Predictable and Otherwise Part I

<table><tr><td>From <a href=" Mew</a>

For many years I have held a rather heretical (in the usual lefty point of view) opinion. I personally believe that we are living in a post capitalist society that is better described as "managerial" rather than "capitalist". This is, of course, a moot point, and I recognize that <u>no</u> society is <em>purely</em> dependent on only one mode of production and exchange. The inclusion of exchange is important to differentiate my point of view from merely another 'historical materialist' point of view, one that is solely focused on prouction and neglects to one degree or another the world of consumption.<br />

I'll leave the justification of this opinion for another time.What is important here is just like an idealized "capitalist" society has its periodic crises somehow connected to "overproduction" so does managerial society has its own cycles.of crisis. The business cycle, of course, never followed the rule book laid out by Marx <em>in </em>Capital &nbsp;. When Marx wrote his magnum opus in the most free trade society&nbsp; in the world at the time of its maximum free trade existence ie its closest approach to an ideal "capitalism" it was at least seeminly possible that history would follow the schemata that Marx laid out.</td><td><img title="we get lazy" src=""></td>...

There was, however, a fly in the soup.History didn't march to a Marxist drumbeat. This was amptly demonstartrated by Eduard Bernstein in the early years of the 20th century (&nbsp;<em>see Evolutionary Socialism ). </em>The proletariat was <u>not</u> forced into increasing poverty. So-call "intermediate strata' did not disappear and instead multiplied. The force of monopoly went so far and then settled into a dynamic balanceas new economic opportunities opened up. The Leninist incantations of ìmperialism`failed to explain the fact that the workers found&nbsp; that they could improve their position by both trade union and political ways.The marxist left was left with a theory of price that <u>always</u> failed to either predict or explain the cost that a commodity fetched on the market (free, semi-free or stateized). <br />

In the end there was a business cycle that was more of less controlled (abolished&nbsp;? ) by state management- both the authoritarian communist and the Keynesian methods. What was left was a society that continued to have periodic crises. Only some of these were classically economic. Others were very much social/political as various underclasses would rebel against their managerial overlords. Of course the eruptions of such rebellion was not wholly predictable, but I seemed to have found a least a crude periodicity of such rebellions in both the so-called capitalist world and in the state socialist world as well. The period was anywhere from 7 to 10 years, and it would often be demonstarted in the state socialist societies not as open rebellion but rather as economic crises, presumably due to somewhat "passive rebellion" on the part of workers and consumers. <br />

Thyere was also the fact that no economic system in history has been pure. The state socialist societies existed only because of an underground capitalist black market that made said societies livable. Feudalism contained elements of both capitalism (the merchants) and managerial rule (many of the monastic orders). Our present society wavers between a managerial system and a capitalist one with the caveat that the decision to adapt prouction and consumption to the rules of the market lies with managers, especially those of the state, the managerial class par excellance.<br />

Next time: Recent rebellions.<br />


I think the periodic crisis described are infact the precursive finite social consequences of Empire. To delve into the complexes of management and organisation is a superfluous and vain endeavour and out of context for any anarchist of pure intent!

The capital-owners still exist; ordinary people, however, only see and deal-with the managers.

You say that, "... the workers found that they could improve their position by both trade union and political ways." In the developed nations, this was permitted (even encouraged, as a steam-valve to natural reactions to their exploitation) so that many, many more people could be deprived of their land, labor, and resources in all those 'other' capitalistic nations. Michael Parenti speaks to this point very eloquently, though he also speaks of a 'labor stuggle', whereas I see it as a matter of an experiment where we, humanimals (from the Elite's perspective) were given 'larger pens'.

Until recently, workers in the 'bases of operations' for the global-extortion system were given privileged treatment, via a higher standard of living in exchange for their 'going along' while the rulers harnessed newer technologies and forms of psychological manipulation to transform these nations into police-states. Mission accomplished; we have 'homeland security' to deal with the rabble now, and the rabble will cheer their own oppression. Bring on the austerity.

I do agree that the Marxist attempt to do away with the market, in terms of a place people could trade and prices were set by supply and demand, was a foolish blunder. There was nothing 'evil' about popular demand driving production - it means we get what we want.

The problem, which Marx very accurately identified, was the concentration of power which allowed for worker-exploitation; he spoke of the 'means of production', though I find the correct target to be our 'right to our shares of the Earth', the life-support system for our bodies, and source of raw materials for all civilizations.

Everyone above this comment sucks! FULL COMMUNISM FOR ALL!

