Our Passion for Freedom is Stronger than the State’s Prisons

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://nopoliticalrepression.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/our-passion-for-fr... Political Repression</a>

This statement was given by grand jury resistors this morning at a press conference in Portland, OR:

Hi my name is Dennison. I will be reading a statement on behalf of Dennison Williams, Leah-Lynn Plante. The two of us were subpoenaed to the secret grand jury to begin meeting on Thursday investigating anarchists.

We are releasing this statement to make clear our intention to resist the grand jury. We will not co-operate with their investigation. If we appear before the grand jury, we will not answer any questions other than our names. If we are asked additional questions, we will invoke our First, Fourth,and Fifth Amendment rights. Under no circumstances will we talk about other people.

This grand jury is a tool of political repression. It is attempting to turn individuals against each other by coercing those subpoenaed to testify against their communities. The secret nature of grand jury proceedings creates mistrust and can undermine solidarity. And imprisoning us takes us from our loved ones and our responsibilities.</td><td><img title="Fuck yeah, Leah & Dennison!" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/dennisonleah.jpg"></td></tr...

But our passion for freedom is stronger than the state’s prisons. Our refusal to cooperate with the grand jury is a reflection of our own desires for a liberated world and our support for others who are working to bring that world into being. We support the efforts of all those who will be resisting this grand jury.

If you would like to join us, please visit: http://nopoliticalrepression.wordpress.com. There you can find out how to sign on to a solidarity statement, donate money to our defense and support campaign, and write us should we be imprisoned.

More importantly, though, you can show your solidarity by refusing to co-operate with any police force and encouraging your friends and families to do the same. The police do not protect us, and do nothing to bring justice to those who have been hurt by others. If we want real safety, and real justice, we need to begin creating liberatory alternatives to the state’s institutions.

Comments

Fuck yeah! Stay Strong!

juggalos would whoop all over these softies.

juggatariat revolution!!!!

Look at those fucking cuties. Solidarity!

Absolute, undeniable love and solidarity to you. Stay brave!

So cute I could puke.

WE GOT YOUR BACK. love & solidarity

a+ to these couple of cool babes

YES!!! solidarity and love from KC.

WHOOP WHOOP from Phoenix AZ

Miniature Dachshunds and grand jury resistance! Solidarity comRADes!

wtf no trolling about rights?

seriously! that was my first thought when i read this. trolls are really unreliable, jeez...

unreliable lately****

That picture is major heart-eyes. You two are awesome!

This is real shit. I'm in love with you both

Love and solidarity and respect from this anon the middle of nowhere. Wish you were here.

Total silence, total solidarity.
Love from Brooklyn

Love and Solidarity from Philly

Not to be a downer but... thats easy to say beforehand. But i sure hope you are right!

L-O-V-E from the S-E-A

Love, Rage, and Solidarity. We've got your backs in NYC. Stay strong. Stay silent. Stay fucking awesome.

My strong support for this; --- “Our refusal to cooperate with the grand jury is a reflection of our own desires for a liberated world and our support for others who are working to bring that world into being.”, brings out the following comment on this; --- “If we want real safety, and real justice, we need to begin creating liberatory alternatives to the state’s institutions.”

no, we don't, because ‘institutions’ are the problem. they are the result of scientific/analytical inquiry into the nature of ‘organization’ in some or other dynamic form followed by a confused belief that the free and naturally emergent organization ‘really works that way’. free and naturally emerging community organization is where people find themselves in ‘situations’ that elicit their response and they ‘rise to the occasion’. the situation where a fight is about to break out elicits the ‘rising to the occasion’ of someone or other, the situation where someone is injured elicits the ‘rising to the occasion’ of someone or other to tend to them, the situation where the children are hungry and need to be fed elicits the ‘rising to the occasion’ of someone or other to go out and gather food for them.

scientific/analytic inquiry breaks everything into components and studies the activity out of the context of the ‘outside-inward orchestrating influence’ coming from ‘situational inclusion in the habitat dynamic’ and it defines and name-labels the first person the ‘policeman’ and the second person the ‘medic’, and the third person the ‘provider’ etc. etc.. the error [of science and Western civilization with its ‘institutions’] is then to describe the behavioural dynamic of the community in terms of these ‘components’ thus confusing ‘what is really going on’ by portraying the activity of the community as a one-sided, forward driving doer-deed cause-and-effect machine dynamic. now we have ‘jobs’ and ‘employment’ and ‘training’ and ‘wages’ [to fuel the actions of these components from the inside outward] and we have a ‘central authority’, a ‘community manager’, to control and coordinate all of these ‘components’ in the community.

gone is the outside-inward organization-orchestrating influence that arises from an individual's ‘situational inclusion in the habitat dynamic’ that induces a ‘rising to the occasion’ that pulls the creative/productive assertive potentialities of the individual into blossom and accommodates/receives/nurtures and otherwise encourages him in his 'becoming who he becomes'. this ignoring of outside-inward, situational orchestrating/sourcing of development is Nietzsche’s criticism of Darwinism. Did aboriginal communities START with jobs, wages, job-training to stockpile the component resources for their community? No, they let the individual’s situational inclusion within a dynamic ‘free space’ orchestrate his development through his own ‘rising to the occasion’ or 'will-to-power'. Was there training? Yes, but as the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky points out in 'Thought and Language', like Nietzsche, natural learning is ‘situational learning’ where the situation a person finds himself/herself included in has ‘demands’ that beckon to the individual to ‘rise to the occasion’. In natural learning, this is given priority and ‘knowledge’ from educators is supplied in support of the person who is answering his situational inclusion based call to ‘rise to the occasion’. Vygotsky argued that structured education was a ‘screw-up’ influenced by people like Piaget who failed to understand ‘concept formation’ (spontaneous concepts form in conjugate relation with non-spontaneous scientific concepts).

