CrimethInc. Presents New Site-Specific Stickers: "Vote Here"

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2012/04/12/new-site-specific-stickers-vot...

We&#8217;ve produced a new sticker to express the national mood about the upcoming election. Reading &#8220;VOTE HERE&#8221; with an arrow on patriotic red, white, and blue, it&#8217;s the perfect addition to trash cans, toilets, sewer drains, and other waste disposal sites. These are 4&#8243; wide, printed on paper stickers (as opposed to vinyl) so as to be difficult to remove, and feature a QR code directing the curious to a <a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/vote/">new webpage</a> discussing why democracy is bankrupt.</td><td><img title="Free!, QR code!, 1000 given to @, Curious!" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/voting.jpg"></td></tr></table>
<!--break-->
<p><a href="http://cloudfront.crimethinc.com/images/votehere/1b.jpg" rel="lightbox[vote]"><img src="http://cloudfront.crimethinc.com/images/votehere/1a.jpg" /></a><span class="invisible">-</span><br />

<p>The stickers are available in quantities from 25-1,000. We&#8217;d love to expand our photo gallery depicting them in action. If you see these stickers in use anywhere clever, please take a picture and <a href="mailto:help@crimethinc.com">email it to us</a>, or better yet tweet it with the hashtag #votehere.</p>

<p>We gave away 1000 of these in a single day at last week&#8217;s <a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2012/03/29/crimethinc-at-bay-area-anarchi... Area Anarchist Book Fair</a> and we anticipate them going quickly. We&#8217;ll follow these up with a poster series in time for May Day.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/vote/"><strong>Order the stickers here.</strong></a></p>

Comments

Omg genius! /s

s for sincerity or sarcasm?

s for sausage!

It actually is genius. I like it!

There's so many people who are into anarchism until the election rolls around, and all of a sudden they organize against self-organization by voting. This pierces through all that shit.

the stickers are great. they mock the notion that anything ‘really changes’ in the ‘time’-based ‘feedback loop’ of the electoral process where ‘the central governing authority’ is ‘changed’ out every few years to better deal with ‘changing conditions’ in the living space.

what is effectively being critiqued is the time-based adaptive feedback approach to evolving an organizing schema appropriate to the changing conditions in the living space.

[each new group of authorities already has a 'plan' in mind and they see it as their job to infuse their plan into the citizens so as to make it the 'common purpose' of the citizenry. but who says that 'common purpose' has to be the source of organization?]

anyone ‘digging deeper’ will discover that the cartoon is, at the same time, a critique of darwinian evolution [reproduction with variation] and support for lamarckian/nietzschean anti-darwinist evolution [evolution by mach’s principle, the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation].

people didn’t always have a central governing Authority to serve as the animative sourcing (Aas) of organization that converts a people-collective into a ‘community’. ‘Space’ or ‘habitat’ or ‘the land’ was the animative sourcing (Sas). the flow of ‘traffic’ into the fertile valley worked like traffic in the flow of a busy freeway, the opening of holes orchestrates the assertive forward movement of the individuals, the orchestrating pull originating ultimately from the ‘fertility’ and flow of nurturance from the land [symbolized as a many-teated goddess]. the evolving web of spatial relations [the flow of activities in the developing community], like the flow of traffic, continually opens up ‘holes’, newly emergent needs for action, that orchestrates the development of skills potentials and the assertive actions of the people [this organization-sourcing pull is 'from the outside-in'].

this is where the notion of a ‘central authority’ comes in to haunt us.

the analytical mind is able to re-render this Sas evolution in Aas terms by simply substituting for the orchestrating influence of the land, an ‘intellectual purpose’ in the people, making it appear that the only ‘drive’ involved in this ‘evolutionary dynamic’, is a notional ‘common purpose’ that resides in the interior of the individual. The ‘Authority’ is invented to serve as the ‘regulator’ of the ‘common purpose’ that inhabits the people in the community. The outside-inward orchestrating influence of the fertile, nurturing land is thus replaced, in this idealized authoritarian model, by a notional inside-outward driving and directing ‘common purpose’ of the people.

the community is thus [thanks to scientific analytical thinking] re-rendered as centrally regulated ‘machinery’ where the activities of the components come together in an organized dynamic due to 'common purpose’ continually planted in them by the ‘central authority’. the central authority is ‘reproduced with variation’ by the ‘electoral process’ or by revolution etc. as in darwinism, the animating source of the evolution of this ‘species’ of organism is internal to the organism, and it orients to the ‘production of nurturance’ that facilitates surviving and thriving of the species [the whole drive and direction of this notional 'organism' is seen as inside-outwards]. The many-teated goddess of the natural living space has been fully discredited as playing any ‘animative sourcing role' in this darwinist view while full and sole ‘credit’ for the ‘production of nurturance’ is given to the ‘purpose-driven organism’; i.e. to the ‘inhabitant’ as opposed to the ‘habitat'. the former great, the'sun-god' with his magic rays, is not merely demoted to a lesser role in the darwinist play, but is totally written out of the play.