The managerial archetype [the manager-worker split] is a cultural archetype that derives from ‘dualism’, the notional mind-matter split. It has characterized Western civilization in the sense that it has been institutionalized by Western civilization. There are still non-dualist cultures such as aboriginals and others who are embedded within the dynamics of Western civilization.

As soon as one [notionally] splits apart matter and space and imagines forms as ‘things-in-themselves’ within a passive reference frame or fixed, empty and infinite ‘operating theatre’, the ‘organization’ that ‘gets things done’ is necessarily [logically] constrained to the internal components and processes of the ‘things-in-themselves’. There must therefore be two functions within the ‘thing-in-itself’; a directive function [authorities] and doer function/s [responsibles]. The mind-matter, manager-worker split originates right here. Western man models himself this way and he re-creates this archetype in his biological model of the ‘organism’ in general, and in his institutions of government and commerce.

Non-dualist understanding acknowledges the fundamental role of the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation in nature. As non-dualists like Mach, Geronimo see it, communities in nature [i.e. all communities except human dualist communities] evolve from the conjugate relation between outside-inward orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting influence. The fishing port or the oasis or the lush valley orchestrates settlement and the weaving of relational dynamics between nature and man continues as the relational web complexifies.

One guy in the middle of the desert with a fat wallet full of money can ‘evolve [by deliberately directed construction] a community’ right there regardless of any acknowledging or respect for the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation. Non-dualists believe that every individual human inhabitant is INDEPENDENT of the habitat it is included in, so there is no reason to ‘respect’ the habitat as if it were a part of oneself; i.e. as if oneself were a part of it.

The other ingredients the one guy [patriarch/manager] needs is a collection of people who can be trained up to interpret symbols and to learn language so that they can be better indoctrinated and directed, and use money in exchange for their labours and for the fruits of their labours.

The one guy in the middle of the desert with the fat wallet can thus be the point source or ‘mind’ of the dynamic community. He replaces the dynamic habitat as the orchestrating source of the community dynamic, but that only works if the directed herd is ‘dualist’ because non-dualists are not going to put themselves in the hands of some guy with a fat wallet who wants to bypass nature’s dynamics and ignore the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation.

Dualism is implicit in monotheism and in the Creation myths of monotheism wherein, the story goes, a diverse multiplicity of ‘things-in-themselves’ are popped into ‘being’ from a divine force beyond the material world. The globally dominating dualist Western culture has developed a language that does the same job as the monotheist Creator, it pops things-in-themselves into ‘being’. As John Stuart Mill observed, “every definition [in the dualist language game] implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the ‘thing-in-itself-existence’ of the object defined”. Western mainstream science plays this same language game [I say ‘mainstream’ since in relativity and quantum physics, the dualist foundation based in the space-matter split is no longer viable for describing real physical phenomena, but it remains as a simple tool of convenience that should not be confused for physical reality].

Dualism and its split manager-worker paradigm is a way of thinking that ignores the inherent habitat-inhabitant connection because it ignores the inherent space-matter connection [the relativity of space and matter].

So, Molly Mew is mistaken where she treats as peers ‘a managerial system’ and ‘a capitalist system’;

“Our present society wavers between a managerial system and a capitalist one with the caveat that the decision to adapt prouction and consumption to the rules of the market lies with managers, especially those of the state, the managerial class par excellance.”

The managerial system is rooted in dualism which is foundational to the globally dominating Western culture as we know it. It is like the rocky bottom in the lagoon that shows itself from time to time in the swirling capitalist/money-flow tides that ride on top of it.

Community organization in its natural development is like the organization implied by the ‘eye of the hurricane’ where the Oasis or the fishing port or the lush valley is the ‘eye’ where the organization derives from non-centrally directed ‘comings and goings’; i.e. the non-directed [anarchist] comings-and-goings are their own source of organization, and there is no guy with a fat wallet in the centre of it all. But dualist society has re-engineered natural organization and made the guy with the fat wallet that centrally directs the organization, the new archetype. In the case of the sovereign state, that guy uses police and military to collect money to keep his wallet fat since it is the source of his central directing powers.

It is starting from the unleashing of this dualist ‘archetype’ on ourselves that the capitalist dynamic has taken on a ‘life of its own’ and has evolved beyond the Marxist model, which never acknowledged the non-dualist view of physical reality.

Now we concern ourselves with how to manage this ‘split off system’ whose foundational archetype is the manager-worker, director-follower organization. This beast that is now an intellectually operated thing split off from nature [it has pipes into nature to exploit nature’s resources and to dispose of wastes] has been ‘evolving’.