If one wants a ‘free and natural community’, one does not want to “begin creating liberatory alternatives to the state’s institutions.” because there is no need and no place for ‘institutions’ alternative or otherwise in ‘free and natural community’, because free and natural community does not operate like a machine [it does not require jobs and wages]. The organization we call a ‘family’ is not [in a free and natural family] something we run like a machine where everyone is assigned a job and told what to do by the boss. It works by individuals ‘rising to the occasion’ as beckoned by the ‘situation’ they are included in. In a free and natural community dynamic there is a non-Marxian flavour of ‘from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to their need’. but in this case it is NOT a principle enforced by bureaucrats and their institutions, but is instead a value shared by the participants.

this comment is posted; (a)in support of those resisting repression, and (b) to help avoid the pitfall of falling into the same trap all over again [reducing 'community' to job-and-wage-driven machinery and depriving people of the natural incentive of 'rising to the occasion' as the primary animative sourcing of their development and behaviour].

shut up and stop being nit-picky. an alternative to the state's institutions could very well mean no institutions all together. but they didn't have endless amount of time and room to rant about it like you just did.

i don’t mind contributing my time to a good cause. and the authors call for work to begin developing an alternative to our institution-driven society is timely. discussion on architectures and the implications of different architectures will be needed. in case you didn’t notice, my comment was not ‘nit-picking’ but offering a view on why ‘institutions’ do not work (and why similar approaches will not work).

LOVE and CHAOS for you from Void Network / Athens / Greece

Well it just so happens that the deconstruction of institional power is the main anarchist desire, and merely succumbing to its process is a somewhat reformist martyrdom stance. It certainly comes second to making a run for the Mexican border, or becoming a master of disguise. Where has all the theatrics gone out of life experiences? Has even rebellion become so middle-class?

rebellion is slow to start in this case because things are still very unclear on a collective basis. everybody knows the deal is rotten, as leonard cohen sings, but not everyone is certain as to ‘what to rebel against’. intra-western civilization rebellions (wars) are based on intellectually categorizing other people as the enemy and seeking to overpower them. in an aboriginal-anarchist world, people are not things-in-themselves with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviours, so one doesn’t rebel against categories of people, per se [such as races and/or sovereign state members] but one rebels against machine-organization-beliefs that are upstream from individual behaviours. all western civilized members who ‘believe’ in the 'reality' of 'what things-in-themselves do' are ‘psychos’ so the rebellion is against those belief systems which organize people as control-based machinery. the aboriginal-anarchist who steals a white family’s child to replace one of theirs that has been killed by whites, knows that ‘the western civilization’ does not live in the child’s body, nor does his sovereign state membership live in the child's body.

compared with the standard intra-western civilization rebellion, this ‘anarchist rebellion’ is initially somewhat confused and slow to start since some would like to identify categories of people to rebel against, like the rich and the police because they are members of that intellectually established category. now, in the aboriginal anarchist view, one will rebel against injurious behaviours coming from rich people and coming from the police, without confusing the rebellion as targetting an intellectual category such as a ‘race’, a sovereign state membership, or an institutional membership. another way to say this is that the injurious behaviour is what is rebelled against and it ‘emerges’ when the psycho belief on the part of people that they are cogs in some machine or other, take hold of and hijack their behaviour so that it harms others. otherwise, the person identified as being in a category, by the colour of their skin, by their gender, by their passport, by their institutional membership ID cards [as with HUAC and communists] is logically sufficient to rebel against; i.e. as it has been in our psycho western civilization.

‘theatrics’ or rather ‘courageous commitment’ to the cultivating and sustaining of free relational behaviour in a world of control-seeking machinery, has not gone away [surely we don’t want the theatrics of HUAC to show up in some form or other again]. this time, in this anarchist rebellion, the ‘rebelling against’ must be based in real experiences, in defending free relational behaviour. formerly, rebellion was ‘quicker’ and often pre-emptive in the case of intra-western civilization rebellion since the conflict was between intellectualized categories that could be identified out of the context of actual physical behaviour.

Thanks Emile for a down to earth concise rant for a change ;)

Seconded.

That's the wisdom of the mushroom experience: dissolving the boundaries maintained and maintenanced by male dominance hierarchies.

Stories are used in the creation, and then maintenance of boundaries...until the myths they make become more important than truth. The picture on the front of a bag of dog food showing us some food porn is not what's inside. Disconnect. Taco bell commercials show us a grilled meal of five star quality fresh food...not all of the relationships that go into making it: all of the oil needed, factories, labs, wage slaves, etc...

"I know taco bell is bad for me, but it tastes so good, and it's cheap."

What about the landfills taco bell makes? It's convenience, it's efficiency is more important. It's all about you, and making your life so convenient you don't have to leave your car! Like us on Facebook and tell all your friends how much you enjoyed your dining experience. You could have a chance at winning some cool stuff!

Barf.

Boundaries are there for our efficiency. Think about it. That's the mythology of our times. That's the mythology of technology, how we're supposed to think and feel about it. Yet, the myth never goes into how it's procured.

good comment. i agree;

“Stories are used in the creation, and then maintenance of boundaries...until the myths they make become more important than truth.”

but i wouldn’t say boundaries are for efficiency. they are for our rhetorical convenience. we can use them to distort our rendering of the physical world. taco bell is not amongst the examples that comes to my mind, but so what.

whether the purported boundaries are the boundaries of the sovereign state, the boundaries between owned properties, the boundaries of membership in a category, corporation or species, the boundaries between me and you, ... they are not ‘real’, they are ‘idealization’. there is no boundary between hurricane and atmosphere, habitat and inhabitant. there are no boundaries in ‘physical reality’, as Mach, Schroedinger and others have pointed out. the world dynamic is one dynamic; i.e. it is holodynamic. once we distinguish dynamic forms within the holodynamic we give them names and since the names imply plurality and diversity, boundaries are implied on the basis of plurality and diversity; i.e. on the basis of language and definitions. sometimes this is useful and sometimes it is not so useful but it is never ‘physical reality’. boundaries are tied up with the concept of ‘identity’. in a fluid-dynamical world [energy-charged spatial-flow-plenum] identity has no meaning. identity derives from language, from our defining things. the validity and meaning of these defined things depends on common belief. a word has no particular meaning unless at least two people believe that it does.