the scientific observer of the natural evolution of community [prior to the coming on scene of 'central authority'] observed that which is ‘local’, ‘visible’ and ‘material’. this is a problem since the orchestrating influence of the land is ‘nonlocal’, ‘non-visible’, and ‘non-material’; i.e. it is the animative sourcing inherent in a continuing ‘flow’ which becomes locally, visibly, manifest thanks to the local movement of material objects/organisms [e.g. the turbulent flow in which a tornado manifests is firstly nonlocal (spatial-relational), non-visible (not-'directly' visible) and non-material (spatial-relational as in pressure imbalance and thermal energy imbalance) and its local, visible, material aspect is merely 'schaumkommen' ('appearances')].

science has historically operated by keying to phenomena that is available to sight and touch and it is this kind of science that has become the foundation for ‘scientific thinking’ in the Western individual. so, if science is not going to accept the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material animative sourcing (Sas) of organization as characterizes the developing community, and the only other thing it has to work with is an analytical model of the individual human seen, scientifically [by sight and touch], as a local, independently-existing material system with its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour, ... then the only choice is to suppose that the animative sourcing of organization in a collection of these independent organisms must reside within each individual, ... and since the scientific model of the organism presumes that its ‘independent behaviour’ is inside-outward driven by its knowledge, intellection and purpose, ... why not assume that the organization constituted by the evolving community derives from ‘common purpose’ infused in each individual?

as regards naturally evolving community, this is clearly a lie, or at least a Fiktion that people have accidently come to believe in. those control freaks who aspire to become the notional central Authority that is responsible for infusing ‘common purpose’ into the people in the community may believe that this is the way that community has to work, in which case it is a Fiktion confused for reality, rather than a lie. but why should anyone believe that community ‘has to work like this’ when the evidence is everywhere that the dynamics of habitat orchestrate the organized dynamics of the inhabitants [as in Mach’s principle]? That’s what Mach asked, and what he came up with was that people who believe that organization has to come from inside the system are ‘followers of the Church of Science’. meanwhile, putting this secularized-theological sort of ‘scientific thinking’ into an unnatural primacy over natural intuitive understanding has come to characterize globally dominating capitalist-authoritarian society.

if science teaches you from an early age that ‘organization’ of a people collective can only come from the interior of the people; i.e. from ‘common purpose’, then in a society that deifies science, you are likely to believe that, and what it means is that you need to have a ‘central authority’ to regulate ‘common purpose’, otherwise there is no animative sourcing for organizing collective behaviour [the outside-inward orchestrating influence, science has banished].

mach saw this coming and said in ‘The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge’ ;

“It appears that physicists are on the way to founding a church; they are already using a church’s traditional weapons [excommunicating those who disagree with doctrine]. To this I answer simply: “If belief in the reality of atoms [rather than seeing them as ripples in an energy-charged dynamic medium] is so important to you, I cut myself off from the physicists mode of thinking, I do not wish to be a true physicist, I renounce all scientific respect --- in short: I decline with thanks the communion of the faithful. I prefer freedom of thought.”

so, what we are currently stuck with is a ‘religious belief’ [secularized-theological belief] in the ‘truth’ of scientific doctrine, and scientific doctrine is telling us that the animative sourcing of organization, as in a community, derives from the ‘common purpose’ of the members of the community. this gets rid of the outside-inward animative sourcing, the many-teated goddess, as the animative sourcing or ‘orchestrating influence’ of the organized dynamic called ‘community’. in her place, science notionally ‘implants’ an evolutionary sourcing force inside the ‘evolving organization’ in a ‘central authority’ that provides ‘common direction’ to all part[icipant]s, the nominal 'source of organization'.

in this model, which is foundational to the authoritarian worldview of globally dominating Western civilization, there is no longer any need to acknowledge ‘outside-inward animative sourcing’, since inside-outward animative sourcing is give full and sole credit for organizing and evolving.

the readership of anarchistnews.org seems to prefer the neatsy quip or cartoon without elaboration other than a ‘nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say-no-more’ that signals ‘we get it’, but do ‘we really get it’?

if we do, it would be nice to be able to explain it to those non-control-freak followers of authoritarianism who are ‘on the fence’, so as relieve them of the false anxiety that the world is going to fall apart if we reject authoritarianism and restore natural modes of organization (Sas rather than Aas),otherwise known as ‘an-archic modes’, to their rightful primacy.

Fuck, emile. You are a real [Dadaist] piece of work.

Just more of an obsessive who can use any conversation to talk about whatever he's obsessing about at the moment.

the less you understand, the more you resort to ad hominem attack. what for? relax and pass over what you don’t understand. don’t be embarrassed about it. if you understand it and don’t agree with it, then state what you don’t agree with, that way we all learn. what kind of society are you looking for? ... the kind that passes the talking stick and everyone gets to speak their piece, or the kind where those that think they have a monopoly on understanding use aggressive heckling to hijack the openness of the process?

my comments addressed the basic fault with the commonly [mistakenly] trusted concept of the adaptive feedback loop that is foundational to the ‘evolving’ of government in ‘democracies’. the joke and the stickers express cynicism with this ‘adaptive feedback’ approach to evolving government since ‘nothing really changes’. there is a reason for this, just as there is an argument that darwinism’s ‘reproduction with variation’ cannot possibly explain basic evolutionary innovation. that’s what my comment is addressing. if that is irrelevant to you, pass over it. what makes you feel that you have to personally police content in an open forum?