As David Harvey presents the ‘evolution’ [from a Marxist perspective] in ‘The Crises of Capitalism’
different components of the system start to bloat while others shrink, unionism grows strong and pulls more money towards the workers then the managers crush the unions and archive the money in the financial system, then the financiers take control of things and screw industry and workers. As Harvey says, leading hedge fund managers are given $3 billion in annual bonus and even in a recession, the number of billionaires is growing steadily and unabatedly and their assets are growing even faster; e.g. see graph at swiss statistics website; e.g.

“The data show that not only the [billionaire] club membership is swelling at a generous average annual rate of 6.9% (doubling time 10.5 years), but also the collective real net worth is getting bigger and bigger at an even faster rate of 7.5% (doubling time 9.6 years). Such a performance ridicules the world's wealth, as measured by the gross world product (GWP) after adjusting for inflation, that could not do better than an average rate of 2.8% (doubling time 25 years) during the same period.”

This is all ‘crap’ as David Harvey says, and adds that ‘we need to talk’ and get ourselves out of this.

If and when 'we talk’ [everyone has a stake in this, including the four-leggeds, the winged and finned and rooted ones etc.], the important point to note is that all of this evolution of the capitalist system STARTS OFF from the dualist assumption of the mind-matter split; i.e. the manager-worker split, the space-matter split, the habitat-inhabitant split. It is a cultural thing that is deeply entrenched. Ernst Mach, a non-dualist because physical phenomena are non-dualist, called dualism a ‘religion’.

There is nothing in modern physics that suggests a hard split between matter and space and thus between inhabitants and habitat and therefore the notion of material systems as ‘things-in-themselves’ such as the [newtonian] biological notion of an ‘organism’, ‘has to go’, and when this notion of the independent local material system ‘goes’, so goes also, the mind-matter, manager-worker split, and when that goes, ... and stops being the dominant way of thinking that gives meaning to ‘self’ and ‘organization’/’community’, we can return to understanding community as the comings and goings of freely-associating people, people who understand themselves in the non-dualist sense of the very different ‘archetype’ of a conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation’ which has no need of a central directive authority.

" The one guy in the middle of the desert with the fat wallet can thus be the point source or ‘mind’ of the dynamic community "

and a guy/ette in the city with no wallet can get shot by police. Cop + victim = dualism

you are correct, madam; ..the police are the enforcement agency of the managerial class. the sovereign state is the organizing archetype of the ‘dualist’ belief. the believers [‘patriotic citizens’] give a share of the fruits of their labours to the central authorities and empower them to ‘direct their [citizens] behaviours’.

do you notice the central authorities doing anything about the ridiculous growth of billionaires while the workers are increasingly impoverished? on the contrary, they have been ‘bailing out’ the financial institutions that are the means by which these ridiculous excesses at the top continue vampirize the ordinary populace and using police to forcibly ‘quiet’ the complaining masses of ordinary citizens who continue to watch this government-protected extortion with incredulity.

the central authorities are doing this because of ‘free market economy’ theory. the citizens support them in this because no-one cares for ‘socialist government control of the economy’.

but the central authorities and the citizens that support them are forgetting one important point. the only reason the choices are constrained to these two bad choices is because ‘the central authority exists’; i.e. because there is mass belief in this dualist organizational archetype whereby the central authorities exist as the source of direction of the ‘organization’ known as the ‘sovereign state’.

this ‘organizational archetype’ wherein a conceptual 'central authority' [a permanent 'slot' that manager-aspirants come and go into] gathers around it ‘directors’ who lead and direct the activities of the masses of ‘followers’ is a ‘dualist’ construct.

on the other hand, there is the 'path not taken'; i.e. the ‘organizational archetype’ of non-dualism, which lives with a ‘hole’ in the centre like the eye of the hurricane or tornado, where the ‘organization’ is no longer a fixed blueprint driven by an authority or ‘mind of the organization’ that sits at its centre; i.e. the non-dualist ‘organizING’ is not an ‘organizATION’ but forms ‘relationally’, from continuing comings of goings like animals to a watering hole or nomads to oases or would be agrarians to lush valleys [as the Okies migration in the dustbowl 1930s demonstrated, the local organizations were not where the buck started and stopped, the fertile ground was the source of the organizing].

