removed his crap for being totally off topic.

Anonymous (not verified)
Yeah... how to handle Emile

Yeah... how to handle Emile is one of those real-life anarchist tests of "how do we deal with problems without use of authority" lol

Anonymous (not verified)
emile has a blog but no one

emile has a blog but no one reads it lol. Maybe he should start a vlog and "debate" personalities from the altright and the trannosphere?

@critic (not verified)
LOLamarck and Nietzsche

Lamarck is best-known for the idea that acquired characteristics are heritable. He literally believed that someone could be born weak, spend their first 30 years lifting, have a kid and the kid would be born strong. If you're born bad at math, but spend your life learning math to the point where you get really good, then you have a kid and give it up for adoption, the kid will still be good at math. This was counterposed to the Darwinian theory that genetic traits are fixed, and only genetic traits we're born with can be passed onto children. Darwin's position, which is *not* that of modern genetics, later became part of the "neo-Darwinian synthesis" (today's scientific orthodoxy) once DNA was discovered. In the "neo-Darwinian synthesis", only traits which result from DNA structure can be inherited biologically; other traits arise socially, or from the environment. In other words, Darwin/neo-Darwinian synthesis *does not* mean "everything is genetically determined" or "genetic causes are more important than environmental or social causes", though they also deny Emile's position that "everything is epigenetically determined" and "local genetic agency is an illusion" (though, since genetic traits are inherited from *outside* the individual, neo-Darwinian claims aren't really relevant to Emile's arguments about extralocal determinism). There's recent scientific evidence of (very limited-scale) "epigenetic transgenerational inheritance", i.e. evidence that environmental events (including uterine conditions) alter the expression of DNA in proteins, chromosomes etc, and that these alterations in patterns of expression are heritable in some cases. This doesn't mean 1) Lamarck is right, someone who works-out will pass on their muscle mass to their kids, or 2) there is no local genetic force which is "expressed".

Emile says:
>The precedence of epigenetic influence over genetic agency has already been affirmed in cell research
>epigenetic influence is primary and genetic agency is ‘appearance’

The scientist he cites says:
>Hence a genetic bestowal can be revealed differently depending on the conditions and actions of the inheritor – and in turn those circumstances and behaviours may become coded in the genes

In the scientific view, there is a genotype (local genetic code) which is expressed in a phenotype (actual physical attributes of the local being). Someone with the same genotype can have a different phenotype within a certain range, based on environmental impacts on the "expression" of the genes. A bit the same way a website has "the same" HTML code but displays differently on different operating systems or browsers. Some of these differences in expression might be heritable. This is absolutely nothing like Emile's ideology. There's still local genes, they're still inherited, they're still expressed within a limited range, they still interact with the environment as a local phenomenon.

Personally I dislike the neo-Darwinian synthesis for different reasons - firstly because it leaves no place for elan vital (life force) which I believe is necessary to explain the emergence of difference, and secondly because it is based on a scarcity/competition model of genetics which is modeled on capitalist market conditions and does not reflect life in a balanced ecosystem. In other words, I'm neither Darwinian nor Lamarckian, but Bergsonian.

Lamarck is also known with arguing with Lavoisier and angrily defending the Ancient Greek four-elements theory of elementsagainst modern chemistry. If he was alive today, he'd be on Twitter having flame-wars about how the moon landing is a hoax and climate change isn't happening.

>where the English separate and quarantine within their sites of conquest (bringing England with them to jungle and desert), the French integrate and blend into their conquered territories

What kind of Gobineau protofascist shit is this? First off, differences in colonisation are quite clearly social, not genetic: England was still a monarchy with a rigid class structure, whereas France had become a republic by the nineteenth century, and their views of the "civilising mission" and the place of the "natives" consequently varied (the French sought to repeat the Napoleonic project of bringing universal Reason to everyone, whereas the British asserted quasi-feudal superiority over "societies" which were always seen as eventual independent countries in the future). In practice the French were just as segregationist as the British, as you'd know if you'd read Fanon.

Emile says:
>do you not see that Nietzsche is talking about transformation/transcendence wherein epigenetic influence is in a natural primacy over genetic agency?

No, I don't see that in the quote.
>‘all animals… strive instinctively for an optimum combination of favourable conditions which allow them to expend all their energy and achieve their maximum feeling of power' (Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, p. 86)

All animals have LOCAL AGENCY: they strive, they expend energy, and they do they to get a feeling of power.

It's not ego in the modern sense; it's more like a flow-state (one is striving and expending energy to get a maximum feeling of power when one riots or climbs a mountain or raves all night or has really good sex or finishes a long essay). It's constantly related to habitat and outer forces, it's relational, but it also involves local agency - to choose what empowers and fight what blocks (the next sentence after this), to be in empowered flow rather than frustrated blockage. So, yes, you could say it's "pulled out" by the environmental forces, but there's also a kind of selection - and crucially, a feeling of self-empowerment - going on.

Anonymous (not verified)
Corgis have had their tails

Corgis have had their tails cut for centuries and now very few are born with tails

Also you might be born weak even if you have genes for being strong they just need to be activated. If you search for "lamarck was right" everyone is getting hyped about lamarck being right.

anonymous
Google "Lamarck was right"

Google "Lamarck was right" and you get tons of clickbait articles titled "Was Lamarck right?" or "Was Lamarck a little bit right?" (with the answer usually being "no", or "maybe at a push"). And some stuff about comic books, and how superheroes' kids are always inexplicably superheroes. One of which also makes reference to the difference between Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits and modern epigenetics. From TV Tropes: "maybe the accident didn't cause your dad's powers, it just unlocked the powers already in his DNA, and he passed the "unlocked" version on to you. This has the advantage of bearing a nodding resemblance to a real scientific phenomenon."

Modern epigenetics does not mean that if you cut off a dog's tail, its pups won't have tails. There might be certain genes which mean that a trait is activated or not activated depending on circumstances - for example, a gene which gives you a tail if you get a lot of a certain chemical in the womb but not if you don't. One of the factors which can cause expression or non-expression of a gene is whether the parents had the gene expressed - because the gene is transferred with a "tag" attached (a bit like downloading a program that runs automatically). This and This pretty much handle it. If you'd bothered to do a basic Google search on Corgis, you'd know that some of them have been bred to be tailless, and this is done through ordinary selective breeding.

Anonymous (not verified)
Also by that standard, Jews,

Also by that standard, Jews, Muslims and Americans should be born without foreskins.

emile
reply to #60 you are out of touch with lamarck re modern biology

see my response to #52 click here

your responses seem to show a strong bias to 'realism'. i.e. your depictions fall back to the popular orthodox primacy of 'genetic push' giving little credit to 'epigenetic pull', which nietzsche recognized was in a natural primacy over genetic push.

why do you think that nietzsche aspired to 'amor fati'? we are not in control of the situations that unfold with us in them, but we are naturally inspired (pulled) by situational influence (epigenetic influence) to 'rise to the occasion' and open ourselves up to letting our formless creative potentials be pulled forth into blossom and shape, transcending ourselves (transcending who we were prior to being called into action (inductively actualized) by the unfolding situation. of course, all of this can be described after the fact, in terms of internal forces pushing the blossoming out, without even mentioning 'epigenetic influence', as is science's habit and which is achieved by framing the unfolding blossom in absolute space and absolute time reference frame and using repeated measurements to map its 'growing' form as if 'it' is doing all the growing, and what else could it be if our so-called 'independent biological system-in-itself is self-actualizing in empty Euclidian space?

this elevating of genetic agency into an unnatural primacy over epigenetic influence is science's convenient, thought-economizing method, as Mach pointed out, it is not about the physical reality of our actual experience. try getting Euclidian space out of your head and understand blossoming forms as inhabitant-habitat nondualities and you will see that epigenetic influence is in a natural primacy over genetic agency. then put Euclidian space back in as your reference frame and, guess what, ... all of the development becomes due to genetic agency, ... how curious! but this is where 'realism' comes from, and those who recognize that it is a 'device' are pragmatic idealists who can talk the talk of all genetics no epigenetics which is what noun-and-verb language is built for, but who see science as a finger pointing to the moon that is not the moon. i.e. genetic agency is a finger pointing to the moon. epigenetic fields of influence are non-local, non-visible and non-material as 'field influences' are wont to be. the unfolding blossoming is secondary phenomenon, it is 'appearances', 'schaumkommen', 'genetic expression' that is secondary to 'epigenetic influence'. why do plants grow straight and tall in a forest grove? they make a bee-line for a hole in the forest canopy, right? to gobble up some photons and turn them into vegetable flesh with photsynthesis. is it their 'plant intelligence' that gives them the 'rational purpose' to make a beeline to the hole in the forest canopy, or is it epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing their genetic expression?

this is what 'nonduality' is all about; i.e. epigenetic-genetic nonduality, stormcell-in-flow nonduality, inhabitant-habitat nonduality, field-matter nonduality. orthodox science is dualist and it removes the power of epigenetic influence and transposes it, notionally, to 'local agency'.

why is that? because 'genetic expression' is available to visual and tactile senses, but as nietzsche has said, and Mach before him, ... these two senses are far from all she wrote. we can't see the influences of gravity and electromagnetism [thermal field influence] but they keep us hopping around, ... jumping out of the cold into the warmth or vice versa. surely you don't believe that such movements are driven by rational purpose. even an infant's behaviour is orchestrated and shaped by outside-inward pulling epigenetic influences, ... snuggling draws puppies together. do you think that they are born with rational understanding that the ratio of surface area to volume must be minimized to minimize thermal energy losses? or is it 'instinct'? what the hell is 'instinct' other than a 'fix' for having mistakenly [conveniently so as to economize on thought] modeled the organism as an 'independent biological system in itself' in which case ALL of its behaviours must be explained as inside-outward asserting 'genetic agency driven' behaviours. wtf! bring in euclidian space and the natural primacy of epigenetic influence over genetic influence is not only inverted, but epigenetic influence totally disappears since there is no place for it to originate in empty Euclidian space.

Anonymous (not verified)
Again & once again on Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought

Repetition repetition repetition...

You're duelling with your shadow again, Emile. And missing the person in front of you.

You disagree with something, you say it's “realist bias”.

You use science when it suits you. When someone comes along and shows how you're misusing epigenetic biology or quantum physics to back up conclusions you're already reached, and that the evidence does not prove any such thing, you whine about realist bias again (as if you'd expect to find anything but realism in modern science!)

You keep reading “ego” and “rational purpose” into things I'm saying, when that isn't what I said. Action from desire is not action from “rational purpose”. At most, rationality is a way to calculate means to satisfy a desire. Nietzsche does not believe that people act from “rational purpose”, he believes that people act from will-to-power. Nonetheless, will-to-power has localised agency. You may think Nietzsche is wrong about this, but it's what he fucking says.

Nietzsche (like Stirner, like Deleuze) says that agency comes from resonance between inner desires/powers and outer flows. There's no clear sense of “primacy” of one or the other, and no clear sense that the inner desires/powers “don't exist” or are just “appearances”. Yes, all these authors believe that the good life consists in living in an intense flow-state in which desires and powers are optimally expressed within transpersonal relational assemblages – not in agency of the self-interested rational subject or the intellect. That doesn't mean you can piggyback in the whole of Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought onto them. Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Einstein, Mach, Lamarck, all believed things which orthodox Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought cannot recognise.

I don't see why you care so much anyway. Stirnerians believe in flow-state, in a very similar way of life to your own, why does this little quibble over whether local agency exists carry such weight for you?