I'm not policing you emile, i'm just saying no matter what comment you are replying to, your shit sounds the fucking same, that's all.

if no matter what someone says, you end up talking about the same shit every time, you are probably stuck on something. obsessing on it. unable to think clear of it.

i do the same thing. it's okay.

and darwin was right you fucking idiot.

if you understand it and don’t agree with it, then state what you don’t agree with, that way we all learn.

I did this here.

You really need to stop with the obsessive, repetitive, long drawn out posts, emile. One thing that I see from you that is really limiting what you have to offer is how hard you lean on Mach and other authors for your content. For example, Mach was criticizing Newtonian physics and precisely Newton's formulation of absolute space. You are hung up on this, but science moved on. Lots of Newton's ideas have been overturned by science and it wasn't by people influenced by Mach. In fact, Max Planck had a huge impact on the development of science over the past 100 years and he famously argued with Mach. What I see from you is complete ignorance of the last 100 years of science in an effort to uphold your interpreation of Mach as the definition of Truth. This is the same Mach who disagreed with Einstein's theory of relativity and Planck's insistence that atoms were real. Simply stated, Mach was wrong on quite a few points. Your repetition that science defines space as absolute is also verifiably false. This critique only applies to Newtonian physics and science has moved on from there. You should too.

The other thing to address from your phrase that I quoted above is that not everything should be resolved by back and forth comments to every post on this site. You're saying that if we don't agree with you then we have to air our grievances with you online, here at Anarchist News. This doesn't have to become the forum for everything related to what emile states. I doubt that many people have the drive to tackle your bullshit at every turn, knowing that you will bury them with waves and waves of text that nobody really wants to read anymore. Plus I'm really sick of seeing you put so many words and phrases in scare-quotes... you 'moron'.

excuse me. i missed your comment of Wed, 2012-04-11 23:26 that you just gave a link to [a previous link didn’t take me anywhere].

i appreciate the time and effort you took to read my comments and to respond to them. meanwhile, you continue to miss mach’s point about atoms, which still stands and has been echoed by Shrödinger who also objects to the ‘realism’ that is being imposed on what is essentially ‘idealization’, and also by Poincaré who observes that science and mathematics are split into two camps which he calls ‘Cantorian realists’ and ‘pragmatist idealists’, the latter also being called ‘conventionalists’ among which we can count Mach, Nietzsche, Poincaré, Bohm and Schrödinger, not to mention myself.

far from the issue of ‘are atoms real?’ having been settled, the issue lingers on and greatly impacts the respective world views that come out of ‘Cantorian realism’ and ‘pragmatist idealism’.

Poincaré called Cantorian realism ‘a disease that mathematics will have to recover from’.

That disease is captured in the fact that a majority of scientific thinking people do believe that ‘atoms are real’. the contrary view, which hasn’t gone away but which has been overwhelmed by the popular support for ‘realism’, is that local material systems [atoms included] are Fiktions that are useful and perhaps necessary, as Nietzsche says, but nevertheless fictions.

What is intended by this is that ‘ripples in the transforming spatial flow medium’ are relational flow-features rather than ‘things-in-themselves’ and that atoms fall into that category. Schrödinger, the author of the quantum wave equation, referred to matter and material systems such as ‘atoms’ as ‘schaumkommen’;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). …”... “Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.” Erwin Schrödinger

this business about ‘atoms being real’ or ‘atoms being idealizations’ has not been ‘laid to rest’ as you claim. Mach has not been proved wrong as you claim, since it is a foundational philosophical issue which persists, and which bears directly on whether we support or reject authoritarianism.

the point can be seen in the example of a hurricane or tornado or a convection cell in general [a cyclic flow that gives the impression of a ‘thing-in-itself’].

are hurricanes real in the sense that philosophers of science are talking about? no, they are ripples in the flow; i.e. they are spatial-relational features rather than ‘things-in-themselves’. their ‘local being’ is ‘idealization’ that we impose on them, which we concretize by way of the subjectifying powers of language.

what we have here is the disagreement between ‘realists’ and ‘pragmatist idealists’. Nietzsche addressed this philosophical issue very clearly, identifying the ‘realist’ world view, the dominating world view, as the central problem in our society. Like Mach, Poincaré and Schrödinger, he claimed that nothing that was viewed as a ‘thing-in-itself’ was ‘real’; i.e. a ‘thing-in-itself’ is a looseness in thinking where we jump from ‘a thing considered in itself’, without justification, to a ‘thing-in-itself’. the ripple in the spatial-plenum and/or the hurricane and/or the atom, is a ‘thing considered in itself’ that we are in the habit of regarding as a ‘thing-in-itself’. Mach would say that this follows from science being a scheme of minimization of thought. We can present many more facts as the same facts, by ignoring the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation that characterizes ‘ripples in the spatial-plenum’ or material systems such as ‘atoms’ understood as ‘variations in the structure of space’.