in other words, the dualist organizational archetype is the problem and it will keep protecting the ‘managerial class’ and using the police to suppress the common people while the managerial class ‘rips them off’ in spite of the common people becoming angrier and angrier, .... BUT, at the same time these same common people are professing their loyalty and support for their ‘nation’ which is the very embodiment of the dualist organizational archetype that imprisons them and uses cops to beat them on the head if they try to change correct the inequities, ... hell, the cops are mostly patriots too so they may have to beat themselves on the head if they start complaining. but then, since being a cop is getting to be such a tough job because of sitting between the managerial class and the worker class, the managerial class is increasing the size of the force and the danger-pay, so that the police, which used to be a respected function of ordinary individuals within the ordinary community [acting of, for, and by the community], is rapidly becoming an evident ‘arm’ of the managerial class; i.e. the imprisonment of the masses by the managerial class is becoming more and more obvious, and the masses on the low ground or in the bilge accommodations will be the first to burn or be drowned as the managers on top continue to protect their ‘free market economy’ and/or ‘controlled market economy’ as it continues in its collapse.

the source of all of this dysfunction is clear. it is belief in 'dualism', mind-matter split which sets up the dualist organization archetype wherein 'organization' is constructed as fixed blueprint and directed from an internal point-source central authority or 'mind' of the machine.

organization in nature is not constrained to the dualist organizational archetype of centre-directed organizaTIONS [an abstraction based archetype that does not reflect physical reality in nature], but can be understood in the non-dualist 'relational' organizING archetype where 'centres' are inferred by the comings and goings of the 'flow' of people. the people of the world are, BY NATURE, free to flow around and gather in the honey pots of lush valleys, oases, fecund fishing ports, valleys of the dolls, or valleys of the studs, or silicon valleys or whatever, and in this free-flow, the comings and goings give rise to inferred centres or 'attractors' that are not the SOURCE of the 'organizING', but the RESULT of the 'organizING'. but once this sort of community is 'in place', some analytical thinker is going to portray its organization as if it were locally originating from internal systems and processes, and the next thing you know, people will buy into this and create a central 'government' and a fixed blueprint for the community so as to drive it from the inside outward, so that the hurricanes around the globe will be seen as 'organizATIONS' that are responsible for sourcing the flow they are included in, rather than accepting that the flow is the source of 'organizINGS'. in this archetypeal organizational inverting, the manager-worker, leader-follower split is born.

Yep, ummm, I'm glad you approve of my deduction concerning dualism, ummm, not much more to say about it, I'm lost for words (you probably wouldn't comprehend this state of mind Emile). Ummm, well that's all I can offer, I feel a tad mute, or vacant, don't know why that is, braindamage possibly? Maybe I've attained Nirvana? Something, but it feels good :)

for the love of dog, emile, stop. nothing you ever write, in the tens of thousands of words that you use to write it ever explains a.) how nature created something non-natural and b.) how your re-framed understanding of nature is to have any impact on the wrong, unnatural social organization that rules us.

please, you're very intelligent, just try, for once, to write something POLITICALLY relevant. it would be such a nice break.

"politically relevant" is an oxymoron

Lol, true, ironically infuriating yet true.

on the relevance/irrelevance of politics.

It is our ego that would have us believe that nothing happens unless WE make it happen. that’s the basis of ‘politics’; i.e. it is ego personified. we have built it into Darwinism, our analytical understanding of ‘how we came to be’; i.e. ‘genes make it happen’, ... NOT! [as ‘epigenetics’ demonstrates].

The error in our culture’s approach to understanding dynamics lies in the habit of splitting apart ‘analytical inquiry’ and ‘synthetical inquiry’, and re-rendering dynamics using only the findings of analytical inquiry. E.g. – a community forms in the general flow of nomadic people. An individual in the nomadic [relational] flow sees people trying to get produce to the market struggling to fix a broken vehicle, and he ‘rises to the occasion’, thinking ‘i can do that’ and he settles there and fills that ‘repairman’ niche opening. An individual in the nomadic flow sees farmers struggling to keep milk from going bad, and knowing how to make cheese, he rises to the occasion, thinking ‘i can do that’ and he settles there and fills that niche need. And communities continue to develop by this sort of aggregation and accretion wherein, as new relational combinations form, new niche openings develop and are filled.

Analytical inquiry into the dynamics of community, however, notionally breaks the community down into its constituents and processes deeming them the source of the community dynamic. Note that the understanding of community as a swarm in the flow departs as soon as one starts thinking of ‘community’ as a ‘thing’ or ‘organizatION’ rather than an ‘organizING’ in the nomadic [relational] flow. If we ask the cheese-maker ‘what do you do?’, he will respond; ‘I make cheese’, and likewise the ‘repairman’ will respond 'I fix things'. After the analytical inquiry team has interviewed all of the constituents of the community, an understanding of the community dynamic will develop in terms of ‘what people do’.