Oh.. and also, if there is only “field” and not “local agency”, there is also NO PRIMACY. Primacy is another of the dualistic concepts you keep smuggling in.

emile
reply to #66 your refusal to ignore your mistakes is massive

you and others continue on with the silly stereotyping and dismissing of Lamarck and when shown how flat wrong you are, you say nothing.

that is the way this forum often seems to work, by groundless mocking dismissals "emile zedong' and never really listening. repetition is the result of not listening.

you ask;

why does this little quibble over whether local agency exists carry such weight for you?

and then you say;

"there is also NO PRIMACY. Primacy is another of the dualistic concepts you keep smuggling in."

excuse me, but you seem to be blind to nonduality. a nonduality is a circularity as in convection current where there is 'convergence' and at the same time 'divergence' as in 'sink' and 'source'. if you have read Ayn Rand, she sees people as the 'fountainheads-in-their-own-right'. that is dualist; i.e. in the physical reality of our actual experience, it is impossible to have a fountainhead-source without a sink; i.e they are a nonduality. however dualists like Ayn Rand see special people, white people as 'fountainheads' of all that is good in the world, economic production etc. and we are supposed to believe that all of good stuff produced by fountainheads will trickle down and benefit the 'second-handers' and 'parasites' as she calls them. she sees 'local agency' as something in its own right.

there is no 'local agency', it is only appearances. if you don't get that, you don't get nonduality. if you don't want to get nonduality, that's fine, but there's no point in carrying on a dialogue that deals in nondual phenomena when your interpretation of someone else's remarks is constrained to dualism.

the flow and the storm are commonly spoken of as a 'duality'. in this case, people are free to talk about each one separately as if they are two separate phenomena. understood as a storm-flow nonduality, there is a natural primacy. it is always the same; i.e. epigenetic influence (immanent in flow) is in a natural primacy over genetic expression (storming). yes, as Mach's principle says, they are influencing each other at the same time as in inhabitant-habitat nonduality, ... but while there can be many storms in one flow, there cannot be many flows in one storm [in the limit, flow is ONE]. in fact 'one storm' on its own without the flow, makes no sense just like Ayn Rand's or Ronald Reagan's 'fountainheads' and 'trickle-down economy' make no sense. it is absurd dualism which imagines that 'local agency' is possible on its own. formerly, jumpstart creationism (local agency) was reserved for a supernatural God, but today, dualists assume it all the time, for themselves (ah yes, the old ego bit once again).

what's the point of engaging if your responses assume there is nothing in the world but dualism? i.e. whenever my comments are infused with nondualism (they almost always are), you use dualism to interpret them.

btw. do you have any comment on modern research views on Lamarckism?

@critic (not verified)
Emile Zedong Thought: An Infantile Disorder

>your refusal to ignore your mistakes is massive

Ad hominem, question begging. It's only “refusal to ignore mistakes” if you're right. Which you aren't. The counter-evidence is only decisive if it rebuts what I said. Which it doesn't.

Also, fuck off with talking down to me, you're not my therapist, or my teacher. Your assessment of my personality is irrelevant here.

>repetition is the result of not listening

We all listened the first time you said it. It's possible to listen and not agree, you know.

>excuse me, but you seem to be blind to nonduality

Fuck off. You are responding to my saying: “Primacy is another of the dualistic concepts you keep smuggling in”. If there's a nonduality then there aren't two separate forces/objects and therefore neither can be primary over the other because they aren't actually separate.

You are utterly changing the topic here, because the previous discussion was not about *is there* non-duality or local agency but *does Nietzsche think* there is local agency and also does Lamarck think this, and does scientific evidence confirm Lamarck's view.

>if you have read Ayn Rand

Bad faith. Irrelevant. Nobody here agrees with Ayn Rand. You can't say that the 99.9% of people who disagree with you are the same as Ayn Rand, just because Ayn Rand is somehow what you would call a “dualist”. It's equivalent to “Emile likes Nietzsche, Hitler likes Nietzsche, therefore Emile is like Hitler”. Typical simplistic *dualism* in which everyone is forced to believe in *either* Machist-Nietzscheist-Emile Zedong Thought in its entirety *or* believes the same as Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, or whatever other bogeyman is on the big-character posters this month.

>the flow and the storm

You're obsessed with storms. NO-ONE THINKS STORMS HAVE AGENCY. Except maybe some animists somewhere.

>there is no 'local agency', it is only appearances. if you don't get that, you don't get nonduality

More question-begging. “Get”. Yeah, I don't agree with your interpretation of nonduality in which there is no individual agency (not even nonrational agency, not even resonance and desire, not even attributes of objects or genetic strcutures of animals). I “get” completely what you mean, but I think you're wrong, and also self-contradictory. You piggyback dualisms on your nondualisms, such as the idea of individually *choosing* to adopt a PEIR and not a scientific point of view.

>what's the point of engaging if your responses assume there is nothing in the world but dualism? i.e. whenever my comments are infused with nondualism (they almost always are), you use dualism to interpret them.

Given that in Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought, all deviation from the party line constitutes dualism, then you know in advance that my point of view (assuming I engage in any way other than total agreement) is dualistic. Therefore you know that I will interpret and contest your views from an (in your view) dualistic point of view. Yet you continue to engage, continue to fail to prevent your “nondualism” in a way which can't be read as “dualism”. If I believe that nothing exists but “dualism”, then the onus is on you to prove that “nondualism” in your sense actually exists. You are unable to prove this, and your misreadings of Nietzsche and abuses of quantum science and biology and your outright reality-denying claims (spiders do not build the same type of webs over and over, solitary animals do not exist, molar-level physical objects can influence one another non-locally) undermine your attempts to prove this.

>btw. do you have any comment on modern research views on Lamarckism?

#63 pretty much dispensed with this. Modern epigenetics is not Lamarckian. Modern epigenetics claims that genes (genotype) only produce traits (phenotype) by mediation of epigenes (chromosomes, proteins and so on). The programming is “there” in the gene, but environmental differences sometimes activate or don't activate aspects of certain genes, producing different “expressions”. In a few cases, the activation of a gene in a parent generates a “tag” which also activates the gene in offspring. It's still the case that acquired traits are not passed on to offspring, and it's still the case that genes affect (but not exclusively) what traits appear. This has nothing to do with nonduality or nonlocal causality (which in any case are not at stake in Lamarck vs Darwin or in modern genetics). In any case, an epigenetic cause in modern epigenetics is a *local* cause, arising from a local biological trait inherited biologically from the parent. Modern epigenetics is part of modern science, and therefore necessarily dualist (it deals with inductive research into observable objects treated as distinct); the attempts to incorporate it in Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought are a new form of Lysenkoist pseudoscience.

emile
reply to #68 and comment on ad hominem, farts and dismissiveness

You wrote;

[emile] >your refusal to ignore your mistakes is massive
.
[@critic] Ad hominem, question begging. It's only “refusal to ignore mistakes” if you're right. Which you aren't. The counter-evidence is only decisive if it rebuts what I said. Which it doesn't.
.
Also, fuck off with talking down to me, you're not my therapist, or my teacher. Your assessment of my personality is irrelevant here.”

Your logic sucks. What I said was ‘you farted’ and should take ownership of the fart, it is not an attack on your essential self. an example of ad hominem would be to attack the messenger rather than the message; e.g. Emile Zedong Thought: An Infantile Disorder

you wrote;

Lamarck LOL
.
You realise Lamarck has been well-and-truly falsified, right?

This is the typical Lamarckism-dismissing scam of Darwinist-fundamentalists which simply refuses to even consider non-Darwinist findings in current day research in evolutionary biology; e.g; there is no point in reading the following since Lamarckism has been well-and-truly falsfied;

“Ever since Darwin and the neo-Darwinians came to dominate the interpretation of evolutionary theory and its history, Lamarck has been ignored, misrepresented and stereotyped. The same was about to happen in the year of Darwin's bicentennial, but thanks to Snait Gissis and Eva Jablonka, Lamarck has finally received the serious attention his work deserves. The editors have assembled a group of world-class scholars—historians, philosophers, and evolutionary developmental biologists—to produce a far more accurate, comprehensive, and exciting portrait of Lamarck as one of the most sophisticated, knowledgeable, and influential naturalists of his day. The series of essays in this volume are an interdisciplinary tour de force.” —Garland Allen , Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis

what would a reader of your LOL comment be left thinking, if that was all they heard on the subject?

That is, you speak very intelligently on dualist themes, which may impress some, or even a lot of people [dualism often goes together with high IQ articulate self-expression], but when it comes to anything bordering on nonduality, you become abusive, mocking, obfuscating and otherwise dismissive. that’s not an attack on you, the messenger but on your message delivery style. i would not tell anyone that he was useless because of his frequent bouts of petulance.

the dismissive tactics of change-resistant orthodox Darwinist doctrinarians are very familiar to me and so must they also be to Lamarckian researchers; e.g. the following excerpt from a review of the ongoing debate between Lamarckian [ES] and Darwinian [MS] proponents;

At one extreme of a broad and complex spectrum of positions are perhaps authors such as Michael Lynch, who rejects any talk of ES and—paraphrasing a famous quip by Dobzhansky—boldly claims that “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of population genetics” (Lynch 2007, p. 8597). Lynch and other population geneticists (most prominently, Jerry Coyne, who is interviewed in almost every example of press coverage of the controversy; e.g., Whitfield 2008) think that the MS provides all the theoretical framework that evolutionary biologists need, despite mounting empirical discoveries of new phenomena (e.g., epigenetic inheritance) and the elaboration of entirely new concepts (e.g., evolvability; Pigliucci 2008) during the past several decades. Indeed, Lynch (2007) went so far as charging his scientific opponents of engaging in little more than uninformed musings comparable to those of intelligent-design creationists.
.
At the opposite extreme are some prominent proponents of the ES, such as Eva Jablonka (Jablonka and Raz 2009), who—on the basis of the very same empirical discoveries and conceptual advancements just mentioned—claim that the new biology has dealt an essentially fatal blow to the orthodox Darwinian, genecentric worldview of the MS (see also Newman and Linde-Medina 2013). The ES would therefore constitute something akin to what philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn (1962) called a “paradigm shift.”
You can read the review at The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy

As the title of the article suggests, the two parties read the same empirical data differently because they are looking at it through differing philosophical lenses;

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination” – Dennett

As the reviewers of this philosophical-scientific debate, Massimo Pigliucci Leonard Finkelman observe in their final paragraph;

The role of philosophy in biology—and, indeed, in any science—is nevertheless vitally important. Philosophers may not be able to anticipate future data points, but it is philosophers—­­or scientists engaging in philosophy—who contextualize those data points in the broadest sense. Let us, likewise, remember another important lesson imparted by Kant: that perception without conception is blind.

My philosophical position has been, like Nietzsche’s [must i repeat his ‘problem with Socrates’ comments from ‘Twilight of the Idols’?], that we are screwing ourselves by putting reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition. That is, our standard cultural viewing space is semantically constructed reality’ (SCSR) which is dualist, rather than our physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) which is nondualist. For example, in PEIR we intuit that the slavemasters abuse and marginalizing of slaves builds relational tensions over time that can erupt in rebellion that manifests through angry slaves that have had enough; i.e. where the abuse and associated relational tensions have exceeded their tolerance limit and induce a lethal attack on their slavemasters.

In scientific reality, the present depends only on the immediate past [the local 'causal agent' holding the smoking gun is deemed the guilty offender], and that is where moral judgement based retributive justice comes from (SCSR). Slavemasters aka colonizers, are dualists, if a PEIR observer states the intuitively obvious, that the violent attacking behaviour of the slaves has been epigenetically induced by the slavemasters, the Judge and Jury who are dualists [otherwise they wouldn't have authority in a court of moral judgement based retributive justice], are going to refer to ‘science’ and its causal model which says there is no such thing as epigenetic influence, there is only ‘local genetic agency’, thus the attacking slaves are FULLY AND SOLELY causally responsible for their actions and damaging deeds.

With respect to your persistent dualist interpretations of my nondualist commentaries, you acknowledge this and then impose impossible conditions wherein I should prove nondualism to you while you interpret my attempts through dualist lenses which reduce nondualism to dualism; i.e. you say;

If I believe that nothing exists but “dualism”, then the onus is on you to prove that “nondualism” in your sense actually exists. You are unable to prove this, and your misreadings of Nietzsche and abuses of quantum science and biology and your outright reality-denying claims (spiders do not build the same type of webs over and over, solitary animals do not exist, molar-level physical objects can influence one another non-locally) undermine your attempts to prove this.

well, of course my nondualist reading will be 'misreadings' to someone reading the same words through dualist lenses.

What you impose on me is the equivalent of having to prove to you, the judge, that not the slave-defendent but YOU, being a member of the slave-master class, are responsible for the injury and death that the angry slave is being scapegoated for. And I have to accomplish this feat in your court with you sitting on the judge’s bench.

That is like asking me to prove that the people responsible for 9/11 were the Euro-American colonizers who have been busy with century long programs of cultural genocide against the colonized peoples. Proving this in a colonizer court, since colonizers are dualists, is impossible. But in a nondualist colonized indigenous peoples’ court or council, the understanding would be very different. Native spokesman Ward Churchill offered it the day after 9/11;

“Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.
.
“You’ve got to learn, ” the line went, “that when you push people around, some people push back.”
.
As they should. … As they must. … And as they undoubtedly will.
.
There is justice in such symmetry”. — Ward Churchill, 9/12/2001

That is a nondualist view wherein epigenetic influence immanent in the relational dynamics of colonization inductively actualize rebellious counterplay or 'push-back'.