For example, our criminal justice system uses this scientific notion of material systems as ‘real-things-in-themselves’ to view ‘thieves’ as ‘things-in-themselves’ so that one doesn’t have to bother with inquiring into any interdependency between the dynamic of the habitat [e.g. in a condition of extreme ‘have’ – ‘have-not’ imbalance] and the dynamic of the inhabitant [the thief] since ‘thieves’ are a set/category of ‘real things-in-themselves’ that we can identify by ‘the deeds they do’ without having to consider the interdependence between the dynamics of the habitat they are included in and their ‘inhabitant dynamics’ [thievery]. as is clear, this is what we get by jumping from a ‘thing considered in itself’ such as the hurricane and/or the man, to regarding it as ‘a real thing in itself’, and thus removing the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation given by Mach’s principle and also by Schrödinger’s interpretation of quantum physics.

“… The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. …” – Erwin Schrödinger

this same statement [denying the subject-object split] is made by Nietzsche and it is implicit in Mach’s principle wherein ‘what we are looking out at includes us’ [if hurricanes could ‘look outward’ they would be observing the flow that includes them].

far from having been resolved, as you are suggesting, this philosophical issue, which has a radical impact on how we see and understand the world, is alive and well today. you have no grounds to consider it resolved. the fact that you amongst a majority that believe they are correct, does not resolve it. as Poincaré said in his ‘Final Thoughts’, and nothing has happened to change this;

“At all times, there have been opposite tendencies in philosophy and it does not seem that these tendencies are on the verge of being reconciled. It is no doubt because there are different souls [âmes] and that we cannot change anything in these souls. There is therefore no hope of seeing harmony established between the pragmatists and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same language, and there are languages which cannot be learned.”

the fact that you believe that Mach’s contention that ‘atoms are not real’ has been decided fully and finally against Mach is just your belief. you can go on believing it, but what makes you want to suppress the voices of those who believe otherwise? is this al gore and AGW all over again?

i’ll tell you why i keep raising this ‘minority view’. because it explains why authoritarian society is the dysfunctional disaster that it is. it addresses all these problems we have, and it points the finger directly at ‘realism’, a disease that science will have to recover from.

Evolutionary theory: the evolution of the mind creates a dualism in human beings. On the one hand, there's the subconscious; the existential awareness of the beings own senses of futility and always impending death, on the other there's the intellect, rambling away it's existence in hopes that short term enjoyments and gratifications at the wonder at it's own ability to comprehend and regurgitate can blot out very real underlying feelings of emptiness. The inability to acknowledge these feelings, whether out of fear or simply because the higher order mental masturbation has become not just a compensation but a natural tendency for the person that is so now ingrained in their every action that to stop would render the being incoherent. This is when the person stops being a person and merely becomes a function or an extension of a theory; an idea, a nationalism, etc. etc. Either easily maleable or completely obstinate. Whether this tendency is born out of a direct hand me down through his t.v., or his father; or it's a result of individualist culture and mores; i.e. the artist, the revolutionary, the philosopher, or other great minds that questioned authority to which he imitates in hopes that his ideas gain the sort of transcendence as theirs did.

Of course from a philosophical vantage this may be nothing more than a natural evolutionary trait to which we, including the greats have spawned from. After all, Louis Ferdinand Celine was a fascist.

But it blurs and abstracts what was at one time a very real sentiment, a feeling, until his actions so become abscured that what was at one time to be "right," or self vindicated, is now to be just the idea of an idea of a thought. His own sense of moral righteousness is just a compensation. Language is the common link in him finding others to vindicate, support his abilities, even to fight with those with opposing points of views is to put strain, exorcise this tendency if you will.

Summary: Have to be a chocolate Jesus, don't want to be no Almond Joy

Fuck hope (sorry to keep saying "him")

nice job [if nihilism is your bag]. every new comment brings forth a new ‘language game’. let’s do some trans-language-game connecting. the dualism you speak of is also spoken of by nietzsche in terms of our having both an ‘Apollonian’ persona [structured, controlling, perfectionist, deliberate, goal oriented, ceteris paribus-dependent] and ‘Dionysian’ persona [elastic, resilient, thriving on the turmoil of the unexpected and the uncontrollable, skillfully sustaining balance and harmony in turbulence like a surfer in a hurricane].

while the Apollonian and the Dionysian are dual aspects of one dynamic, in the same manner as Vygotsky describes our ability for both spontaneous and non-spontaneous/scientific concept development [‘Thought and Language’], there is a natural precedence wherein the Apollonian [non-spontaneous concept formation] plays a support role for the Dionysian [spontaneous concept formation]. as a developing child, we see the world as fluid and unstructured and in our situational learning experience, we develop fixed concepts that we can use in our continuing situational experience. the evolutionary learning is ongoing since we are always encountering new situations that transcend the applicability of our structured concepts. but, it too often happens that we build and accumulate structured concepts to the point that we fit them to every new circumstance/situation even if the new situations are subtly and importantly different [we stop 'evolving' and become pure 'Apollonian' knowledge-directed machines].

in your language game, you split the apple differently than some do, using Western culture loaded words like ‘sense of futility’ of an ‘always impending death’. the Dionysian thrives in surfing on the edge of death. not everyone stays mired down in the zone of futility and paralysis. life experiences like that of ‘lieutenant dan’ in forrest gump actually happen [recall the scene of the ‘bubba gump shrimp boat’ caught in hurricane carmen where lieutenant dan ‘faced his demons’]. you split the apple into the nihilistic apprehension/awareness of impending death on the one hand, and intellectual mental masturbation on the other hand. 'great combination!'