‘identity’ or ‘being’ is a total Fiktion as Nietzsche says. it can be a very useful Fiktion in some cases but it is a Fiktion, and it engenders a lot of dysfunction in some cases. for example, Mach’s principle implies there are no boundaries between material bodies in the universe. General relativity suggests the same; i.e. gravity is everywhere in the universe at the same time, and matter is variation in the gravity and other fields. visual sensing and tactile sensing brings us differences between the textured spatial relations in the energy-charged spatial plenum, and we can put names to these and impute identity to dynamic forms (variations in the texture of space) but the distinctions are language based.

the boundaries between the seven seas are between the word-names, the same for the continents.

boundaries can’t be trusted. boundaries can be used in discussion to manipulate your understanding.

how about the boundaries of syria. they were invented by the french and british in the early 1900s who colonized and carved up the middle east into states they hoped [or architected so that they] would never grow strong.

assad, like qaddafy earlier on, doesn’t want syria to join the western powers club. how tough is that? how many outside-supported insurrections will be attempted? how could it ever be possible to have a free country under those conditions. if the western powers encouraged a dozen insurrections, how bad would an assad or a qaddafy look? and on top of that, how bad would freedom in the country suffer? there would be protesters in the street, particularly those with relatives in the west. protest in the streets proves the ugliness and evil of the dictatorial regime [or is there something even bigger going on?]. the protestors are so fed up with the dictator that they are making their own SAM missiles in their garage/workshop. the oakland protestors were pretty mad, why didn’t they make some SAM missiles? are the syrians more enterprising? ... or who is it that is more enterprising?

how well-defined is the boundary between syria and the western military-industrial complex? the news media treats the boundary as if it were ‘real’, as if there is an internal syrian family squabble going on, a civil war. that means that the conflict is between two factions within the boundaries of one state. it was a civil war in libya too, so they say. lots of nato bombing runs, but that was just to stop libyan citizen from getting hurt.

boundaries are for our rhetorical convenience. they are not physically real.

You cannot say all boundaries are 'bad', 'not real', and "maintained and maintenanced by male dominance hierarchies" just as you cannot say all boundaries are 'bad', 'real', and have the 'right' to exist. that's complete stupidity, and can leads to total horrors in the extreme either way.

It's case by case.

Creating boundaries can be just as revolutionary as smashing them.

strike second 'bad' *good*

My point was that we invent boundaries for rhetorical convenience.

The international date line at 180 degrees longitude we invented so that we could use ‘time’, as counted by clocks and calendars, anywhere in the world to coordinate activities. Since a new day is continually dawning [the present is a continuing present and there is no boundary between yesterday, today and tomorrow, as Janis Joplin [Kris K] put it, ... ‘it is all the same fucking day’], we have to deal with two calendar days at once and agree who, in the world, is living in the one calendar day or the other. i.e. the passage of time is not a physical phenomena in a relational space; i.e. change is the transformation of spatial relations, not some ‘thing’ ‘getting older’ [such as; the universe, the earth, the sovereign state, the human] . The succession of pictures we might take of a person with time and date stamps on them implies that ‘they are changing in time’, but if we look at the earth’s biosphere, it is a relational space that persists as new things are developing within it at the same time as older things are dissipating and as populations of this are expanding and as populations of that are declining and as new species are emerging and as old species are becoming extinct.

in other words, the changing spatial relations in the biosphere are primary and the notional ‘things’ are secondary; ... 'things' for which we need ‘boundaries’ for them to notionally exist, ... as in Aristotelian logic; A cannot equal not.A. which means that the inside of A cannot equal the outside of A which says that in going from the inside of A to the outside, there must be some point where one passes from A to not.A. the collection of such points is ‘the boundary between A and not.A’. Because we find it convenient to discuss 'physical reality'; i.e. 'dynamic forms in the flow', idealizing the dynamic forms as ‘discrete entities’ or ‘independent beings’ or ‘things-in-themselves’, we need this IDEA of a ‘boundary’. in fact, by drawing a boundary, we can create a 'thing', as the colonizing powers of europe realized. all that remains is drumming up common belief in the boundary.

since the boundary does not exist in physical reality, but only as a rhetorical convenience, it is an idea that depends on common belief in it. for example, the media is telling us that syria is experiencing ‘civil war’ between ‘the rebels’ and ‘the government’. do you believe this? in the first place, ‘syria’ does not exist physically [it is a belief]. syria is one of those notional imaginary-line-bounded sovereign states invented by colonization to better control what went on in the middle east region.

the idea of the western colonizing powers was to install puppet governments in the bounded landforms they invented [unilaterally declared to 'exist']. shortfalls in puppet performance have, from time to time, required the replacement of those ‘heads of state’ whose puppet report cards are wanting. since ‘the story for public digestion is’ that these bounded colonies are free and independent entities, replacing defective puppets must be seen as coming from the ‘inside’ of the ‘bounded area’, hence the notion of ‘civil war’ and the dusting off of the term ‘freedom fighters’ for this occasion [terrorists will not serve this political purpose, although Assad uses this term as Obama would as well.

all of this 'civil war' rhetoric is bullshit, of course, and it is bullshit made possible by BELIEF IN BOUNDARIES. boundaries are implied by noun and verb language, one can’t use our European languages without a psychological dependency on the notion of ‘boundaries’. boundaries are not ‘things-in-themselves’ so there is no meaning in debating whether ‘they are good or bad’. the real question concerns the stories that are spun that depend on people accepting/believing in boundaries; i.e. buying into stories that depend on boundaries that, meanwhile, do not physically exist. exactly as anon 20:07 put it;

“Stories are used in the creation, and then maintenance of boundaries...until the myths they make become more important than truth.”