That nondualist understanding will prevail in physically-experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) but not so in semantically-constructed scientific reality (SCSR). Dualist scientific thinking is very convenient for slave-masters. They hold the power and can piss on the slaves all they want and when the slaves rebel, scientific dualism will find the slaves fully and solely causally responsible for their actions and destructive deeds. That’s one reason why Tolstoy was such a critique of science which was and still is keeping everyone in chains by holding slaves responsible for the injuries associated with ‘pushing back’ against those abusers of power who suffocate and humiliate them.

Do you believe there’s any merit to the nondualist case; i.e. that slave rebellion is epigenetically induced and that such 'rebellion' is not simply originating from the local agency of ‘rebels’?

It would be useful to know since you say;

“the onus is on you to prove that “nondualism” in your sense actually exists”

As with the Lamarckism – Darwinism debate, the issues are not decided by the empirical data but by the philosophical viewing lenses. Dualist lenses search for local causal agents in the immediate past to explain what unfolds in the present, while nondualist lenses understand the same phenomena on the basis of relations that are unbounded in spacetime, as in the aphorism "it takes a whole community to raise a child". e.g;

“It is normally assumed that the recombination of genes generates innovation and that this innovation is then judged as useful or not through natural selection. Genetic information presumably serves as a blueprint that controls the features of organisms and their communities. However, studies of bacterial associations in continuous culture suggest that innovation also flows in the reverse direction, from the structure of the community to the structure of the nucleic acid. In this situation, it may be the structure and architecture of the community that serves the initial blueprint.” — ‘Cultivation of Microbial Consortia and Communities by Douglas E. Caldwell, Gideon M. Wolfaardt, Darren R. Korber, Subramanian Karthikeyan, John R. Lawrence, and Daniel K. Brannan, Manual of Environmental Microbiology

@acritic (not verified)
Deconstructing Emile Zedong Thought through a (trans)neodetermin

Deconstructing Emile Zedong Thought through a (trans)Neodeterminist Hermeneutic of Nonlocalised Subaltern Agency: Towards a Post-Darwinian Synthesis of Transformative (re)Subjectivations

>Your logic sucks

No, my logic is epigenetically generated from the fundamental illogic-inducing structure of your ramblings, because there is a nonduality and nothing exists except the field. Referring to “my logic” as if it were a distinct object for which I am personally responsible reflects your continued belief in the western scientific delusion of separate objects with localised causal agency. The scientists or 'rationalists' who generated the theory of individualised logical performance use a simple being-based, dualist, thought-economical model that reduces dynamics to terms of 'what things-in-themselves do', ignoring inhabitant-habitat nondualism [Mach's principle]. Yet as Mach has shown:

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

No-one in our Western SCSR scientific reality 'blinks' when we use our thing-in-itself-based causal constructs and say that 'Katrina (or Harvey or Irma) is causing 'destruction'. Our experience is that the habitat is undergoing relational transformation, sometimes gradual as far as human perspectives and sometimes rapid and violent, but it is ongoing-in-the-now relational transformation. but in the dualist, being-based scientific reality, we see 'things' out there, separate from ourselves [dualist observer-observed split] and we name these things, new things are continually being 'generated' and coming into view and old familiar things are continually being 'de-generated' [regathered in the 'generating' of new things]. this is the 'language game' that constitutes 'SCSR' scientific reality. it is the lesser dualist understanding of the polynomial of degree one.

How do you like it Emile?

>but when it comes to anything bordering on nonduality, you become abusive, mocking, obfuscating and otherwise dismissive

Besides the fact that *Lamarck is a dualist* (albeit he distributes the localised causal forces somewhat differently from Darwin)... OK, let's take him seriously. If you have a cage full of mice, which have tails at the start, and you cut off their tails (inb4 smash HLS), and then they fuck and have kids – according to Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought - will the kids have tails?

>You can read the review at The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy

Rebutting your increasingly desperate misreadings of complex academic material is getting far too time-consuming, but just this once:
> most proponents of the ES maintain that the synthesis is meant to complement—rather than replace—Darwinian theory
>[epigenetic factors] are Lamarckian mechanisms of inheritance; however, they are not sufficient for Lamarckian explanations of evolution
>the ostensibly acquired characteristics are, in fact, variations on genetic mechanisms preserved by natural selection
>Because true Lamarckism would require a revision of evolutionary theory's ontology and because epigenetic inheritance requires no such revision, it follows that the ES does not entail a Lamarckian theory just because it accommodates epigenetic inheritance
>Acceptance of epigenetic inheritance in the ES therefore does not constitute a paradigm shift, and this, in turn, does not require any radical revision of the models developed in the MS. Explanations of evolution are still given in terms of natural selection; what changes is the recognition of additional possible sources of variation. Understanding evolution still requires an acceptance of the sort of population-level thought that is antithetical to the Lamarckian model.

All from the article you linked.

>well, of course my nondualist reading will be 'misreadings' to someone reading the same words through dualist lenses
>As with the Lamarckism – Darwinism debate, the issues are not decided by the empirical data but by the philosophical viewing lenses

You seem to believe that philosophies/”lenses” are both 1) incommensurable and 2) completely determinant of evidence.

If this is the case, then is it ever possible, from your point of view, to test one theory against another on the basis of evidence (or logic, or intuition, or anything else)?

If not, then why is your nondualist view any better than (rather than simply *incommensurably different from*) the dominant dualist view? Doesn't your implicit assumption require that there is no standard against which your view could be shown to be right, and the dualist view wrong?

And if so, what's the point (for you) in having conversations about dualism/nondualism at all?

If your position is *just another lens* then it's no better than mine, and you can stop bashing me over the head with it.

For my part, I think dualism and nondualism are two among many hypotheses about how the world works, and, while the evidence may underdetermine the choice of hypothesis, there are certainly ways of showing that one or both are inadequate. Emile Zedong Thought is inadequate because it cannot explain such simple facts as our inability to observably affect distant objects without using local (classical-physical) force, the existence of solitary animal species, and the fact that orb-web spiders repeatedly create webs using the same basic design. There are also problems with dualism, and Emile Zedong Thought points to a few of these, but treats them as more decisive than they are (e.g. quantum physics is unable to sustain both local causality and realism in light of the data; epigenetic inheritance challenges the assumptions of strict Darwinism). Most of these objections are irrelevant to my own position, which is not dualist but expressionist-nominalist.

>What you impose on me is the equivalent of having to prove to you, the judge, that not the slave-defendent but YOU, being a member of the slave-master class, are responsible for the injury and death that the angry slave is being scapegoated for

Ignoring for the moment the implied ad hominem attack/use of Godwin's Law – and ignoring, also, that slaves as legal “property” were only legally responsible in the US South in exceptional circumstances – what makes you think it's any fairer the other way round?

I'm not entirely sure why you keep making these posts, to try to prove something to me which you expect to be unable to prove, or what criteria you're expecting me to use to understand and judge your claims, if not those of my existing belief-system. But, you are repeatedly holding my claims up to a dualising standard – everything is either evil modern western colonial scientific dualism, or else is Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought (I use the Maoist analogy deliberately, as this is exactly how Maoists argue regarding bourgeois and proletarian perspectives) – by your standards I am always guilty of dualism, and your response to my guilt is the same ad nauseum repetition of “proofs” I have already rejected, many of which are irrelevant to my claims, others of which are derived from misunderstandings of scientific and theoretical works.

I suspect what you are putting in the background of your rhetoric – and what in fact determines the supposedly ungroundable choice of nondualism over dualism which you attempt to induce in your readers, despite their alleged incommensurability and the resultant perspective-dependency of any possible evidence – is a claim that dualism (i.e. anything but Emile-Zedong-Thought) means being on the side of colonialism, modernity, capitalism, the state, the landlord, the slave-owner, Ronald Reagan, the Iraq invasion, mass incarceration, Ayn Rand, settler-colonial land grabs, the people who witch-hunted Ward Churchill... which we already know are Bad Things and People who we don't want to be on the side of; whereas being on the side of Emile Zedong Thought puts us on the side of anarchism, Tolstoy, Nietzsche, the slaves, the serfs, the Native Americans, indigenous peoples, colonised peoples, animals... i.e. Good Things and Good People. And this choice – when it isn't just rhetorical hot air – is based on a view of a deep complicity between science, 'dualism', modernity, colonialism and capitalism, which you treat as somehow demonstrable in spite of your claims of perspective-dependence of evidence.

And you're wrong about this.

There is a tendency in modern (roughly 1780-1980) science and ideology towards belief in fixed objects, determinant local traits, mechanical Newtonian laws and billiard-ball models of interaction (quantum physics being an exception).

However, there is also a countervailing tendency in contemporary, postmodern science and ideology (cybernetics, cognitive-behaviourist theory, competency model of learning, systems theory, network theory, genetic modification, idpol social constructivism, brain plasticity theory, neoclassical economics, rational-choice theory, ecological modernisation theory, behavioural prediction, ecological education, situational crime prevention, data- and reality-mining, quantified self movement, structural linguistics, transhumanism) to assume a nonexistent or 'blank slate' model of the individual organism and its needs and capabilities, in which organisms and natural systems are assumed to be infinitely malleable and plastic, and a standardised set of simple conditioning techniques are taken to be sufficient to render an organism or system compatible with whatever demands are placed on it by the “environment” (which is usually a stand-in for the schemes of the technocratic planner).

While this certainly deconstructs the subjectivity of the individual or system subject to such assumptions, it does so in the service of entrenching (and exaggerating) the management capability of an elite group of technocrats, and silencing practical and ethical objections to ecological, psychosocial and social engineering schemes on the basis that they are essentialist, irrationally defensive against “change”, and prevent necessary adaptation.

As a result, modern planners can (for instance) clear swathes of rainforest and replace them with palm oil plantations, secure in the belief that the ecosystem will absorb the shock and reconfigure a new stable equilibrium, and that dispossessed indigenous people will simply adapt and survive through their culturally-entrenched resilience and adaptability. Similarly, individuals can be fired from their jobs, jailed, denied an income, displaced from their homes or homelands, subjected to whatever laws the regime happens to dream up, and assumed to be able to cope through their unlimited plasticity and adaptability (positive thinking, employability training, increasing resilience, etc). In reality, these schemes run up against entrenched features of organisms and ecosystems which, while often malleable in a very long-term view (e.g. through evolution), falsify the assumption of infinite malleability in the immediate present. Organisms and systems are thrown into perpetual, recurring sink-or-swim situations in which most will sink, based on the false assumption (or with the excuse) that they are more resilient and malleable than they are – and that, if they are not sufficiently adaptable, this is a result of ego-errors for which they are responsible. In practice, this simply overstresses the absorptive and adaptive capabilities of individual organisms and systems. Most often, this manifests as the nonadaptive collapse of the individual organism and/or the wider ecosystem, sometimes to the detriment of the planner's scheme, sometimes to its benefit (shock doctrine), sometimes with no impact on it... but ultimately contributing both to intolerable living conditions (the hell of the absence of guarantees), and to the ultimate destruction of the ecological basis for human life. The tendency in Emile Zedong Thought to deny fixed traits, local agency and local causality, and posit a primacy of epigenetic/environmental causes, reflects and reinforces this tendency in contemporary science and is thus unable to confront the *current*, postmodern configuration of modern power. Emile Zedong Thought is still fighting yesterday's battles against the modern, Fordist regime of power-knowledge, while subtly aiding and abetting the current, postmodern configuration.

gel-oberon 3
Two truths is old news

In our daily experience we seem to be seperate from the other things but ultimately there are only energy fields and possibly only one thing and science is corroborating this belief, so why are y'all still arguing about it?

emile
reply to #71 why argue over which reality to employ?

which reality we opt for (dualist or nondualist) shapes the community dynamic very differently.

nondualist reality (PEIR) assumes a relational world wherein 'it takes a whole community to raise a rebel or a sexual abuser or a guy who decides to massacre his fellows'. this leads to a restorative justice system wherein, when troublesome behaviours vent through individuals, people go in to a healing circle or peace-making circle to transform relations in the matrix of community so that resolution means 'a new community' getting up from the council table.

dualist reality (SCSR) assumes a mechanical world of 'things' and 'what things do' where each individual is deemed fully and solely causally responsible for his own actions. thus the response to rebellion and sexual harassment is to find out who did it and scapegoat them when 'everybody intuitively knows' that they are not 'the full and sole causally responsible source, but are venting influence from the relational dynamics of community. the abusive landlord never gets nailed in this system because his influence is 'epigenetic'; i.e. he uses his wealth-based power 'inductively', to abuse and humiliate others by the manner in which he extorts services (labour and sex) from have-nots. so, because of its foundational being-based assumptions, dualist scientific reality blinds itself to extortion (inductive influence)

if you are happy to live in a society which scapegoats individuals so as to let corruption in the relational dynamics of community off the hook, ... in that case, there would be no point in arguing.

gel-oberon 3
Brothers of the same mind, unblind

Isn't @critic pretty close to you philosophically, I mean he quotes the same scientists and you word for word. I realize he has a little more conventional view and asserts some local agency , a more complex universe and your view seems a little more reductive to 'field' but I'm sure @critic is into restorative justice and believes in relational Dynamics as well so it seems you two are not that far apart. I read and enjoy both of your works and have read emile now for years, @critic is newer to this site I think. So I wonder maybe what you both agree on? Consciousness is fundamental, all things are objects of consciousness and have their being in the mind ground or 'field'? I mean if a tree falls in the forest does a bear shit in the woods?
...
Speaking of Planck time I think it's helpful to go back to the beginning. If the universe originated from a singularity, a single point of zero mass and infinite density and has been expanding for 13 billion years, my hypothesis is that the universe is still a single point with no separate coordinates, thus explaining why the universe can communicate with itself instantaneously across time and space. I once had a meditative experience where I perceived the world as a holographic overlay in a primal substrate of primitive awareness. It didn't seem scary or abnormal and I was able to phase shift out but not able to enter at will, it was a spontaneous experience in a meditative posture. Also my identification with my body changed to an identification with the substrate, while still perceiving the room and it's objects.
...
So I realize that your discourse is related to social justice and not pure philosophical speculation but do you really need to be a mystic or a scientist to understand relational space and restorative justice even with differing philosophical views?