“On the one hand, there's the subconscious; the existential awareness of the beings own senses of futility and always impending death, on the other there's the intellect, rambling away it's existence in hopes that short term enjoyments and gratifications at the wonder at it's own ability to comprehend and regurgitate can blot out very real underlying feelings of emptiness.”

this view focuses on the individual ego and becoming a slave of one's own intellect and you take it to an absurd idealized limit;

“The inability to acknowledge these feelings, whether out of fear or simply because the higher order mental masturbation has become not just a compensation but a natural tendency for the person that is so now ingrained in their every action that to stop would render the being incoherent. This is when the person stops being a person and merely becomes a function or an extension of a theory; an idea, a nationalism, etc. etc. Either easily maleable or completely obstinate. Whether this tendency is born out of a direct hand me down through his t.v., or his father; or it's a result of individualist culture and mores; i.e. the artist, the revolutionary, the philosopher, or other great minds that questioned authority to which he imitates in hopes that his ideas gain the sort of transcendence as theirs did.”

there is a Taoist saying that; ‘the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon’. stop looking at the finger; i.e. stop looking at the intellectual statement as if it where the value is,or is not and try to look instead to what it is pointing to.

the Apollonian dream of Apollonian science and Apollonian scientists is to confirm a solid foundation to life, to discover a ‘Theory of Everything’, to find the ‘God-particle’, the father of all material bodies and so confirm what Newton believed;

"God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable Particles."

Now, if the world is made of building blocks or 'atomic structure' i.e. if it is made of material particles, man can start from scratch with these and construct the sort of world he wants in the manner he builds a cathedral, over ‘time’ by piling stone upon stone. Man can create a vision of a desired future and a plan for implementing it over time. Apollonian man is like the child building a sand-castle on the beach, failing to incorporate the outside-inward influence of the celestial dynamics he is included in, in his plans [i.e. failing to take into account ‘tides’].

Authoritarianism IS Apollonian, but nature is NOT. In the dynamics of nature, Apollonian structure give support to Dionysian fluidity/transformation as conjugate aspects of a dynamic unity. To centrally manage the construction of a desired future state of the nation [implying a time-based succession of activities] is an Appolonian vision that implies ‘ceteris paribus’, all other things [aka 'space', 'the reference frame'] staying the same. Central authority-dictated political visions and programs assume that the sun will keep shining, the water and air will stay fresh and clean, the fuel supply will continue to be there, faith in monetary currency and financial institutions will continue to be solid, the brother nations will remain solid friends and supporters, boys will continue to be boys and girls, girls, etc. etc.

What happens to the plans of the Apollonian Authority when a drought descends upon the entire state, as it did in Oklahoma’s dustbowl era, and as could happen to an entire continent, or part of it, like the United States portion of North America? Instead of being the local thing-in-itself pyramid of power that it claimed, it would bring back out of storage and dust off the more realistic vision of itself as a strand in an interconnected global web-of-life, situationally included in a continually transforming relational space whose periods of relative stability should not be interpreted as a ‘fixed framework’ for man’s long term construction projects.

There is a Dionysian in each of us, a persona that thrives in surfing on the edge of impending death. In times of turbulence we have to retrieve it.

But wait a minute. We have collectively put ourselves under the intensively policed thumb of an Apollonian Authoritarian regime that controls, directs and organizes on the basis of ‘ceteris paribus’, a fixed and stable framework.
Have you noticed how bewildered Apollonian Authorities are when the fixed and stable framework starts to crack? When people no longer trust banks and financial instruments and economic implosion commences?

On the other hand, the Dionysian persona is a spatial-situational persona. Central authorities cannot ‘surf’ in a hurricane, unless they use a flotilla of dead bodies who drowned because they did not remove their handcuffs. When hurricanes and other calamitous instabilities arise, the Dionysian thrives, and in this case, animative sourcing shifts to the individual because turbulent situations are spatially unique to the individual. The boats in the commercial flotilla do not stick to the published shipping itinerary in times of turbulence, they let their space and time coordinates be orchestrated by the dynamics of the habitat they are situationally included in. That doesn’t mean that organization vanishes, it merely means that the orchestrating or animative sourcing of the organization is spatial-situational or ‘outside-inward’. In concept formation terms, the non-spontaneous [scientific knowledge] must play the support role to the spontaneous [situational experience].

If oil lasts forever, if climate never changes, if people’s faith in monetary instruments never falters, if the global economy never implodes, if the water and air remain fresh and nurturing and if, ... we really do live in a fixed, unchanging space-frame as is the base case for Apollonian time-based constructivism, then a centrally regulating/organizing Apollonian Authority may ‘work’; i.e. the fact is that the Apollonian scheme and all centrally directed forms of organization depend on a fixed and stable frame. A fluid and evolving space [reference frame] demands Dionysian surfing skills that are innately situational and outside-inward orchestrated, as with the sailor in the storm. Only in a calm and stable space-frame does Apollonian central direction of the inhabitants make any sense.