the notion of a civil war inside the imaginary line bounded sovereign state of syria between an evil dictator and noble freedom fighters is rallying the public opinion of people in the western colonial power alliance towards pitching in with the ‘noble freedom fighters’ to overthrow the evil dictator and replace him with a democratic leader who will be a valued member of the western colonial power alliance. of course, russia and china see the rebels who are looking for help from the western colonial power alliance, as being sponsored by the latter, as part of a defective puppet replacement process, and even if the rebels are ‘honest people looking for a better and freer life’, as is often the case, they may be willing to make a deal with the devil in order to improve their situation. after all, the early colonial settlers on Turtle Island/America made a deal with the devil involving their complicity [active or passive] in the genocide of indigenous peoples;

“ "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" ... and all we are asking in return from you are a few aboriginal scalps so that we can secure the boundaries that define this new piece of superb real-estate and split it amongst ourselves. this is a devilishly good deal that you, in your pitiful condition, can’t afford to refuse. think of your starving and sickly children, ... sign right here, below that splotch of blood.

were the settlers ‘conned’ by a story based on boundaries? did those that invited them there ‘really’ ‘own’ the property bounded to the north by notional british and french properties and to the south by notional spanish properties? was the ‘ownership deed’ valid. was there any legitimacy to the complaint by aboriginals who were raising property ownership questions? are today’s property deeds, which were based on the legitimacy of those early land-claim boundaries, valid? is the story of ‘united nations’ not the story of global colonization?

hey, i’m all for people living together in the common, physically unbounded space on earth, freely and in peace and harmony, but how about all these stories about boundaries? these boundaries exist only in our minds; i.e. only in the minds of those who believe in them; e.g. the colonizers and their followers, for starters. since boundaries are not real, they cannot be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

p.s. the individual or group that ‘makes a deal with the devil [a great power that loves to control and manipulate]’ to improve ‘their position in life’ and thus become ‘puppets’ as the price of sustaining their new position, is a ‘general topology’. it is the archetypeal story of svengali and trilby where svengali convinces trilby [by hypnosis] that she has more power [in her voice] than she has [i.e. more than she can normally ‘muster’]. the price of her newly acquired power is having to remain a puppet to the devil she made the deal with. [Wikipedia: - The word "svengali" has come to refer to a person who, with evil intent, controls another person by persuasion or deceit. The Svengali may feign kindness and use manipulation to get the other person to yield his or her autonomy.]

the puppet-head of a colonial powers-created state holds on to his power as head honcho at the price of being a puppet [of US, NATO, Russia, China etc.]. if he becomes a rogue/rebel honcho who tries to take his whole group with him, he will become subject to a ‘defective puppet replacement program’, where one of his group will be offered the puppet job if he helps bring down the defective puppet. this is the same thing the state prosecutor offers to rebel group members to neutralize the rebellion; e.g. jacob ferguson becomes a citizen in good standing [a puppet] for bringing down daniel mcgowan.

the base case in aboriginal or pre-colonizer or de-colonized society for just living in family and community does not require any deal with the devil.

in colonizer society, there is no doubt about it; your status as a member is as a puppet. your power to reside and work and raise a family is sold to you by a great power that loves to control and manipulate, in exchange for your being their puppet. the great power comes from ‘belief’ in the system; i.e. it is a form of hypnosis that Thomas Mann describes through the analogue of the magician’s effect upon a crowd, in Mario and the Magician [1929] (speaking of rising fascism in Europe);

“The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.”

the point here is that it is a crime simply to renounce one’s puppet status. standing by while one’s brothers and sisters [creatures of the forest plains and oceans included] are abused while the state protects the abusers is the requirement for keeping one’s puppet status in good standing [free of criminal infractions]. there is no such crime in an aboriginal or decolonized society because the organizational schema is free and natural and does not employ the 'manipulative power - obedient puppet' organizing [herd-behaviour generating] principle.

I agree with you that in an objective sense, when we consider 'the whole', in its extreme relativity, time does not have boundaries. But most of us are incapable of thinking this way, except abstractly and in repose - we see the world only as the appearances of our immediate surrounding, or within the imaginary of the media we consume (for some this is the primary first layer of thought, for other, secondary). Whether that is 'real' or not - we imagine it is - and in most cases, we *have* to imagine it is, else we would not know how to *act* with in it.

As you say, this is all in our mind - we are creating the world as humans imagine it - and it is constantly re-imagined. The boundaries are 'all in our mind' but so too is our imagining of the universe working as a whole - we can't know whether we are 'correct' or not.

Do you propose the world would be more conducive to 'anarchy' if people only imagined 'no boundaries'? Is that even possible?

Thanks for the thoughts - boundaries are interesting to me.

“Do you propose the world would be more conducive to 'anarchy' if people only imagined 'no boundaries'? Is that even possible?”

yes and yes.

don’t forget that other cultures do it all the time. in fact we all do it all the time, it is only when we talk about it that it ‘goes away’. as wittgenstein said, we confuse our thoughts for our language-based propositions [ “Die Klärung der Gedanken wird mit der Klärung von Sätzen identifiziert.” that is, we confuse the clarity of our thoughts with the clarity of our word-based propositions. meanwhile, our thoughts go farther than language based propositions can go. our language based propositions ‘hit a boundary/limit’ but not our thoughts. if we try to go beyond that limit in language, we will be babbling non-sense.

taoists and buddhists allude to this situation where words can only go so far while thoughts can go further;