Anonymous (not verified)
Talking to Emile is like

Talking to Emile is like staring at your shoes to think of a screen name ;)

gel-oberon 3
Sassy

I enjoy talking to emile and I have no problem with their language for describing the world and the only way you can master this non-dual narrative is through repetition.
...
Taking a brand name off a random object and using it as a pseudonym is kind of meaningless but endless discourse about the nature of things is indulgent yet rewarding so I wouldn't say it's meaningless.

emile
reply to #73 gel oberon 3 re 'being a mystic or scientist'

i find your account of your mystical? experience of connecting to the substrate interesting and relevant.

with respect to your questions

do you really need to be a mystic or a scientist to understand relational space and restorative justice even with differing philosophical views?

and

So I wonder maybe what you [emile and @critic] both agree on?

as to the first question, i would say that life is 'mystical' so that 'living' is a mystical experience. we don't need to express our mystical experience in words, but if we do, we could do it as a poet or as a philosopher or scientist or combinations thereof since we are polyphrenous and have all of these in us. the poet appreciates and celebrates nature while the scientist seeks to understand 'how nature works' and the philosopher explores the basic elements such as whether we should consider the world being made of matter or field.

there is a problem in the emile-@critic conversations in that our basic assumptions at the philosophical level differ. this is the same type of problem mentioned in the debate over whether genetics is primary and epigenetics secondary as in Darwinism or epigenetics is primary and genetic secondary as in Lamarckism. as Dennett said;

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination” – Dennett

we are discussing two philosophical optional foundations for our scientific inquiry; i.e. dualism [inhabitant-habitat separation wherein the inhabitants are primary and the habitat is constituted by inhabitants] and nondualism [inhabitant-habitat relations as in storms-in-flow or field-matter relation where the inhabitant is a secondary phenomenon and the habitat is the energy-charged flow-plenum]

The the former 'dualist' assumption yields the mechanistic model of the world of newtonian science, the latter nondualist assumption yields the 'panta rhei' everything-is-flux world of modern physics, the reason why Bohm designed a flow-based language, 'Rheomode', to be able to talk about it, since subject and verb language imputes 'local generative agency' to the subject, and we are using subjects all the time in English etc.

As Nietzsche says, the idea of subject and predicate is 'stupidity'. For example, when I say 'the rebel killed the landlord's paramilitaries', I do not intend it 'literally' because rebellion is an inductively actualized phenomena; i.e. "it takes a whole community to hatch a rebel". In the same sense in the semantic world of signifiers, Derrida says that "it takes a whole community of words to hatch a subject".

the meaning of the subject-authored rebellious act bottoms out in a matrix of relations; e.g;

“In the book ‘Causality and Chance in Modern Physics’ Bohm argued that the way science viewed causality was also much too limited. Most effects were thought of as having only one or several causes. However, Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln’s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth’s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln’s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.”

Ok, so two people can say; 'the rebel peasant killed the landlord's paramilitaries' and one person (emile) can be thinking that the causal sourcing of the act bottoms out in relational matrix of contributory influences that go back centuries and include the landlord and his men whose manipulation of access to essential resources have helped to inductively actualize this rebellious action. That is, many influences have come together are 'venting' through the peasant/rebel, so it is 'stupidity' [Nietzsche] to attribute the action to the subject as if the subject were an independent thing-in-itself with his own local generative agency that sourced the lethal action.

When we hear or read the words 'the rebel killed the landlord' we have two options described by Poincaré as 'realism' [we interpret it literally] and 'pragmatic idealism' [we regard the sentence as 'pragmatic idealization' which conveniently conceals the relational complexity of the substrate and delivers 'economy of thought' (Mach)].

the realists are the judges and juries and forensic scientists of Western society. They will prove, without a shadow of a doubt (using DNA and CCTV video footage) that the rebel killed the landlord; i.e. that he is fully and solely causally responsible for putting a bullet through the head of the landlord and causing his death.

the pragmatic idealists will say, ... yes, I would say that 'the rebel peasant killed the landlord' and i would also say that i am surprised that it took him so long since that landlord has been abusing and humiliating that peasant and his family for a long time. the landlord's actions were the cause of his own death. such back-reflection derives from the fact that "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [relational matrix] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" [Mach's principle]. As Einstein puts it, 'space is a participant in physical phenomena [not just the foreground players], The landlords monopolize the common living space and thus the essential resources that everyone needs, using this monopoly position to extort (inductively actualize) quasi-slave-labours and services from the peasants. The landlord is protected by science-supported law which presumes that individual humans are 'independently existing biological systems-in-themselves' with their own internal generative agency, making them fully and solely causally responsible for their own actions and deeds.

scientists are 'realists'. logical propositions are realist. the logical proposition 'the peasant killed the landlord' uses words as logical elements and as Goedel's theorem of the incompleteness of logical systems says, logic is not smart enough to stand on its own shoulders and question the validity of its own logical elements. the users of logic have to manage the softness or hardness of logical elements.

emile is pragmatist idealist. he will explain that to people upfront and warn them; 'when i say that 'the peasant killed the landlord', i am taking advantage of the convenience and economy of thought in such semantic constructs, but i do not intend them literally, as the realists do. so there's no way that i support moral judgement of individual behaviour since "it takes a whole community to hatch a rebel".

just imagine what a confused mess it will be, when an exchange between a realist and a pragmatic idealist gets longer and longer into multiple messages each with multiple paragraphs, with the realist interpreting everything as if it were hard logic and the pragmatic idealist, even if he interprets the realist's propositions as hard logic, will be fielding realist's propositions that arise from the realist interpreting pragmatic idealist propositions as hard logic when they are instead pragmatic idealizations.

so, i was hoping we could get on the same page in our respective understandings and at least agree to disagree. what we have so far, is a failed attempt at getting on the same page, from my point of view.

perhaps @critic's goal was to capture my 'reasoning paradigm' and torpedo it, as it appears from his subjectizing my 'way of thinking'; i.e.

"Machism-Nietzscheism-Emile Zedong Thought are a new form of Lysenkoist pseudoscience."

for me, intuition is in a natural primacy over reason, and so my energies are behind restoring intuition to its natural primacy over reason. so i don't put my own reasoning into an unnatural primacy over my intuition. in this, i am on the same page with nietzsche and i too call the confusing for 'real', the abstract notion of subject and attribute 'stupidity'.

in any discussion, then, i am simply trying to 'bring down reason' from its unnatural primacy over intuition. if i were among indigenous aboriginal traditionalists, this wouldn't even come up because their culture never underwent the flip. nietzsche calls the flip that puts reason before intuition, 'the problem with Socrates'.

“The moralism of the Greek philosophers from Plato on is pathologically conditioned; so is their reverence for logical argument. 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, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

so, nobody needs to be enslaved by reason, which is meanwhile the way in which our Western society works and explains why the peasant who has been enslaved by the landlord class and abused and humiliated in the process, is judged to be the guilty offender in rebelling against the slave-masters. this does not come from 'intuition' which screams out that 'it takes a whole community to hatch a killer-rebel' and that the landlords are in the thick of it, conditioning the common space so that it selectively opportunizes some and disopportunizes and enslaves others.

if @critic were physically close to me and the collective i am in, he would see that my actions are consistent with my nondualist understanding; i.e. i do not support western justice. i do not support belief in the 'subject' such as 'iraq' and 'the united states' as if they, like the peasant, are real things-in-themselves which are fully and solely causally responsible for their own behaviours. in 1919, everybody in europe knew that "the whole european community would hatch a new rebel german" given the harsh and humiliating and anti-german racist terms of the treaty of Versailles. the cat and mouse game of military-backed politics is for a bully group who wrestles down and rapes a prey, will back off and wait for the prey to make another move, then wrestle it down and rape it again. the european bully group waited too long (1919-1939) and the tables were nearly turned. the bully group known as the nations of europe became the 'heroes' that saved the world from the spontaneous in-situ fountainhead of evil aka 'germany' lol. such stories are an easy sell to young kids and are told over and over with great solemnity on veterans day, remembrance day, armistice day. honouring those who gave their lives to protect others should be done together with germany, but nationalism portrays things in the black and white binary dualist terms of the struggle between the good and the evil.

i have no idea what @critic supports in and among those he hangs out with.

i consider people who put reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition to be 'brainwashed'. i was brainwashed and i am speaking out about it, and trying to put my intuition back into its natural primacy over reason. if i participate in an indigenous learning circle, i am in harmony with the ritual/process. if i participate in a standard Western style rational debate, i am trouble (not without fair warning) because for me, logical propositions like 'the peasant rebel killed the landlord' or 'germany started WWII' are addressing 'appearances' and not the physical reality of our actual experience. in a relational worldview, there are no subjects with their own local agency and all causality is inductively actualized from out of the bottomless (because circular) matrix of relations known as the 'transforming relational continuum'.

my view (an individual's view) cannot be overturned by reasoned argument when that view is that intuition is in a natural primacy over reason.

intuition supports nondualism which blurs [relationalizes] the identity of all logical elements allowing logical meltdown, and this is an assumption that is a priori to science and rational debate;

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination” – Dennett

i have no idea whether or not @critic is a practitioner of restorative justice or a participant in 'learning circles' within his milieus but i suspect not.

the very best logicians are like Western lawyers, they base their logical propositions on 'established, provable facts', such as 'the peasant killed the landlord'. they are always working in the foreground among a collection of inhabitants as if the substrate of habitat didn't matter. they have not;

perceived the world as a holographic overlay in a primal substrate of primitive awareness, or at least, they have considered such nondual intuitions as 'errors' to intellectual correctness.

such intuitions put us into the realm of 'continual becoming' (dionysus) but there is also the apollonian 'attractor' that orients to 'being' and 'stability'. our society is a mix of people who 'make it' and then want 'lock in'; i.e. the former immigrants who have become the 'real americans' who now want to close the door to immigration.