Do you want to be forcefully tied to the mast by the police on the Apollonian-Authoritarian supertanker when the fixed frame assumptions crumble? Or do you want to let your 'Dionysian surfing on the edge of impending death persona' come up from the basement where you had to keep him locked up to elude his being arrested by the authorities? Can't you hear and feel the vibrations as he rattles his shackles in the cellar, craving to be loosed and to surface once again?

meanwhile, Apollonian science is saying; ‘trust me, the Apollonian way is the way to go, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’

this aphorism has it upside down; ‘Divided we stand, united we fall’. Our need when the reference frame melts like a salvador dali clock is the liberation of our Dionysian persona. but you can’t herd Dionysian surfers any more than you can herd cats. In order to have ‘resilience’ in a community, everyone needs to become a Dionysian surfer. The surfer crowd unites as a resilient community, not as cogs in Apollonian centrally regulated machinery. around the world, community 'resilience' and 'transition' and 'sustainable community' initiatives are sprouting up around the world. 'In God we Trust' is coming into question, at least as far as envisioning God as a 'central authority'. God as a Dionysian surfer is meanwhile on the rise.

Quit looking at my pointing finger! so what if i have dirt under my nails. Look for yourself.

the fact that you believe that Mach’s contention that ‘atoms are not real’ has been decided fully and finally against Mach is just your belief. you can go on believing it, but what makes you want to suppress the voices of those who believe otherwise?

Ho boy, emile... have you heard of STMs? Scanning Tunneling Microscopes routinely image individual atoms. They exist. They can even be manipulated discretely. Now there are theories about what comprises atoms, but to claim that the existence of atoms is an ideological debate... that's quite a stretch. I'm not even here to defend science, in fact I can appreciate your attempts to criticize it, but I at least acknowledge what it is doing and its effects. What do you think scientists are doing with particle accelerators at SLAC, Fermilab and CERN? Why do these institutions exist?

Also, I've never written that you shouldn't post here, so I'm not trying to 'suppress' you or anybody else. I've certainly criticized your style, but I've also said that there is value in what you write. I just think the value of your text is inversely proportional to the amount of it. Feel free to post, but I really don't understand what you think you are getting out of it. In my opinion, you should be writing a book and giving lectures, not writing waves and waves of text-based comments to articles on Anarchist News. You sound like a graduate student who has developed a thesis and wants to shove it down the throats of every person coming to this site. That strikes me as psychologically bizarre and directly at odds with your anti-doer/deed credo. Your habitat-inhabitant relationship with Anarchist News is quite fascinating, but essentially you are trolling here in ways that I can't see as healthy in any manner (physiologically or mentally).

i’ll tell you why i keep raising this ‘minority view’. because it explains why authoritarian society is the dysfunctional disaster that it is. it addresses all these problems we have, and it points the finger directly at ‘realism’, a disease that science will have to recover from.

Fine. Have fun. I don't want to recover science and it seems that you do. That is probably the fundamental difference in our critiques of it. You are entangled within science... and I'd like to think that you get the dual meaning of entanglement here. It can be our own inside joke via Schrodinger. The yin yang so to speak. In any event, you are either a genius or an idiot. The only way to tell is to expose yourself to a wider audience than what Anarchist News has to offer you. To stick around here and build walls of text around Mach, Poincare, Nietzsche and others seems like a waste of time and space... relatively speaking, of course. If your activity here has value to you, type away. It's obvious enough that we have different values based on our habitat-inhabitant relationship with Anarchist News and the world beyond this screen that comprises reality.

There is reality and then there is the scientific explanation of it. It is not the other way around.

well, i hear what you are saying and while it is still more of a commentary about ‘emile’ and ‘what’s wrong with emile's behaviour’, you seem to be getting a bit more into the philosophical side of thing, which, instead of ‘debating the issues’ [trying to understand the issues] raises the stakes to ‘debating debating the issues’ [trying to understand the process of trying to understand the issues, where the issues are with our manner of investigating the issues].

the reason that i write in this anarchist forum is that this is one of the places that people come to when they are convinced that authoritarian systems of organization are dysfunctional and they reject them. this gives me more in common with the people that ‘come here’ than in regular discussion forums that identify ‘the issues’ as coming from ‘the politics’ within an authoritarian framework [where the authoritarian mode of organization itself goes unquestioned].