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

i am not talking about ‘finding god’ and then we no longer need to talk and reason about things. but i can see how it could be construed this way, so in a sense i am talking about ‘finding the god in the machine’, but not in the religious sense, in a reasoned sense, ... except we have to go beyond the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third to the BOTH/AND logic of the included third. this logic is needed in quantum physics [Lupasco, Nicolescu] and relational space [Mach, Schroedinger, Poincaré]

what is implied in Mach’s principle [the relational nature of space] is that the ‘inhabitant’ is included in the ‘habitat’ and vice versa. when we hear this, we think in the terms that if we start from a position inside of the inhabitant and move away from its centre, at some point we will move outside of the inhabitant into the habitat. that is, the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third jumps first to mind. but consider a tornado [or hurricane or convection cell]. we start with a homogenous volume of air and sandwich this between something hot on the bottom and a cold layer on top, the air expands radially outwards at the bottom, rises up, goes inward at the top and dives down inside of itself, reaches the bottom/ground and repeats the cyclic flow. since the flow is circular (toroidal, actually), the flow is a sink and a source at the same time. the tubular body can and does move through its own ‘outside’ and there is no boundary between its inside and its outside even though it seems to have an ‘outside’ and an ‘inside’. when we look at this dynamic, we need not ask the nature-nurture question; i.e. how much influence are the interior processes contributing to the overall dynamic and how much influence are the exterior processes contributing to the overall dynamic? we need not ask the question because there is just one dynamic with two conjugate aspects, convergence into a sink and divergence out of a source. it is sort of, ... ‘hermaphroditic’, ... like the Zero of the Amerindian ‘Zero Chiefs’.

that [i.e. toroidal flow] is a model for a basic particle and for material bodies in general, and it avoids there having to be any boundaries between space and matter or habitat and inhabitant and it agrees with Mach’s principle; “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”

it is a way of visualizing relational space in terms of energy flow where ‘matter’ is secondary; i.e. as in schroedinger’s view, ‘an energy resonance’ or ‘standing wave form’.

ok, it has cropped up in a number of religions including gnostic christians; e.g. the ‘Gospel of Thomas’;

"Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

the ‘kingdom’ [heaven] was understood by the sufi’s and i think also the gnostics as being here on earth and arising from a different way of understanding the same things. here is a comment by a sufi scholar;

“It is the awakening of the soul which is mentioned in the Bible: unless the soul is born again it will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. For the soul to be born again means that it is awakened after having come on earth, and entering the kingdom of heaven means entering this world in which we are now standing, the kingdom which turns into heaven as soon as the point of view has changed. Is it not interesting and most wonderful to think that the same earth that we walk on is earth to one person and heaven to another? And it is still more interesting to notice that it is we who change it from earth to heaven. This change comes not by study nor by anything else but by the changing of our point of view.”

mach’s dispute with the ‘mainstream’ which he called ‘the Church of Physics’ [Einstein et al] was over this sort of thing. Mach said that science was in the process of locking themselves up in the ‘psychical world’, the world of ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’) and denying themselves access to the ‘physical world’. That seems to be a layover to the sufi statement and to the Gospel of Thomas.

you might want to tie this to comments on ‘male’ and ‘female’ right here
over here

shifting to a slightly more mundane view of the same thing. systems scientist russell ackoff observed that systems emerge before we define and name them and subject them to ‘analytic inquiry’ [break them down into parts and try to understanding them as ‘things-in-themselves’]. his point was that ‘analytical inquiry’ can get you to this view, you need ‘synthetical inquiry’. his example is ‘the university’ which we know as a ‘system’ and we know it by analytical inquiry and how it works as a ‘thing-in-itself’. but he notes that if you move up to the suprasystem of the full community dynamic [and/or habitat dynamic] in which the system is included, the system was included there even before we defined and named it. that is, in the web of relations of the community dynamic, a certain flow-pattern was developing, not by purpose or plan but by the web of social relations that characterizes a community. so the ‘system’ of university is a relational feature in the community dynamic [in the suprasystem]. but when we study systems analytically, we see them as ‘things-in-themselves’, describing their departments, faculties, processes/activities, physical structures and operational components like faculty/students etc. and we use this analytical ‘in-and-back-out-again inquiry to understand the system as a thing-in-itself. but as ackoff says, we have to ground this in ‘out-and-back-in-again’ inquiry or what he calls ‘synthetical inquiry’ to find out what is the needed function in the suprasystem it is being sucked into existence to fulfil. the suprasystem or ‘habitat’ or ‘ambient space’ the ‘system’ is in, continually breathes life into the system or else it dies.

now, we’ve got the analogue of the tornado/toroidal flow where “you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, ...”

in the community dynamic or suprasystem dynamic is an ‘invisible receptacle’ that is purely relational that IS the system in a kind of relational flow sense. what we actually ‘see’ as the university is the analytical ‘thing-in-itself’ view of it as a ‘local, visible, material system’.

in Mach’s relational space view, this nonlocal, nonvisible, non-material aspect of the system, although we normally equate a system SOLELY to its local, visible, material aspects, is ‘physical reality’. the standard ‘analytical’ ‘thing-in-itself’ view of the system is ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’).

this is the implication in Pirsig’s ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ where he says that it is no good to start from the manual, which is the analytical thing-in-itself view, to understand how to maintain the motorcycle, one has to start from the nonlocal, non-material relation ‘soul of the machine’, one has to understand the shape of the wineglass from the glassblower’s breath.

in any case, if one can tune into thinking this way, one will transform into an amerindian or ‘in Dios’ (one who is ‘in the kingdom’).

of course, the web of relations go on and on as we are really talking about the space-time continuum which is a relational spatial plenum as being the suprasystem in which the system is included as an invisible niche of which we see the local, visible, material aspect of, as in the case of a hurricane or etc.

so, that is the boundaryless space which it seems to me that we can all ‘get into’ more or less well. there’ my first yes.

now, the anarchist is going to look like the guy who understands this boundaryless, relational space as the physical reality [as Mach said]. he understands that when he sees fred put a bullet through bob’s head and kill him, that this is not ‘physical reality’, but ‘schaumkommen’. that is, we are included in a transforming relational space and this action is somehow part of the transformation but we can see the shooting but not the transformation. perhaps it is the last shooting in a multigenerational feud that has killed thousands, so that it is a ‘good thing’ rather than a ‘bad thing’ as the basic data taken on its own suggests. transformation is the more comprehensive understanding of dynamics.

the clarity of the language based proposition ‘fred shot bob’ seems to make our thoughts come out clear, as wittgenstein said, but the end of the long feud seems like its physically real too. so is it a good thing or a bad thing?