"Whence does man derive the concept of reality? —Why does he make variability, deception, contradiction, the origin of suffering; why not rather of his happiness? ...
.
The contempt and hatred of all that perishes, changes, and varies: whence comes this valuation of stability? Obviously, the will to truth is merely the longing for a stable world.
.
The senses deceive; reason corrects the errors: therefore, it was concluded, reason is the road to a static state; the most spiritual ideas must be nearest to the "real world."—It is from the senses that the greatest number of misfortunes come they are cheats, deluders, and destroyers.
.
Happiness can be promised only by Being: change and happiness exclude each other. The loftiest desire is thus to be one with Being. That is the formula for the way to happiness.
.
In summa: The world as it ought to be exists; this world in which we live is an error—this our world should not exist.
.
The belief in Being shows itself only as a result: the real primum mobile is the disbelief in Becoming, the mistrust of Becoming, the scorn of all Becoming...." -- Nietzsche WTP 585

the former immigrants [mostly white of european extraction] who now see themselves as 'the real americans who have made america great' interpret things in terms of 'result' as if things have reached a pinnacle of perfection, but their real primary animating influence in saying this is the scorn of all becoming, as symbolized by the arrival of immigrants who are going to change the essential nature of america after all of the hard work that Apollonian americans have put into perfecting it and making it great. its like french cuisine being overwhelmed by invasions of mcdonald's.

ok, to close this note out, my interest lies in decolonization and that means de-brainwashing and that means removing the unnatural primacy of reason over intuition and restoring the natural primacy of intuition over reason, which means to restore nonduality which has been hijacked by duality and this leads to the restoring of nondualist restorative justice which has been hijacked by dualist retributive justice and by restoring the primacy of truth in our nondualist personal experience which has been hijacked by 'objective truth' of dualist science.

all of these understandings show up in how i relate to the groups i am in, so even if you didn't agree with my presentation of these understandings, if you were close to me, you would see how such understandings inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape my 'genetic expression'. i have no idea how @critic's understandings impact/shape his 'genetic expression'.

lastly, the debate going on in regard to whether epigenetics is in a natural primacy over genetics within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality, or whether 'genetics' is all she wrote (dualism) The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy is a parallel to this emile-@critic discussion. @critic points out that 'epigenetics' is accepted by science so therefore it is dualist and not Lamarckian, but that is where the problem is shaping up within biology. As Mach said, 'purely mechanical phenomena' are impossible, but that's what dualist science is all about. Mach was warning about building sciences on inadequate foundations so that 'what came later' (relativity and quantum wave dynamics) would require a total rebuild or 'paradigm shift'. This paradigm shift is evidently overdue;

Mach's comments implying that a paradigm shift loomed on the horizon (at the fin de siecle when Mach was writing this) explore the philosophical underpinnings of the orthodox science of physics. note that; 'mechanics', is the foundation of dualist science;

1. Purely mechanical phenomena do not exist. The production of mutual accelerations in masses is, to all appearances, a purely dynamical phenomenon. But with these dynamical results are always associated thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical phenomena, and the former are always modified in proportion as the latter are asserted. On the other hand, thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical conditions also can produce motions. Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things. The same thing is true of the other classes of physical phenomena. Every event belongs, in a strict sense, to all the departments of physics, the latter being separated only by an artificial classification, which is partly conventional, partly physiological, and partly historical.
.
2. The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. Knowledge which is historically first, is not necessarily the foundation of all that is subsequently gained.
.
As more and more facts are discovered and classified, entirely new ideas of general scope can be formed. We have no means of knowing, as yet, which physical phenomena go deepest, whether the mechanical phenomena are perhaps not the most superficial of all, or whether all do not go equally deep. Even in mechanics we no longer regard the oldest law, the law of the lever, as the foundation of all the other principles.
.
The mechanical theory of nature, is, undoubtedly, in an historical view, both intelligible and pardonable : and it may also, for a time, have been of much value. But, upon the whole, it is an artificial conception." -- Mach, Science of Mechanics, Ch. V. 'The Relations of Mechanics to Other Departments of Knowledge'

the paradigm shift is at least a century overdue. maybe eva jablonka and the epigeneticists will trigger its arrival within the sciences. better late than never.

regardless of whether each of us personally decides to check out and discuss and debate the culture-provided assumptions that are foundational in the development of our 'operative reality', people will continue to work and cultivate community intentionally or unintentionally. right now, many people continue to unquestioningly support, literally, the dualist scientific view that 'the peasant killed the landlord', if proved by forensic science, means that no-one else has a causal responsibility since the peasant is fully and solely causally responsible, ... an apollonian view that puts stability into an unnatural precedence over continuing transformation; i.e. the colonizers have colonized the globe, milked it to give themselves greatness, and now desire 'lock-in' and stability. the colonized people having been abused, humiliated and left in the lurch by the colonizers, want change, want a better life, and this comes at a time when the colonizers, after sucking them dry, want to put a freeze on further change. this is going on intra-nation as well as inter-nation [colonizing is a relational dynamic wherein resources are transferred from regions of deficiency to regions of surplus. this is contra-natural balancing tendency and is setting up relational tensions that will lead to violent eruptions associated with attempted relational reconfiguration.].

gel-oberon 3
Single point

When I had my phase shift mystical experience it was during single point meditation. I was sitting on my bed with the lights out but not completely dark, there is always a night light and some ambient light in the room. I focused my concentration on a point across the room, might have been a small LED light and relaxed my minds peripheral awareness, then it just changed and I new it was something new and different and I stayed that way for a while and I kind of had to decide to return from it but I felt like I new something now that I had only suspected before or read about. It was profound but not spectacular or overwhelming. I used to prep myself with certain practices like eating vegan, abstaining from masturbation for weeks at a time, long distance running, reading about Buddhist ideas like emptiness, sunyata, nirvana etc. that may have catalyzed it and this is in sobriety. I did use hallucinogens quite a bit as a teen like LSD and psylocybine mushrooms but this wasn't much like that at all. Overall I have had a variety of what you might call mystical, spiritual or religious experiences in my life. I was a reader of Carlos Casteneda books as a teen and was chasing mystical experiences then, and I had some positive personality changes in recovery from alcoholism. I also tried salvia in sobriety but I have to say that now I don't like being intoxicated at all and I've been mostly drug free for about 25 years. I also read The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature by William James which I found useful. I have slacked off on my meditation practice but I'm starting to pick it up again so we'll see how it goes.

Anonymous (not verified)
Sounds like you are ready for

Sounds like you are ready for the Sambian initiation rite, a very religious experience I imagine, akin to the Catholic priest choir boy variety. Be chaste and pure of soul and don' t let them nihilists tell you that mystical people are an idpol faction.

gel-oberon 3
Sambia

I don't think the Sambian initiation rite would be appropriate in my situation. I suffered enough brutality and male bonding rituals for one lifetime. I can think of a lot more pleasant ways to enjoy the company of my fellow man like, Chaturbate!

Anonymous (not verified)
Its no more brutal or

Its no more brutal or patriarchal than the Judean circumcision ritual, oops, now I'm going to be called anti-semetic, funny how just changing the name of a belief system suddenly makes it wrong or inappropriate, Stirner was correct, a spook is a spook is a spook, gawd, even Chaturbate.

gel-oberon 3
I do believe in spooks!

I don't remember mine but I still have the scar, I don't think it was the Judean method it was the western surgical method, thanks Mom.

Anonymous (not verified)
It’s not anti-Semitic to

It’s not anti-Semitic to mention it, but it is anti-Semitic to bring it up as a stand-alone example of a nasty patriarchal ritual. If you had placed Jewish circumcision in a wider context that included at least one other cultural example like ancient Egyptian, modern Philipino, various Micronesian, and Muslim circumcision, then you wouldn’t be subject to being called on your anti-Semitism. As your statement stands, you are an anti-Semite. And a dick about it, like when someone says “I’m not racist, but...”, because you know that whatever comes next will be racist AF. You don’t get to play the misunderstood victim.

Anonymous (not verified)
but like, maybe you want to

but like, maybe you want to be anti-semitic? what are you, anti-deutsch??

Anonymous (not verified)
Shucks, I'm anti-Caucasian,

Shucks, I'm anti-Caucasian, and its nothing to do with race, but with aesthetics. You see, I find the pale complexion downright anemic and sickly in appearance, stick that in your smug little idpol know-it-all investigative briefcase :p

emile
reply to #77 mystic experiences

these experiences are very different from our normal experience. i have had three 'spirit-shifting experiences' involving sexual intimacy, which prompted me to read about tantric sex as in 'Lust for Enlightenment' etc. I was at the time aware that these teachings were dismissed by a lot of people in the buddhist know, but at the time I was just looking for easy-to-read explanations for my own experiences. these included seeing the timeless face of my partner which was very spooky but very beautiful. i had no one to talk to about this at the time because no-one else i knew had had it. evidently, not many people have this but not many seems to mean like one or two percent which is a lot of people. i don't understand why this is not written about more, or maybe it is, but i haven't heard too many people talking about tantric sex. one finds mention of the phenomenon (without reference to tantric sex) in articles like this one, by a LSU psychologist, David Snarch, Joy With Your Underwear Down but he doesn't even reference 'tantric sex', but yet he describes how to get there;

"If you want intimacy, open your eyes during sex and look inside your partner, behind the eyeballs, while your partner looks inside you.
.
... Age shifting is another phenomenon. You may be holding your partner's face in your hands and suddenly see, in a very loving way, what he or she will look like older, or exactly what he looked like when he was eight years old. It is very moving.
.
In the timeless connection of profound sex--if we have the strength, and that is an important caveat--we have the opportunity to drop our mask, to drop our character armor, and to let ourselves be seen
behind the eyeballs, metaphorically and literally. It's where we see ourselves and our partners against the backdrop of the mystery (and absurdity) of life.

this is a truly bizarre, mystical experience, and i don't know why it is not more talked about. it seems like most buddhists don't like to endorse tantric sex, but it is not really about 'sex' but even as schnarch says, it is about intimacy and sex is like a kind of meditative protocol to get you into timelessness. i don't think our society wants to own up to these experiences because we are so scientific that as nietzsche says, we consider stuff like that as intellectual error; i.e. rational scientific stuff is given primacy so experiences that don't fit are 'errors'.

unfortunately, the conditions of losing yourself in another as they lose themselves in you is not something you can 'manufacture' on a routine basis although perhaps for those who dedicate themselves to this, as with meditation, it is possible to 'keep the experiences coming'.

my thought is that we have everything backwards and it is not about 'what we do to get there', but how to take the brakes off. in sailing, the wind and currents we are in are primary and all our movements come from the manner in which we put the brakes on, ... but it looks to the outsider as if it is the sailboater who is authoring his own nifty movements. this is true in a sense, but i think its important to note that there is not a lick of 'local agency' in the movement of the sailboater. take the sailboater out of the winds and currents and it just sits there. it loses all its animating magic.

as it happens, my view is that that is the general case in the universe; i.e. epigenetic influence is all there is. the trick is to let the sailboat and its braking systems fall away and let the sailboater become one with the winds and currents (with the flow). somehow, looking into the back of your partner's eyeballs while she is looking into the back of your eyeballs [this is about total abandon and opening up to the other which is easier said than done] cancels out the bodies but leaves us in the flow, it's a kind of ueberdisrobing that strips off 'everything'. i think this is the same as out-of-body float or the condition of 'headlessness'. it's not easy to get there, but its a powerful experience when one gets there.

my early experience was where i was always coming from my ego, trying to do things, trying to have sex, trying to win, trying to work hard and do a good job, trying to succeed, coming from the ego and rarely letting it fall away and bask in that headless state. what a waste. schnarch has a lot of good points about what went wrong with sex in society beginning in the sixties; i.e. it was seen as an end goal like bigger and better and more orgasms instead of as the path to intimacy so deep that one could lose one's ego in the process and get headless. well not quite headless because there remained a kind of timeless wispy beautiful form to bookmark the erstwhile materiality.

gel-oberon 3
When a man loves a woman

I loved a woman over 10 years ago and experienced some of the spiritual aspects of intimacy that you described. I was so all in when it was on and the last time we broke up my heart physically hurt. It was a little rough, I met her at an AA club, she had eating disorder, I have my shit but I don't regret it, but she probably does because she wanted to make a family ASAP because, single mom. Last time I checked her Facebook she was happily married so all's well. The main thing I learned was that I don't want to be in a romantic relationship with a woman anymore or live a conventional family life at this time. Also more recently I have learned that you don't need sex or romance to live a deeper more meaningful life in intimacy with the world and the people in your immediate vicinity, although I wouldn't compare this to the tantric experiences you mentioned. It's been slow going at this but progress is gradual and rewarding. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with!

Anonymous (not verified)
Very cunning of you! So you

Very cunning of you! So you've been around long enough to know that the only way to get emile to drop his guard and reveal the smallest personal aspect of his actual life outside of this forum is to confess to him the most banal and sentimental things about your own feelings, and the more sordid and gross this petty self-absorbed verbasturbation is, the more emile reveals his Catholic-esque priestly self, as the one taking in the confession, and then passing judgement upon it......Or maybe not a ploy on your part,,,,,,,,Then I pity you, you know nothing of emile's cold impersonality and inability to reciprocate any feelings. And here you are, pouring out your heart to him,,,,,I feel like holding you and giving you a hug of some sort of compassionate response, to prepair you for the inevitable cold dumping you are about to receive from emile, the Nihilist Nightstalker of @News.

gel-oberon 3
Nothing's cold as ashes after the fire is gone

These are old stories, the emotional trail has gone cold, it doesn't cost much to tell them except a little hunt and peck. No I'm not Jerry McGuire and I don't think I'm Tom Cruise but she did make me watch that movie when I was with her. So by not investing too much emotionally in this forum I avoid disappointment. If emile ceases to be a good buddy then I'll just stop typing or find somebody else. But we can have huggles if you want to, sounds nice.