in this forum, the ‘scope of inquiry’ transcends ‘politics’ and includes the organizational framework that ‘politics’ is housed in. my view is that ‘the scope of inquiry’ needs to be jacked up another level still, to inquire into how we go about inquiring into things. this brings us into the level where we review our assumptions about space and time and habitat-inhabitant relations and those things which were closely examined a century ago by mach, poincaré and nietzsche etc. whose work never ‘caught on’ because it was ‘out-voiced’ by the ‘realist’ view [as contrasted with pragmatist-idealist view], which sees everything in terms of ‘is’ or ‘is not’ [something ‘exists’ or it does not ‘exist’]. Mach, Poincaré, Nietzsche and others pointed out that this view totally bypasses ‘us’, ‘the observer’ and taking account of our ‘sensory perceptions’ by which we come by our view of ‘things out there’ and ‘the world out there’. this is not to say that such ‘world out there’, ‘is’-or-‘is not’ views are not ‘useful’ but instead that they are innately INCOMPLETE, and that a ‘realistic’ worldview would have to include the observer within the world that he is observing, rather than making the subject-object split or the ‘inhabitant-habitat split’, as is the ‘norm’ for our authoritarian culture.

you are evidently in the ‘is’ or ‘is not’ camp, since you say;

“Ho boy, emile... have you heard of STMs? Scanning Tunneling Microscopes routinely image individual atoms. They exist. They can even be manipulated discretely. Now there are theories about what comprises atoms, but to claim that the existence of atoms is an ideological debate... that's quite a stretch.

what is this word ‘they’? isn’t nature a dynamic unity? what does ‘exist’ mean? Nietzsche made the perfectly valid point, as did Mach, that the objects of sight and touch, while they are ‘things we consider in themselves’, are not ‘things-in-themselves’, but we use language and aristotelian logic [EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’] to synthetically concretize them into ‘things that exist’. the tornado is an object of sight and touch that we commonly SPEAK OF as a ‘thing-in-itself’ but in terms of its habitat-inhabitant relationship in the atmospheric flow, there is no boundary which physically separates the ‘is’ realm of the inhabitant from the ‘is not’ realm of habitat?

we say that the tornado ‘grows’; i.e. it starts off spindly and can grow to a thick column. does the atmosphere shrink or does its level rise to accommodate the tornado’s growth? or are we merely looking at ‘appearances’ [transformation of the medium] instead of ‘existences’; i.e. at ‘schaumkommen’ as Schrödinger says.

most people in our culture are taught that ‘the tornado exists’ as a ‘thing-in-itself’. they are taught ‘realism’ rather than ‘pragmatist idealism’. if we taught our children ‘pragmatist idealism’, we would caution them, the persisting forms we call ‘things’ do not really ‘exist’ as 'things-in-themselves' since everything is in flux, but it is useful to treat the objects of sight and touch as if they ‘existed’ as ‘things-in-themselves’ and to construct models that help us, to a point, understand ‘the way the world works’, but we mustn’t forget that this idea of ‘thing-in-itself-existence’ and ‘identity-that-persists’ is just a ‘useful notion’ and can’t be pushed too far. these mental models based on ‘things in themselves’ do influence our individual and collective behaviour, and do reflect on our own personal sense-of-self so we need to be careful with how we use them.

for example, erich jantsch (austrian physicist) identified three basic co-inclusive levels from simpler to more complex [one can derive level one from level 2 and levels 1 and 2 from level 3] that we can use in thinking about the animative sourcing in the world; (1) things that exist that move about in a vacuum [we see ourselves as a self-contained powerboaters], (2) things/inhabitants within an environmental medium/habitat that our actions push off from or are ‘relative to’ [we see ourselves as sailboaters in turbulence], (3) an evolutionary field that not only inhabits the material forms that come and go within it, but creates them [we see ourselves as ‘field effects’ that gather material together so as to give us material form and make us objects of sight and touch].

the familiar ‘nature or nurture’ debate comes up in level two where the animative sourcing [of development and behaviour of the inhabitant] can come either from the inhabitant or from the habitat, an innately unsolvable dilemma that disappears at level three because the split between habitat and inhabitant disappears [at jantsch’s level three they are conjugate aspects of one dynamic].

level (3) is also where emerson’s ‘method of nature’ is, and people who thought like emerson and who had their own ‘evolutionary theory’ contemporary with darwin's rise to the top of the pops were called ‘transcendentalists’, referring to their belief in an animative sourcing field that was ‘beyond matter’. if emerson were a physicist, he would be in the same level (3) camp as mach, and these physicists are referred to as ‘relational theorists’ or 'relationists'

now, science obviously has ‘politics’ in it, as the battle between planck et al and mach et al make clear, and political battles are settled by which of the mutually contradicting views rallies the most people to its support [as in AGW etc.], so ‘realism’, the viewpoint that you express when you say ‘atoms are real’, is currently ‘in power’ [is 'most popular'], and the ‘relational theorizing’ of 'pragmatist idealists', is ‘out of vogue’.

there is an obvious effect on our individual and collective behaviour and sense-of-self depending on which of these ‘levels’ of viewing/modeling we take to be ‘true’ or at least as our choice for the foundation for our understanding of ‘how things work’.

(a) the neuroscientist would like to explain the individual human in powerboater terms, as if he had all the equipment onboard to completely explain his drive and direction (his animative sourcing).

(b) the evolutionary scientist such as darwin, would like to explain evolution in terms of ‘the evolution of the thing’, as in the powerboater model, while lamarck, nietzsche, emerson, see ‘evolution’ as a basic animative sourcing that permeates the universe and does not split into an 'organic version of evolution' and an 'inorganic version of evolution'. their modeling is at different levels.