here we can fall back on this same sort of paradox where the colonizers were contending ‘we are constructing a wonderful new world in America’ and the amerindians were saying; ‘the colonizers are destroying a wonderful established world on turtle island’. this paradox can’t be resolved short of them agreeing that the both share inclusion in a common space, A RELATIONAL SPACE THAT IS CONTINUALLY TRANSFORMING.

i.e. transformation of the relational space we all share inclusion in is PHYSICAL REALITY and these tidbits in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, like bob shooting fred or ‘colonizers constructing a wonderful new world’ are ‘appearances’ that we happened to see. there are all kinds of things influencing how the world we are included in is transforming that we do not get to see, but we do experience how the world is transforming, and what we are experiencing is physical reality.

the anarchist is one who does not get hung up confusing ‘what things-in-themselves do’ for ‘reality’. that confusion is what we are trying to get out of. we get out of it by acknowledging the natural primacy of the relational space [boundaryless] worldview.

Emile, I've heard you have more important people to talk to. Ciao.

I agree. The mere act of organising is an hierarchical invasion of individual sovereignty. Western Judeo-Christian sentimental ethics, with their merchant social structure having invaded, slaughtered, and colonized indigenous inhabitants for the pursuit of a humanist Utopia suddenly are aware that THEY FUCKED UP! They deny and destroy the natural freedom that indigenous peoples enjoy, whose values are in syncronicity with the natural world, food and shelter are free, time has no relevance, the alarm clock is a capitalist construct, the anarchist desires a calm existence living at idling speed, a qualitative style devoid of social control mechanisms.

Thanks for the feedback. We have updated our statement for future releases and will be having a discussion about the laguage we are using in a future meeting.

IGTT 12/10

awe, solidarity and velvet from the rural northeast.

not even all anarchists agree that rebellion is necessary. sad

OMG was that dog subpoenaed too?

Miniature dachshunds can slip through the iron bars, unleashable doggy!

Emile, I've heard you have anon - Sun, 2012-08-05 04:59
.
Emile, I've heard you have more important people to talk to. Ciao.
.
.
ah, yes, those who were the ‘followers of the Church of Physics’ thought that it was Mach who was listening to The-Great-Metaphysician-in-the-Sky while Mach could see that people who believe that material dynamics are ‘physical reality’ rather than ‘appearances’ are the ones who are listening to the ‘great metaphysician in their own heads’, the one that declares that the dynamics of our real-life experience, re-cast and greatly clarified with the help of notional ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ reference framings and crisp language based propositions, are ‘physically real’.

so, stay in your head-church, if it pleases you.

when your internal metaphysician is talking to you, ask him or her whether the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was ‘physical reality’ and whether the Japan earthquake of 2011 was ‘physical reality’. because some Macheans, with their relational space view, have been saying that the physical reality is the convection cells in the lithosphere that are interdependent with the celestial dynamics they are included in, and that these 'earthquake' events are not ‘real physical events in themselves, they are ‘local perspectives’ associated with a ‘larger physical phenomenon’; i.e. 'the larger phenomenon' of ‘transformation’ in a relational space.

if the body of the earth is fluid and the skin of the earth is cracking here and there and coming up in volcanic boils here and there, do we pass over that global relational transforming and speak of physical reality in association with ‘the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906’, saying that ‘it was caused by’ slippage along the BOUNDARY between two ‘plates’, a boundary marked by the ‘San Andreas fault’? i.e. instead of acknowledging a global physical reality, do we instead speak in terms of the ‘local perspective’ as if that local perspective were 'the physical reality'? If the earth is in a condition of transformation and if earthquake events and volcanic events are ‘punctuation marks’ in this continuing transformation, then we have two options for ‘physical reality’; (a) the event of the earthquake as an event-in-itself which we can trace back, using our doer-deed, local cause-effect model, to ‘what things-in-themselves do’; i.e. to slippage between the opposite faces of the San Andreas fault, or (b) the continuing flow of the earth’s lithosphere which is included in the continuing flow of the universe understood as a relational space that is transforming in the continuing present.

Mach chose (b) as physical reality, asserting that (a) was a local perspective based on ‘appearances’ which we document, for convenience, in terms of ‘what local things in themselves locally do’, a 'localized in space and time' view based on measurements made possible by invoking notional absolute space and absolute time reference frames. The choice of what constitutes ‘physical reality’ that was ‘popularized’, in spite of Mach's choice of (b), was that of ‘The Church of Physics’; i.e. (a), the ‘what locally-existing-things-in-themselves locally do’.

As Mach noted, in a transforming relational space, things are going on all over the place, like volcanics over here, earthquakes over there, ocean basins opening here, ocean basins closing here, and these are all part of the One dynamic of transformation of the relational space. it is THIS relational space dynamic that is ‘physical reality’, not the local earthquake that is artificially 'localized/absolutized’ by imagining it ‘playing out’ all on its own, inside an absolute space and absolute time reference box.

This makes it appear as if ‘the-great-San-Francisco-earthquake-of-1906’ and ‘the-great-Japan-earthquake-of-2011’ are local events-in-themselves that can be explained by local causes, using the ‘what-things-in-themselves do’ mental model, explaining their ‘source’ in terms of local slippages along plate boundaries. The buck stops right there, at the ‘boundary dynamics’ and we have a ‘what-things-in-themselves-do’ mental model that, according to our crisp and clear language propositions, is ‘the full truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth SO HELP ME GOD’. and God has indeed helped this ‘what-things-in-themselves-do’ view, with His providing some absolutist metaphysics to make it possible; i.e. an absolute space frame and an absolute time frame. With these two divine metaphysical tools, we can localize any relational phenomena you like.

Now, we have the same situation and the same choices in social dynamics. We have the equivalent of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions all over the world, and the same two choices arise as to which is ‘physical reality’. Using our metaphysical framing tools, we can localize each ‘protest incident’ and capture it in localized terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, the justice system does this, of course, and then when the fellow who smashed some bank windows appears in court, witnesses will get up and on sworn oath, will declare that their account of this man smashing the windows is ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God’.