Anonymous (not verified)
He doesn't know what a buddy

He doesn't know what a buddy is, you can't learn love from a book, you're wasting your time. You'll get loyalty from @critic, Sir Enzeige, Rocinante, the collective, Shadowsmoke, even Leway and Boles and Samotnakov and a few others I can't recall, but not from frigid emile that's for sure!

gel-oberon 3
Love is where you find it, when you find no love at home...

Does it have to be either or? Haven't you heard of solo polyamory? Anyway I have a home life, but we can have a group huggles. I spiked up my hair, shaved my face baby smooth I've already played hacky sack and I'm ready to start filming. Having a rice Krispy treat with m&m's and a black cherry seltzer water.
https://youtu.be/HgeqqfmPR9g

https://youtu.be/BIeMaQaCJXk

emile
reply to #86 gel oberon 3 love the one you're with!

i like your aphorism If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with! it brings back to me the sense of amor fati. life keeps changing in the sense that we find ourselves inside of unfolding situations beyond our control and we feel this tension between the situation that is trying to inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape our continuing development, and our suspect knowledge of who are gained from past experience, and our 'loyalty' to that former self. i think of the contrast between the shipwrecked robinson crusoe and the shipwrecked suzanne de la pacifique, the former bringing england to a tropical island with all the apollonian intention-driven action that demands, and the latter in dionysian delight, delivering herself into the vagina of the new situational niche that will pull forth a new blossoming in her.

it is interesting that this comparison crops up in evolutionary biology, in querying the relationship between the epigenetic influence of the unfolding environmental situation and the previously established genetic 'accomplishments'. should we keep working on the old structure, ... or was there really an old structure there? how can one tell when one is included in a transforming relational continuum? the storm-cell seems to be actualizing inside-outwardly as in 'growth' but intuitively we know that that is only appearance and it is the turbulent flow that is inductively actualizing it.

these symmetries crop up in our individual lives. vygotsky saw them in thought and language and was an advocate for 'situational learning' wherein the unfolding situation induces 'spontaneous concept formation' as the leader with structural (scientific) concepts forming as the follower, within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality.

it seems to me that the aphorism If you can't be in the place you love, love the place you're in! provides an answer to the question that was answered differently by robinson and suzanne. indigenous pacific island inhabitants do not want to be colonized by control-freak apollonian castaways. its not that we have to 'forget who we were', it's a question as to whether to put situation before intention or intention before situation. putting intention (genetic agency) into precedence over inductive situational influence terminates one's continuing evolution and has one reproducing the same old stuff.

the refugee crisis in europe and the increasing xenophobia re immigrants is raising these same issues at the level of culture where there are factions with a kind of culture-genome loyalty that wants to resist epigenetic reshaping influence, reminiscent of hitler's aryan genome loyalty.

it seems to me as if these same epigenetic-genetic tensional symmetries pervade our lives across many levels. psychological experiments such as those of milgram (obedience to authority) and zimbardo (prisoners and guards) were to measure whether 'dispositional attribution' (inside-outward asserting generative agency) was in a natural precedence over 'situational attribution' (outside-inward inducing epigenetic influence), and discovered in those two cases, that the latter was generally in precedence over the former. of course, epigenetic - genetic nonduality was not considered since it is not consistent with inhabitant-habitat dualism as underpins science.

all i'm saying is that these questions of dualism, nondualism crop up everywhere. but thank you for that aphorism which is already burned into my memory cells and which i will carry with me on my upcoming trip;

i.e. If you can't be in the place you love, love the place you're in!

Anonymous (not verified)
OMG could one get a word in

OMG could one get a word in at the breakfast table in the emile household, or else just silently shut it all out and listen to the Kellogs corn flakes grinding inorexabaly into oblivion and intestinal pulp?

Anonymous (not verified)
Lol, emile being intimate

Lol, emile being intimate from reading the Kama Sutra? More like instructions from reading how to strip down a Chrysler hemi engine with a pneumatic ratchet.

@critic (not verified)
OK, so Emile's argument

OK, so Emile's argument pretty much is: we should accept the nondualist instead of the dualist view, not because either is right or wrong, but because the dualist view has better social effects.

I think judging ideas by their effects is problematic... it is often the case that believing false things is pragmatically beneficial. For example, imagining that the legal system is neutral helps to reduce anxiety and harmonise society. It doesn't mean it's true.

Emile argues:
nondualism/PEIR → relational causality → restorative justice
dualism/SCSR → individual agency → retributive justice

But this doesn't logically follow at all. Nondualism can also lead to the sacrifice of the deviant “for the common good”, perhaps because the threat of punishment is taken to have a positive effect on the overall relational structure (compatibilism/consequentialism). Dualism can also lead to theories of social and psychological causes which have nothing to do with individual responsibility and which militate against retributive justice (for example, social-democratic views that the best response to crime is to build more youth clubs). In any case, I belong to neither school and my view of non-rational local agency does not imply moral responsibility – as Emile should know from my praise of Stirner.

Gel-Oberon says: Isn't @critic pretty close to you philosophically

Yes, Emile and @critic are pretty close, but Emile cannot see it because his view is too dualistic and binarised. @critic has to either be a dualist or a nondualist according to Emile – and he's only a nondualist if he agrees with Emile 100% - which he doesn't.

And yeah, we agree on things like relational space and restorative justice... but we get there from different premises I think.

I feel that Emile treats me very badly. He refuses to treat my claims with any seriousness, repeats the same dogmas ad nauseum, conflates everything which is non-Emile into his stereotype of “dualism”, straw-mans my position, offensively associates my position with the most abhorrent analogues he can find, wriggles out of any problem by denying that he meant what he said and attributing my failure to see his disguised meaning to my “dualism”, and generally does not engage with me as a person who might possibly be right about anything. I began by treating his views in good faith, but he continues to employ this brick-wall/protoplasm style of communication, rendering any communicative relation or dialogue impossible. It's like playing a game with someone who cheats constantly. I don't know if he's trying to piss me off, beat me into submission with walls, or if he actually thinks he's making arguments which might convince me.

Gel-Oberon also says: the only way you can master this non-dual narrative is through repetition

Repetition is for rote learning of mechanical dogmas and facts. Memorising the Quran, multiplication tables, Latin vocabulary. It fits well with a dualist scientific worldview and authoritarian schooling. On the other hand, a relationally engaged epistemology, recognising that one never steps in the same river twice (Heraclitus), involves engaging in detail with the precise discourse one touches at any given moment – akin to the practice of mindfulness, of recognising the uniqueness of the moment and the gap between what is sensed and what is seen through categories. One learns, in relational spaces, through appreciation of the nuances of each case and situation. Postman and Weingartner provide a Korzybskian approach to pedagogy.

Emile says: there is a problem in the emile-@critic conversations in that our basic assumptions at the philosophical level differ

There is a problem in the Emile-@critic conversations that Emile does not wish to recognise any possible basis on which his views might be tested, falsified, hypotheses tested against those of another point of view. This leads to @critic banging his head on the wall a lot, trying to reason with Emile, when for Emile it seems there is no possible way he could be empirically shown to be even marginally wrong in any of his views. Emile is right because he has a hotline to God (aka the epigenetic field) and nothing anyone says can change that. Nonetheless, he won't simply leave everyone else alone with his incommensurable position but insists on inserting his narrow, binarised obsessions into many different discussions. Most people quite reasonably give up debating him and fall back on snark. I've been trying to engage, to show him that his position might not be the last word, but he refuses to treat me as an equal and instead falls back on absurd repetitions.

>we are discussing two philosophical optional foundations for our scientific inquiry

Emile is discussing dualism vs nondualism which is the endless fight between Emile and his own shadow which Emile always discusses no matter the topic, situation, or adversary (if any). @critic is only discussing such things out of respect for Emile, whose idee fixee in this regard is extremely rigid. @critic does not believe that dualism vs nondualism exhausts the possible range of approaches, or that either dualism or nondualism logically entail all the things Emile thinks they do, or that Emile's position is consistently and thoroughly nondualist.

>When we hear or read the words 'the rebel killed the landlord'

Emile has had it explained to him multiple times that @critic agrees that social oppression plays a role in generating revolt, and that many “dualist” scientists and historians also admit this. He continues to fight a straw-man adversary who supposedly believes that peasants just wake up one morning and decide to kill landlords for no reason, and that storms are living beings with rational agency and moral responsibility for the damage they cause. The fact that no-one in the “dualist” community actually believes this, seems to be of no concern to Emile.

>with the realist interpreting everything as if it were hard logic

Language is hard logic. Don't like it? Shut up.
“Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent “ (Wittgenstein)

I resent the idea that I should be able to see something in Emile's statements which he does not actually say, perhaps is unable to say, but which is not present in the literal content of his statements.

Intuition is incommunicable, and in any case, Emile is a bad advertisement for it.

Emile does not have a monopoly on intuition. People with positions like Emile's seem unable to accept that I've also had transcendental experiences, and for me, they accord with Deleuze, Stirner, Bey, and not with Emile.

>if @critic were physically close to me 

Physical locality is a delusional construct of scientific dualism which has been falsified by quantum physics. So says Emile.

Of course, I'm making the mistake of taking him literally again. He really meant: physical locality is a delusional construct except when its being a delusional construct is inconvenient for my argument.

>i have no idea what @critic supports in and among those he hangs out with

@critic uses hard logic and not ad hominem appeals to his own virtues, and, as an anarchist, he prefers to remain anonymous on the internet. How @critic lives is none of Emile's business.

>if i participate in a standard Western style rational debate, i am trouble (not without fair warning) because for me, logical propositions like 'the peasant rebel killed the landlord' or 'germany started WWII' are addressing 'appearances' and not the physical reality of our actual experience
>my view (an individual's view) cannot be overturned by reasoned argument when that view is that intuition is in a natural primacy over reason

Emile is a dogmatist. Emile is certain he is right, that the reality he sees is the “real” reality, and he's carefully insulated himself from anything which might falsify his views.

Since Emile is so unreasonable that he cannot be convinced by reasoned argument, then maybe he should leave the philosophical discussions to people who know what they're talking about.

By the way, Emile has also thoroughly ignored my demonstration of the complicities between his worldview and neoliberal structures of power.

>i consider people who put reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition to be 'brainwashed'

Emile's insistence in reducing all dialogue to a relation between woke redpilled Emile and a brainwashed naïve idiot who needs to be indoctrinated in the correct ideology by Emile, is precisely what prevents any reasoned dialogue from happening, and which prevents Emile from learning anything from others. It also paradoxically prevents Emile from indoctrinating anyone.

Anonymous (not verified)
I appreciate your effort to

I appreciate your effort to work with Emile in this debate. It clarifies the text-walls. I wish Emile would have shown some fucking manners. Not many people seem to engage with Emile seriously, and I would have liked to have seen Emile show some respect for your time and energy, even if in disagreement. Kudos to @critic. Disappointed with Emile. Love, mom

Non-dualist logician (not verified)
The score stands -----

The score stands ----- @critic --- 2,873.52
emile --- 499.99
Emile continues repetition and contradictory dualist dogma in denile of Wittgenstein's 3rd proposition.

SirEinzige
In regards to @critic's views on emiles worldview and today's

Digital age pomo soft power, that is definitely something to consider on emile's part. Emile isn't the only one who has a seemingly unqualified love towards things indigenous for instance. If you were to take his view and further generalize it one can easily see anarchy and statelessness not figuring in at all. I can totally see people use a type of pomo lip service in this regard in a way that constructs a digital age soft power managerial system for the 21st century that plays a role in pacifying various people including indigenous cultures. Think of someone like Carolyn Bennett here in Canada simply listening to indigenous ideologues who don't really have a plan to deconstruct the state. Also Hilary and her "I takes a village" rhetoric. Emile isn't alone in using this type of language and the way it's being used is very much fine tuned for recuperation as it stands right now.