(c) both the mainstream scientists and the authoritarian politician [99% of politicians], would like to explain organization in terms of ‘what things do’, as if the ‘doing’ transpired within a fixed reference frame and any and all actions were due to ‘things doing stuff’ [space is a non-participant in this view; i.e. the split between habitat and inhabitant is absolute and the habitat is viewed as passive].

summary; if one believes that ‘atoms are real’, one believes in the ‘existence’ of ‘things-in-themselves’, and therefore in the absolute ‘habitat’ – ‘inhabitant’ split. this leads one to believe that organization of the inhabitants (as in ‘community’) must be driven from out of the knowledge, intellect and purpose of the individual inhabitants. authoritarianism follows quickly from there. this is how it developed, from the notion that organization derives from ‘common purpose’. a group of people believing that will enunciate their ‘common purpose’ though a ‘common mouthpiece’. the ‘common mouthpiece’ is called ‘the leader’ in western cultural approaches to organizing the collective. due to difference in what is deemed to be ‘the common purpose’, debates will be held and the prospective leader that captures the ‘common purpose’ that captures more votes than any other will be installed as ‘the common purpose’ and everyone will not only be expected to ‘fall in line’ but the police and regulatory bodies and the legislative and court/justice processes will all be there to ‘enforce the common purpose’.

on the other hand, if one believes that ‘atoms’ are ‘ripples in the deeper substrate of an all permeating field or ‘spatial-plenum’, and that ‘atoms’, while objects of sight and touch, are an ‘idealization’ like ‘hurricanes’ [tornadoes, convection cells], and also that this is a useful language game that we play [that is limited in its ability to explain physical phenomena], one is a ‘pragmatist idealist’ or a ‘relational theorist’ or a ‘transcendentalist’ and viewed kind of like a ‘heretic’ since science and society is predominantly ‘realist’ and believes in 'absolutes' and thus 'absolute truths' as in 'is' or 'is not'.

but, if one were to renounce one’s ‘realism’ in favour of ‘pragmatist idealist’, the ‘realness’ of the doer-deed world view that sets up authoritarianism would melt into a liquefied background of field/flow. the dynamic forms of sight and touch, the inhabitants, would now to be ripple-structures in the energy-charged field-flow aka habitat-and-inhabitants-all-in-one [spatial-plenum] and the crutch of the absolutizing ‘reference frame’ that keeps the observer outside of the world he is looking into, is no longer needed.

in this ‘relational’ view, we no longer have to depend on the notion of ‘common purpose’ for the animative source of organized behaviour. organization of collectives can then in general be understood as having a spatial-relationally animative sourcing. migrations of birds, fish and animals no longer have to be understood as coming from animative sourcing in the animals themselves, as a ‘purpose in common’. instead, nature drops a trail of crumbs that the reindeer follow [lichen exposures], the warmth of the sun’s rays combined with climate/winds shines a spotlight on the snowcover that exposes/nurtures lichens and creates the trail of crumbs. the reindeer follow the trail of crumbs, a outside-inward orchestrating biochemical influence, if you like. but the realist-scientist is determined to discover an animative source of migratory behaviour in the interior of the animal, because that is his model; absolute separation between habitat and inhabitant and the inhabitant is seen as a thing-in-itself powerboater with all the inboard equipment necessary to explain his behaviour in an inside-outward asserting fashion. for years the realist scientist has been searching for celestial navigation equipment inside of migratory animals, all because of his starting assumption-model, which constrains him to put the animative sourcing of behaviour fully and solely inboard in the powerboating animal. he could take a leaf out of the book of migratory workers who move in phase with the seasons as they pick fruit and vegetables. the migratory habits of these workers are not driven inside-outward by their knowledge, intellection and purpose, they follow the trail of meal-tickets, and it matters least whether the trail of crumbs has them heading north or south in winter or summer.

our modeling assumptions shape our individual and collective behaviour. an understanding of where our systems of governance/organization originate can be found by examining our modeling assumptions.

mach’s relational theorizing was never ‘proved wrong’, it was overtaken by the politics of the scientific community [which is now scrambling for ‘fixes’ such as ‘invisible dark matter’ that influences behaviour and ‘epigenetics’ where ‘signals from the environment’ somehow 'reach inside of cells from the outside' and tell the inside-outward asserting agents of genesis what to do next].

"What I see from you is complete ignorance of the last 100 years of science in an effort to uphold your interpreation of Mach as the definition of Truth."

"Your repetition that science defines space as absolute is also verifiably false."

Thanks.

Absolutely. HA!

I'll continue to peck away at emile's world of ideas constructed by walls of text, but I exist beyond the need to do this deed.

You've never read a book on evolutionary theory in your life.

couldnt you just use actual voting stickers that you stole to do the same thing? or do they only work if you buy them from crimethincorporated?

These spread our message and generate a return on investment for all the shareholders of Crime Th Incorporated so they are preferable to stolen stickers in that way. Note: we do not condone or encourage theft. Note: there are no shareholders in Crime Th Incorporated.

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?
m
p
d
C
d
Q
N
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "CrimethInc. Presents New Site-Specific Stickers: &quot;Vote Here&quot;"
society