Scuse me! what about all the other window smashings and eruptions all over the damn globe, is that not ‘part of the truth’? Are the ‘tensions’ around the globe and the associated ‘transformation’ NOT physical reality?

Anarchists are not ‘unrealistic’. They understand that the local incidents are not going to be the ‘cause’ of social transformation. Social transformation is on its way and it is physically real and it is 'bigger than' the local pop-up incidents that are not simply/solely 'local' but which derive from something much larger, from the the web of relations in our common living space. That’s where the social tensions come from; e.g. from the web of social relations that give rise to rich and poor, richly opportunized and poorly opportunized/diopportunized.

We can’t realistically regard local events that we have artificially localized using our metaphysical tools of absolute space and absolute time that artificially ‘split them out’ of the relational transformation, as ‘physically real’. They are ‘psychical’, ‘schaumkommen’, based on a localizing perspective, they are not ‘physical reality’.

The owner of a sidewalk cafe that is damaged in a protest/demonstration is likely to focus in on what is happening locally, and pursue ‘justice’ through the courts where witnesses will testify that the accused is guilty and that their testimony is ‘the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth so help me God’. But when protests that cause such damage get to the point that they are going on everywhere, all around the world, the owner will likely drop the ‘us’ and ‘them’ stance and say; ‘we’ve got a problem’. But the courts of justice will never get there because the judges and prosecutors consider themselves ‘above’ all that goes on out there, and they are authorized to see the acts of people in the absolutized terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, and apply absolutized moral codes of behaviour and absolutized secular laws of behaviour to the notionally INDEPENDENT acts of notionally INDEPENDENT people-as-things-in-themselves. This is a picture made possible by the metaphysics of absolute space and absolute time reference framing.

As Mach says, without the ‘metaphysics’ of absolute space and absolute time reference framing, physical reality coincides with ‘relational transformation’. Local events [local what-things-in-themselves-do events] are then appropriately demoted to ‘schaumkommen’, ‘appearances’, A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE OF A GLOBAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.

“That which is given to all in common we call the ‘physical’; that which is directly given only to one we call the ‘psychical’. That which is given only to one can also be called the ‘ego’ [ich].” – Ernst Mach, ‘The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge’.

How does a person ‘think’ and 'act' when he accepts ‘relational transformation’ as ‘physical reality’ and ‘local what-things-in-themselves-do events’ as ‘appearances’ or ‘local perspective on something that is global, so much so that he is included in it rather than looking out at it’?

Would he not think that the ‘incident’ that occurred in the protest/demonstration was, to the transforming world social dynamic, like the local earthquake is to the convecting flow of the global lithosphere, and that rather than ‘its meaning’ [e.g. its goodness or badness] coming ‘from the incident itself’, the meaning would be top-sided by the meaning associated with the transformation, which, being continual, never finalizes as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but is ‘life as it is’.

The judgement of good and evil behaviour based on ‘local incidents’ would then give way to ‘restorative justice’ where the aim is not to determine guilt or innocence relative to an absolute law, but to keep bringing everyone back together to restore balance and harmony in the community social dynamic [to bring the murdering raping child soldier back into the community rather than judging and condemning him to death]. This implies that the transformation going on in the region that swept him along in it, is the physical reality, and the criminal events he was involved in are ‘local perspectives on a more global physical reality’]. This shift from viewing physical reality in local/absolutized terms of (a) ‘what things-in-themselves do’, to viewing physical reality in terms of (b) the transformation of relational space, shifts the meaning we attach to events to ‘beyond-good-and-evil’;

“There was once a Taoist farmer who worked with horses. One bright and sunny day, his best horse decided to make a run for it, escaping from the corral. His neighbours came to see what all the commotion was about, and, finding out about the escaped horse, exclaimed "Oh, what bad luck!"
The farmer replied, "Maybe".
Some days later, there was a sudden burst of excitement as the horse returned to the farm- with an entire herd of wild horses! The farmer and his son quickly corralled them, and the neighbours, hearing of the event again, came to see. Finding the now-full corral, they exclaimed "Oh, what good luck!"
The farmer replied, "Maybe".
While the farmer and his son were trying to break the horses in, there was an accident. The son fell off one of the horses and broke his leg very badly. While it was healing, a mild infection, and from that, fever set in. The townsfolk, hearing of this, would console the farmer whenever he came into town, saying "Oh, what bad luck!"
The farmer replied, "Maybe".
At the time, the warlord who owned the territory all this was happening on became involved in a dispute with another warlord. He send his recruiters into town, who took all the able-bodied men, suited them up, and hauled them off to boot camp. Upon seeing the horrible condition of the farmer's son, they quickly left him behind to find more. Days later, the fever broke, and the farmer was the only man left in the area with able-bodied help for around the farm. The townsfolk naturally proclaimed, "Oh, what good luck!"
Maybe.
-Taoist Koan

the 'koan' is a puzzle that invites learning that goes beyond the literal content. the ‘local incident’ can be made very crisp and clear in ‘what things-in-themselves do’ terms using language based propositions, whose clarity, as Wittgenstein says, we confuse for the clarity of our thoughts. So we look at the man smashing bank windows and we write down a witness's deposition which captures the event very crisply and clearly in ‘what-things-in-themselves do’ terms. We re-read it and we say, YES! that captures my thoughts exactly. But it doesn’t capture one’s thought exactly because one’s thought continues on beyond the artificial boundaries of the ‘local event’ into the relational transformation it is included in, just as when a succession of earthquakes, haiti, chile, new zealand, japan, gives us the spooky sense that something is happening ‘to the earth'; i.e. our thoughts go beyond the individual events to an understanding that the earth is undergoing some kind of transformation, and the earthquakes are secondary signals of a larger 'physical reality'.