This is an issue that IDPol retarded anarchists are woefully unprepared for.

emile
racism begins by formulating a category and binning people in it

reply to sir einzige, #95

Emile isn't the only one who has a seemingly unqualified love towards things indigenous for instance.

here comes the categorization of emile with admirers of the noble savage etc.

emile's interest is in philosophical investigation into nondualism and how it shapes the social dynamics. if you want to bin me into a category, bin me with david bohm and f. david peat who went out to meet with the blackfoot and other tribes in their effort to understand how it was that indigenous peoples seemed naturally attuned to the relational complexities of modern physics and discovered that Algonquin language was a relational language that did not have the concept of categories [categories come from a belief in the existence of things-in-themselves that you can understand by their internal components and don't have to bother to look at the matrix of dynamic relations they are situationally included in.]

so, there are two paths that can be taken to understand one's observations; (a) relational affiliations, and (b) categorization. if one sees black skin, that is one distinguishing attribute of a set of attributes that define a category of 'things-in-themselves'. it can trigger a mental download of the rest of the attributes of the category so that one fleshes out, in one's mind, what the thing-in-itself 'actually is'.

this is very common in Western culture because it is a reason-based approach that assumes 'thing-in-itself' existence ; 'if black skin, then such and such' according to one's list of common attributes that define a 'thing-in-itself' [you don't have to know anything else about them. one attribute is taken as the key to what this thing-in-itself is, and if you get that one attribute, the rest of the defining characteristics fall into place from the canned definition of a person as a thing-in-itself].

the other (a) approach is to pursue understanding of the person in terms of their unique situation within a matrix of relational interactions with one another and the living space, how they relate to friends, family, the land, but many people put the (b) method first because it is less work [or serves political motives]. if you see a face covering, it must be a muslim, and this single attribute key opens the gate to the rest of a list of common attributes that define the person as a thing-in-itself.

the same applies in the case of categories such as post-modernism. if you hear some words that sound like one of the defining attributes of the category post-modern, you can put the person speaking them into that category, whereupon you can use rest of the attributes of the category to define them as 'one of those'. if that 'bin' has been discredited, you can discredit the person by imputing his membership in that bin. it is much easier than having to discover who the person really is e.g. if the category is communism in the US, a single attribute can bin a person in the category, discrediting them entirely on a 'one of those' (things-in-themselves, 'let's call a spade a spade') basis without further inquiry. it is the way of racism and witch-hunts and never looks at the object of inquiry in its overall relational context; i.e. as 'der einzige', the unique one, ... such an exquisite defining is reserved for oneself.

emile
reply to #89 @critic

[@critic]

OK, so Emile's argument pretty much is: we should accept the nondualist instead of the dualist view, not because either is right or wrong, but because the dualist view has better social effects.

* * *

[emile]

you say you understand what i am saying and you don’t like my repeating things, but you clearly miss the point with your statement here.

nietzsche and others point to the fact that our reason based dualist models of the world don’t capture the physical reality which is non-dualist; i.e. field is primary and matter is secondary but these are not two separate things but just ‘field’ and ‘matter’ shows up to our senses of vision and touch but our experience is much more than this. there is plenty about this in nietzsche.

so, let me say again that the physical reality of our experience is nondualist; i.e. as in inhabitant-habitat nondualism. that is what you get when you demote matter to a secondary aspect of field-phenomena. that is what nietzsche understood since 1882, setting the foundations for his major works continuing into 1888/89.

If anything whatsoever is well-refuted, it is the presumption of "matter": and indeed not by an idealist but rather by a mathematician- by Boscovich. He and Copernicus are both the greatest opponents of appearances: Since him, there is widespread relief that, there is no longer matter. He has thought atomic theory to its conclusion. – Nietzsche, letter to Peter Gast, March 20, 1882.

nondualism is natural, dualism is semantic construction that only in Western culture has been confused for ‘reality’. ‘dualism’ unnaturally splits apart inhabitant and habitat.

as you must know, nietzsche’s ‘will to power’ refers to an influence that sources the evolution of the world and everything in it. it is what nietzsche put in there as the source of agency when he demoted matter to ‘nothing’ (but appearance). there are no longer two influential players, ‘field’ and ‘matter’ but one, since ‘matter’ is a secondary phenomenon which is available to sight and touch but our experience is much more than sight and touch and informs us of relational tensions etc. which are beyond sight and touch.

* * *

[@critic]

Emile argues:
nondualism/PEIR → relational causality → restorative justice
dualism/SCSR → individual agency → retributive justice
But this doesn't logically follow at all

* * *

[emile]

ok, as you said, you think i am basing the choice on social effect. i am not. social effects follow the choice but nondualism is simply acknowledgement of nature as we experience it. ‘dualism’ is a semantic contrivance that derives from noun-and-verb language

nondualism/PEIR → relational causality → restorative justice Yes, as in the relational dynamics of nature where there is no invention of a subject with its own local causal agency. restorative justice is simply relational adjustments to restore balance and harmony within an evolutionary dynamic.

dualism/SCSR → individual agency → retributive justice Yes. semantic constructs invent a subject-thing-in-itself-with-its-own-causal-agency that is depicted as acting upon and effecting other things.

dualism attributes good results to people and bad results to people and rewards good results and punishes bad results. it is a Western reason based thing modeled after Western models of God as a rational fellow;

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
.
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives.

I have never proposed nondualism over dualism on the basis of social effects. you complain about ‘repetition’ but keep ignoring what i am saying;

The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —“— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

* * *

[@critic]

Gel-Oberon says: Isn't @critic pretty close to you philosophically

Yes, Emile and @critic are pretty close, but Emile cannot see it because his view is too dualistic and binarised. @critic has to either be a dualist or a nondualist according to Emile – and he's only a nondualist if he agrees with Emile 100% - which he doesn't.

And yeah, we agree on things like relational space and restorative justice... but we get there from different premises I think.

I feel that Emile treats me very badly. He refuses to treat my claims with any seriousness, repeats the same dogmas ad nauseum, conflates everything which is non-Emile into his stereotype of “dualism”, straw-mans my position, offensively associates my position with the most abhorrent analogues he can find, wriggles out of any problem by denying that he meant what he said and attributing my failure to see his disguised meaning to my “dualism”, and generally does not engage with me as a person who might possibly be right about anything. I began by treating his views in good faith, but he continues to employ this brick-wall/protoplasm style of communication, rendering any communicative relation or dialogue impossible. It's like playing a game with someone who cheats constantly. I don't know if he's trying to piss me off, beat me into submission with walls, or if he actually thinks he's making arguments which might convince me.

* * *

[emile]

another strawman. i have always said that we are all capable of both SCSR (dualist reason) and PEIR (nondualist intuition) and the issue concerns putting reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition. that is a practice that we could flip whenever we want to. the issue is that Western society has opted to keep the unnatural reason-over-intuition precedence.

emile treats me badly? come on. Judge not lest ye be judged

[@critic]

Gel-Oberon also says: the only way you can master this non-dual narrative is through repetition
Repetition is for rote learning of mechanical dogmas and facts. Memorising the Quran, multiplication tables, Latin vocabulary. It fits well with a dualist scientific worldview and authoritarian schooling. On the other hand, a relationally engaged epistemology, recognising that one never steps in the same river twice (Heraclitus), involves engaging in detail with the precise discourse one touches at any given moment – akin to the practice of mindfulness, of recognising the uniqueness of the moment and the gap between what is sensed and what is seen through categories. One learns, in relational spaces, through appreciation of the nuances of each case and situation. Postman and Weingartner provide a Korzybskian approach to pedagogy.

* * *

[emile]

nonduality is experienced in the manner of multiple storms in a common flow; i.e. if you are one of those storms your perspective is unique to your situation and so it is as well with the perpectives of the other unique ones, even though you are all in a common relationally connected suprasystem. such a dynamic can be holographically imaged by bringing the different perspectives (recorded sensations) into a connective confluence. this approach can be seen in the writing of Heraclitus as interpreted by Charles Kahn.

Relational imaging as a mode of sharing understanding is described by Charles Kahn in ‘The Art and Thought of Heraclitus’ as a combination of intentional redundancy (linguistic density) and linguistic resonance, akin to Wittgenstein’s approach to getting to the ‘synoptic view’ through ‘repeated surveying of the connections’;
.
linguistic density: a multiplicity of ideas are expressed in a single, ambiguous word or phrase;
.
linguistic resonance: a single verbal theme or image is echoed from one text to another, so that their meaning is enriched when they are understood together; -- Charles Kahn

* * *

[@critic]

Emile says: there is a problem in the emile-@critic conversations in that our basic assumptions at the philosophical level differ

There is a problem in the Emile-@criticconversations that Emile does not wish to recognise any possible basis on which his views might be tested, falsified, hypotheses tested against those of another point of view. This leads to @critic banging his head on the wall a lot, trying to reason with Emile, when for Emile it seems there is no possible way he could be empirically shown to be even marginally wrong in any of his views. Emile is right because he has a hotline to God (aka the epigenetic field) and nothing anyone says can change that. Nonetheless, he won't simply leave everyone else alone with his incommensurable position but insists on inserting his narrow, binarised obsessions into many different discussions. Most people quite reasonably give up debating him and fall back on snark. I've been trying to engage, to show him that his position might not be the last word, but he refuses to treat me as an equal and instead falls back on absurd repetitions

* * *

[emile]

i have been and am interested in seen how much together on the same page we are able to get to.

my impression is that we are not moving towards this because of some very fundamental differences in assumptions that you don’t want to talk about.

e.g. how many times have you spoken of the difference between nonduality and duality as a ‘binary dualist choice’? It is not!

how many times must i repeat that what i am saying is that the latter is a semantic construction (SCSR) while the former is physically experienced (PEIR). you can’t experience separation between yourself as an inhabitant, ... and, the habitat. there is no evidence for that. Even Aristotle remarked that one could find no boundary between where the inside of the human body became the outside. everything is in flux within the world given only once, as a transforming relational continuum. there is evidence that fields, like gravity and electromagnetism, are everywhere at the same time (humans aren’t separate from these fields) and that matter is concentration of field.

where you say; “Emile does not wish to recognise any possible basis on which his views might be tested, falsified, hypotheses tested against those of another point of view”

look, i am not inventing a new theory. all i am doing is continuing the work of pointing out the problematic ramifications of putting reason [science] into an unnatural primacy over physical experience-based intuition. other cultures (indigenous aboriginal peoples) never did this but Western culture did, and it leads to ‘incoherence’ in the social relational dynamic [Bohm].

I have stated my view; i.e. that nonduality is the primary reality and duality is semantic contrivance that is tracking ‘appearances’. nothing new that i have invented. my own life experience affirms what many others have found; i.e. inhabitant-habitat nonduality and the fact that material bodies are NOT ‘independent things-in-themselves’ as we semanticize them to be when we conceive of matter as have primary existence-in-itself. without local material bodies as primary reality staging grounds for local causal agency, it follows that epigenetic influence is the inductive actualizer of genetic expression within which material forms and material dynamics manifest (as secondary phenomena).

All of this agrees with the understanding of peoples WHO DID NOT CONCEIVE OF FORMS IN NATURE AS INDEPENDENT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN LOCAL GENETIC/CAUSAL AGENCY. they did not have the semanticizing tool of noun-and-verb language.

I am not introducing anything new beyond Heraclitus views in 500 BCE. All I am doing is claiming that DUALISM BASED REASON [SCIENCE] IS SEMANTICALLY CONTRIVED ABSTRACTION [yes convenient and useful for its economy of thought but definitely not capturing the physical reality of our experience] THAT WESTERN CULTURE HAS PUT INTO AN UNNATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER PHYSICALLY EXPERIENCED INTUITIVE REALITY.

If you want to protest and say semantically contrived reality of science and reason deserves to be put into precedence over physically experienced intuitive reality, fine. you wouldn’t then have any time for nietzsche and bohm’s warnings about how science and reason are tools that have run away with the workman because we have given them precedence over intuition.

* * *

[@critic]

>we are discussing two philosophical optional foundations for our scientific inquiry

Emile is discussing dualism vs nondualism which is the endless fight between Emile and his own shadow which Emile always discusses no matter the topic, situation, or adversary (if any). @critic is only discussing such things out of respect for Emile, whose idee fixee in this regard is extremely rigid. @critic does not believe that dualism vs nondualism exhausts the possible range of approaches, or that either dualism or nondualism logically entail all the things Emile thinks they do, or that Emile's position is consistently and thoroughly nondualist.

* * *

[emile]

the standard practice of Western society for a long while has been to trust ‘reason’ which means trusting in the ‘things’ being in precedence over ‘relations’. this was a break with indigenous traditions which put relations in precedence over things [in Western society].

modern physics discovered that the indigenous traditions, which Western society broke away from, had kept hold of a worldview that matched the findings of modern physics; i.e. relations are in precedence over things and thus intuition is in precedence over reason.

since our society is only slowly assimilated this finding, it continues to shoot itself in the foot by putting reason in precedence over intuition. there are many issues where this shows up in, and my comments on these issues share an intuition over reason based view; e.g. intuition says that relational tensions can build over the long haul and explosions of violence come from those relational tensions. reason just looks at who hit who and punishes the smoking gun holding causal agent.

science and reason orient to, and have us addressing superficial symptoms, as is often the case, for example, in medical science where pills will alleviate symptoms while engendering ‘externalities’ (side-effects) that may be worse than the symptoms. anyhow, the root source (relational imbalance) does not come into it.