In our culture, we believe that ‘the land belongs to man’ rather than ‘man belongs to the land’ [the harvest becomes the result of humans tilling the soil, rather than humans being a newcomer in the land, burrowing around in it like gophers, stirring things up in the garden and while chewing on the plants, egotistically saying 'i grew these']. that is, in our culture, we see dynamics [in general] in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [farmers that raise crops, fault faces that slip against one another etc.] and thus would prefer to think that ‘earthquakes’ are ‘random events’. Every once in a while, randomly, the two faces along a boundary fault ‘slip’. Why ‘randomly’? Because we CAN'T predict when these events will happen; i.e. ‘random’ = ‘what man’s science cannot predict’. Random events are ‘independent’ events, and ‘independent events’ are ‘independent’ because man’s sciences can’t predict them. Sure, a suite of APPARENTLY INDEPENDENT/RANDOM events could be coming from a common physical phenom

If the gap between rich and poor becomes large, social relational tensions become large [just like a static electricity buildup] and there are bound to be ‘rebalancing events’, or ‘robin-hood events’. It is not predictable when and where the robin-hood events are going to occur, therefore we say that they are ‘random’ and therefore ‘independent’ events. The justice system treats all events as ‘independent’. If the judge asks you why you have been brought before him, it is not admissable to say, ... ‘scuse me’, why do you think that people are out in the streets all over the globe? haven’t you noticed the rising tensions between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. To the judge, ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God’ associates with a start to finish ‘what things-in-themselves do’ causal chain of events finishing with a criminal act/outcome, ... a criminal 'local event-in-itself'.

So, i understand your reaction. It is the same one that Mach got. As soon as one says that the local cause-effect incident is ‘the child of a greater process’, the person who believes that ‘what local things-in-themselves locally do’ is ‘physical reality’ hears ‘God’ and ‘Divinely sourced Creation’. That is why biologists are getting ‘expelled’ when they say that Darwinism, which is in the one-sided term of ‘what local things-in-themselves locally do’ cannot possibly explain the findings of their biological research without an outside-inward top-siding influence, they are accused of being ‘Creationists’ and expelled. ['epigenesis' is beginning to let them avoid the 'Creationist' labelling.]

To express the view that we are included in a dynamic that is greater than ourselves is ‘not admissible’ in our scientific-thinking culture, even though scientists like Mach have formed that conclusion based on their scientific research. Mach rejected ‘metaphysics’, but the orthodox priesthood of science refused to do so. The divine metaphysics of an absolute space and absolute time reference framing was just too convenient, allowing one to ‘localize’ and ‘independentize’ and 'randomize' manifestations of the transformation of relational space and present them in terms of ‘what local things-in-themselves locally do’; e.g. to present ‘the great San Franscisco earthquake of 1906’ as a ‘random event-in-itself’; i.e. as a ‘physical reality', and in so doing, leaving the transformation of relational space that it was a part of ‘out in the cold’ and ‘without meaning’, the ‘meaning’ having been ‘hijacked’ in total by the ‘what-things-in-themselves do’ formulations of ‘the Church of Science’. Mach is not denying that we experienced the earthquake, he is only rejecting the notion that the animative sourcing of the earthquake starts and stops with the slippage of the opposing faces of a fault, which allows a 'local perspective in terms of 'what-things-in-themselves do' to hijack our understanding of 'physical reality', the more reasonable view of 'physical reality' lying beyond the local perspective in terms of the transformation of relational space.

no, the problem you are feeling, when the ‘what things-in-themselves do’ view of physical reality is challenged, is with the ‘ego’, as Mach says, which is pretty damn proud of its ‘local perspective’ and wants to consider it 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God'. The ego is not going to stick around for discussions that question the ego’s personal perspectives and accuse the ego of a blindered or biased view. The ego that is not prepared for this will withdraw from any/all such discussions.

Don't worry about my ego, worry about the egos of people so insecure, intimidated, jealous, and ignorant, that they have to repeatedly call people around them *peasants*, and make ageist remarks because that person is speaking in 'their' (supposedly public) space...worry about the egos of right-wing female anti-feminists posing as nihilist anarchists. Worry about them, okay. Ciao.

Take my advice, get off the internet. My point is this is where the crazy and sexually deprived hang out. Anything goes, and no one here cares. I promise you. I could slander you all day up and down the block with false allegations and bat shit paranoia and no one, NO ONE who has any sense is going to take it seriously. You might be trolling me, but your anger means your not so I'll assume you're sane. Don't waste another second of your life with these people. You can't argue with crazy. I've tried, I actually kind of succeeded. But it's over, do yourself a favor, walk away.

No, I'm not going to "get off the internet". I know who this is.

In fact, at this point I am inclined to find you and have a little talk face to face. Do you take that seriously? Because you should. The internet is words, and slander is made of words.

Don't make the internet into batshit crazy and violation and slander, and then say "it's just the internet" NO, it's YOU.

I don't know what you're doing here, but I'm here to talk to the occasional semi-serious troll about politics. Clearly you saw I was talking to Emile here, and had to write another one of your insulting "we-try-harder-club" essays (in which you violate pretty much every real anarchist ethic, btw).

I don't know if you noticed, but this is not an amorous conversation. Neither am I trying to impress anyone by holding the same views as them. Get it?

Are you going to keep oppressing, and insulting me to try to run me out of this space because of your own insecurity?

Just to clarify, the reply to this comment is someone trolling me. Once again, if it's here, it aint me. I don't believe you can say whatever you want over the internet and get away with it. I've had that done to me, and it was very damaging (again, forgiven). And I've done it so...If I vented any anger here it was to comment on negative attitudes that I've seen in my 3 years around the Anarchist community, and vent my anger. If it comes out in vitriol that's mostly because I"m from Chicago and have a hard time not talking over people. Internet bullying is bullshit though. And whoever is trolling me is a fucking idiot. I wasn't here last night and the last thing I ever said on this website was you can't be a revolutionary Anarchist without adhering to the concept of radical feminism, if not just identifying as one and actively working towards it's end. Just wanted to clarify that.

you're an idiot.

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?
p
a
W
9
i
g
u
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Our Passion for Freedom is Stronger than the State’s Prisons"
society