* * *

[@critic]

>When we hear or read the words 'the rebel killed the landlord'

Emile has had it explained to him multiple times that @critic agrees that social oppression plays a role in generating revolt, and that many “dualist” scientists and historians also admit this. He continues to fight a straw-man adversary who supposedly believes that peasants just wake up one morning and decide to kill landlords for no reason, and that storms are living beings with rational agency and moral responsibility for the damage they cause. The fact that no-one in the “dualist” community actually believes this, seems to be of no concern to Emile.

* * *

[emile]

I don’t know where you live and how things are there but if a protester or rebel or terrorist causes damage and injury in the places i have lived, then globally dominant Western dualist culture REASONS, regardless of social oppression experienced by the protester, rebel or terrorist, that that person is fully and solely responsible for the damage and injury they have caused. so far, outside of restorative justice peace-making circles, i haven't seen any judges get down from the bench, take the robes off and say; ‘we’re all in this together, its as much the fault of people like myself as it is those of you doing eco-terrorism and the like. the whole community needs to change so that it is not necessary for you to have to do your rebel and terrorist acts.

if many dualists in the dualist community believe that rebellion is induced by the community, then why are so many protesters and rebels and terrorists put in prison?

* * *

[@critic]

>with the realist interpreting everything as if it were hard logic

Language is hard logic. Don't like it? Shut up.
“Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent “ (Wittgenstein)

I resent the idea that I should be able to see something in Emile's statements which he does not actually say, perhaps is unable to say, but which is not present in the literal content of his statements.

* * *

[emile]

The Wittgenstein quote is a ‘put-down’ of hard logic. He refers to the problem that logic is inadequate for communicating physically real understanding, that it is nothing more than a finger pointing to the moon, so that to share something meaningful, one has to tap into what can’t be logically expressed; i.e. one has to transcend the logical proposition with one’s intuition;

“The propositions of logic are tautologies (6.1), and hence say nothing (6.11). Any attempt to give content to logical propositions is misguided. That they are true shows itself in their structure, and this structure helps us to understand the formal properties of language and the world (6.12). We cannot express anything by means of logical propositions.”

6.54 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.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

* * *

[@critic]

>if @critic were physically close to me

Physical locality is a delusional construct of scientific dualism which has been falsified by quantum physics. So says Emile.

Of course, I'm making the mistake of taking him literally again. He really meant: physical locality is a delusional construct except when its being a delusional construct is inconvenient for my argument.

* * *

[emile]

closeness is a relational reference, not an absolute measure like ‘location’. there are no absolute fixed points of reference in relational space [such as the non-euclidian curved space employed in the mathematics of general relativity where everything is relative to everything else]

how many more strawmen are you going to set me up for?

* * *

[@critic]

>i have no idea what @critic supports in and among those he hangs out with

@critic uses hard logic and not ad hominem appeals to his own virtues, and, as an anarchist, he prefers to remain anonymous on the internet. How @critic lives is none of Emile's business.

* * *

[emile]

my comment was not an inquiry into how @critic lives, but only to state while i could make the comparison between emile’s views and his social relational behaviour, i could not do the same for @critic since i was not privy to that knowledge. @critic's defensive remark suggesting that i was prying into his private life is another strawman.

* * *

[@critic]

>if i participate in a standard Western style rational debate, i am trouble (not without fair warning) because for me, logical propositions like 'the peasant rebel killed the landlord' or 'germany started WWII' are addressing 'appearances' and not the physical reality of our actual experience

>my view (an individual's view) cannot be overturned by reasoned argument when that view is that intuition is in a natural primacy over reason

Emile is a dogmatist. Emile is certain he is right, that the reality he sees is the “real” reality, and he's carefully insulated himself from anything which might falsify his views.

Since Emile is so unreasonable that he cannot be convinced by reasoned argument, then maybe he should leave the philosophical discussions to people who know what they're talking about.

By the way, Emile has also thoroughly ignored my demonstration of the complicities between his worldview and neoliberal structures of power.

* * *

[emile]

this comment is so full of bullshit. the point about western debates is that debates are oriented to finding the ‘objective truth’ and i have said that i agree with nietzsche’s perspectivism that there is no objective truth, so the debate may be good only for sharing information. in saying that intuition is in a natural primacy over reason, this respects the truth of individual experience which is uniquely felt. that’s why the ‘learning circles’ are needed instead of the debating forums.

for me, the way to find out what’s right is to share experiences. i am not only willing to go into learning circles and open myself to learning by respecting the truth of individual experiences, this is part of my social activity and i like to form learning circles wherever the collection of people is amenable to it. dogmatists are found in debating forums where someone ‘knows the truth’ and tries to impose it on the others.

you can call me persistent in maintaining that there is no objective truth, fine, ... but there’s no way you can call me ‘dogmatic’ for such persistence. my values are to give everyone a chance to be respectively listened to as they share their experiences so that we can all continue to learn. the greater the diversity and multiplicity of unique and personal experiences that are shared, the richer and more highly resolved the holographic imagery.

* * *

[@critic]

>i consider people who put reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition to be 'brainwashed'

Emile's insistence in reducing all dialogue to a relation between woke redpilled Emile and a brainwashed naïve idiot who needs to be indoctrinated in the correct ideology by Emile, is precisely what prevents any reasoned dialogue from happening, and which prevents Emile from learning anything from others. It also paradoxically prevents Emile from indoctrinating anyone.

* * *

[emile]

children are brainwashed with cultural beliefs before they can defend against it. it happens in all kinds of cultures, religions and cults. the elevating of dualist reasoning into an unnatural precedence over intuition is done by brainwashing upcoming generations. what i said was that i was brainwashed like everyone in this culture, and i had to unlearn what had been infused into me when i was too young to make my own judgements on it.

“The function of education has never been to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them…acquiescence, not originality. …Schools are the central conserving force of the culture. … In order not to fail, most people are willing to believe anything and to care not whether what they are told is true or false. Only by remaining absurd can one feel free from fear of failure.” – Jules Henry, cultural anthropologist, in ‘Culture Against Man’
.
“It is Henry’s contention that in practice education has never been an instrument to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them. … Children do not give up their innate imagination, curiousity, dreaminess easily. You have to love them to get them to do that. Love is the path through permissiveness to discipline; and through discipline, only too often, to betrayal of self.” – R. D. Laing, psychiatrist and philosopher

* * *

in spite of your name-calling, strawmanning, avoidance of basic assumptions and snide remarks, i am still open to see how far towards getting on the same page we can get to. ok, i realize that it's not going too well, but who knows. a third party might have a breakthrough idea that closes the gap.

SirEinzige
Emile, regarding the protester, rebel or terrorist

They actually are responsible in a relative sense. Responsibility perse does not have to be seen in a sole sense. The reason the judge does what he does is because he is following a belief and behavior mode and code of preference. There will always be clashes of preferences and flow of resonance and dissonance. There is no good harmonious nature for the judge to disrobe himself to in this context as he is following a cultural program and code. I'm afraid all cultures do this on a basic level. Overall there's no escape some level of dissonance and strife in the world.

'We're all in this together' is humanist hubris on a certain level. On some level its true but there is no imperative for clashing interests to harmonize together. For as long as there has been meaning an value this has never happened. There will always be dissonant differentiating human operating systems of values and there will ALWAYS be the dissonating individual.

emile
reply to sir einzige re rebels and judges

your comment simply replicates the orthodox dualist assumption of the existence of the independent individual who is the full and sole author of his own behaviour. that's where Western style courts and judges come from, ... i.e. from the assumption that the individual exists as a local causal agent with his own local agency, who is the full and sole author of his own behaviour. in your view, the influence of others comes after this first assumption and is incorporated as 'mitigating circumstances'.

this is the orthodox dualist paradigm, and it is not the paradigm of, for example, indigenous aboriginals who clearly never developed a moral judgement based retributive justice system that depended on assuming the 'independent existence of the individual-in-himself, as Western society has done.

the aphorism: "it takes a whole community to raise a child" implies that relations are in an inherent primacy over individual things and that the individual is a 'vent' that transmits influences from the nonlocal relational dynamics he is uniquely, situationally included in, to the point on which his energies can locally act. this requires non-orthodox logic; i.e.;

"Field/matter nonduality takes us beyond the reach of the standard logic that @critic is using. nonduality requires logic of the included third rather than logic of the excluded third that @critic is using. for example, we see five storms in the one flow. in standard logic of the excluded third, each of these storms A, B, C, D, E is mutually exclusive of the other. in logic of the included third, there is a common element F (e.g. the common fluid medium) such that A=F, B=F, C=F, D=F, E=F such that A=B=C=D=E. none of them are exclusive of the others, they are interdependent.
.
Here you can see Mach’s principle of inhabitant-habitat nonduality which tells how A, B, C, D and E are influencing one another by conditioning the dynamics of the common medium F, at the same time as the common medium F is conditioning the dynamics of A, B, C, D, end E., ... and also that immanent in the fluid (field) medium is the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression [the emergence of A, B, C, D, E.]

i.e. "it takes a whole community to animate the individual member of the community".

We accept that PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) allows influences from the past to directly influence the present. the woman who has been sexually abused in earlier life experience may experience emotional distress from exposure to mild 'natural' sexual advances in the present as the horror of her prior experience involuntarily comes back again. the war veteran who has seen his friends die from mortar shell blasts may become hysterical on hearing the sound of a little girl popping her party balloons. the dog that has been chronically abused by humans may respond to a friendly human attempting to pet him by biting the outreaching hand. all such actions are exemplary of the transmitting and venting of relational-experiential influences from nonlocal to local spacetime.

the colonizer's abuse of power by marginalizing and humiliating the colonized indigenous people can build and vent through different individuals in the modern present. such epigenetically induced rebellion is in no way 'authored' by a rebel since the roots of authorship of rebellion that vents through the individual run deep into the transforming relational continuum. Western science's model of man as an independently-existing biological RATIONAL machine cannot handle this nonduality, but it is employed anyhow; i.e. the model is 'imposed' on the individual by the society so that the judge and the elite and powerful that empower him can punish the 'rebel' for violence engendered by the judge the elite and powerful. he becomes scapegoated as the authoring source of the violence and all others are presumed 'innocent' in the same fell stroke of declaring the scapegoated person 'guilty'.

you wrote;

"The reason the judge does what he does is because he is following a belief and behavior mode and code of preference. There will always be clashes of preferences and flow of resonance and dissonance. There is no good harmonious nature for the judge to disrobe himself to in this context as he is following a cultural program and code. I'm afraid all cultures do this on a basic level."

not 'all cultures' assume that the individual is the jumpstart source of his own actions. cultures that understand the world in terms of inhabitant-habitat nonduality assume that the relational dynamics of the community are the source of relational dissonance that vents through an individual. dissonance is a relational phenomena that cannot be reduced to 'local agency' of an individual. there are no 'dissonant individuals', yet you write;

"there will ALWAYS be the dissonating individual."

your claim simply summarily dismisses the point that 'rebellion' is NOT sourced by 'rebels' since it takes a whole community to become divided against itself in rebellion.

once we impute dualist separation of 'rebel' as a 'dissonent individual' or 'dissonant faction', we imply the existence of an 'authority' whose obligatory normative behaviour the 'rebel' is opposing.. The history of the US civil war has been described as; "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies".

not all cultures assume the existence of 'dissonant individuals'. indigenous aboriginal cultures assume that dissonance is a relational phenomena that manifests (vents) through individuals but which derives from the relational dynamics and NOT from local agency of a so-called 'dissonant individual'.

the 'rebel' implies a normative body whose conformant actions are 'authoritative' or 'normative'.

the dualist assumption that there is a 'normal' that defines nonconforming behaviours as 'abnormal' is like the assumption that there is 'objective truth' that defines nonconforming propositions' as 'falsehoods'.

the collapsing belief in the existence of 'objective truth' will bring down with it, the belief in the existence of 'normality' that is being used to define nonconforming behaviours as 'abnormal'. [normal and abnormal are purely relative concepts; i.e. there is no 'abnormality in and of itself', likewise 'normal']

the conceptualizing of dissonance as disturbance that derives from the 'dissonant individual' aka 'dissident' aka 'rebel', ... is another popular dualism-based misconception that will collapse with the collapse of belief in 'objective truth'.

Pages

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
c
4
2
r
8
F
N
Enter the code without spaces.