How does one feel as a free nomad ‘rising to the occasion’ and helping others do something in a manner that they could not have done without your participation? The sight of three men trying to get a vehicle out of the ditch but lacking the force needed, orchestrates/inspires your rising to the occasion and the four of you achieve the desired result. Do you say ‘I got that car out of the ditch for them’? Do you say ‘the United States won WWII’. That would be pure ego, to discount the whole evolutionary flow and re-construct what is essentially a portion of a continuing unfolding in terms of a local-in-time ‘event’. Analytical inquiry delivers that kind of view. Nature can be drying out a sopping wet forest and getting it tinder dry and you come along and toss a match into it and analytical thinkers will say that ‘you caused a forest fire’. You did exactly the same thing when it was sopping wet and your action didn’t cause diddly squat.

If one wants to get into the mathematics of it, analytical inquiry involves ‘differentiation’, the assumption that the present depends only on the immediate past;

“ Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.

First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.” --- Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’

By this ‘differentiation’ technique, we ask the question; ‘What made the difference between the forest being in flames and forest in its non-burning state?’ ... ‘What was the causal agent responsible for taking the state of the system from state 1 at time t1 to state 2 at time t2?’. In this ‘analytical inquiry’ aka ‘causal inquiry’, “We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. In other words, we fail to take into account the non-duality of ‘figure-and-ground’, ‘inhabitant-and-habitat’ wherein the action of the assertive figure and the reception of the accommodating ground are conjugate aspects of one dynamic, the continual transformation of relational space [Mach’s principle].

If a horse falls on top of its young rider and someone comes by and tries to lift the horse off but cannot, and another person comes and pitches in and so on until there are nine people who still can’t do it, the video camera recording the scene will show you, the tenth person, as the one that makes the important ‘difference’ and rescues the young rider. All analytical/causal reasoning needs to do is to reverse the time sequence far enough to capture the relevant change and look within that interval for the ‘causal agent’. Hence the man who flicked the cigarette into the forest ‘caused’ the forest fire [the sun and atmosphere will be pissed, with the atmosphere saying; ‘all my hard work keeping the curtain of clouds open is going unrecognized, and the sun; ‘yes, and all my hard work in shining continuously, for months down on that forest. we get no respect! humans have such colossal egos!’

Politicians are analytical thinkers. They believe that ‘nothing happens unless men make it happen. They get frustrated with people who won’t join in with this thinking.

In the one-flow of the global social dynamic, when the dynamic of the people-swarm constituting one ‘nation’ such as the U.S. rises to a crest the politicians are saying ‘our leadership made this happen’ and as the crests of india and china progressively rise relative to that of the U.S. the politicians are still claiming their causal determinacy; ‘we are falling because of bad leadership, elect me, elect me. We don’t have to become a ‘former great’, trust me.’.

Politicians would have you believe that political action makes it happen. They are coming from pure ego. The pioneering people were not coming from a ‘let’s make this United States thing happen’, they were in a nomadic flow where ‘rising to the occasion’ engendered flocculations in the flow; i.e. where evolution derives from outside-inward orchestrating influence [niche openings] in conjugate relation with the inside-outward blossoming of assertive potentialities. [the concept of evolution proposed by Nietzsche, Lamarck, Rolph, Rüdimeyer, Roux as is validated by ‘epigenetics’].

Politicians are people trapped in their own egotism who sit around thinking that nothing will happen unless they make it happen.

Kropotkin ‘politicized’ the experience of ‘rising to the occasion’ and portrayed it as ‘cooperation’ or ‘mutual aid’, in the analytical, one-sided terms of intellectually-driven purposeful intention;

“ Kropotkin [considered] cooperation as a feature of the most advanced organisms (e.g., ants among insects, mammals among vertebrates) leading to the development of the highest intelligence and bodily organization.” – Wikipedia

Epigenetics has shown that the ‘genetic blueprint’ of an organism, just like the ‘genetic blueprint’ of an organizING in the flow that we term a ‘community’, is ‘analytical backfill’ that derives from asking the question ‘what is causally responsible for producing this thing?’, and looking down inside the notional ‘local thing’ to identify its causal components and processes, as if it were an ‘organizATION-in-itself’ rather than an ‘organizING-in-the-flow’.

Synthetical inquiry [Ackoff] starts off acknowledging the ‘suprasystem’ that the system that is being ‘analyzed’ is included in, and takes into account the relational niche opening that orchestrates the development of the system from the outside-inwards. That is, the relational dynamics of community induce the development of the university. Analytical inquiry aims to understand both the evolutionary development and the dynamic behaviour of the university in terms of the internal components and processes in the university. This drill-down-and-in analytical inquiry bottoms out in a reducing of the concept of ‘university’ to an ‘idea’, a twinkle in the eye of some creative genius who unfortunately forget to apply for the patent.

Should we then ignore the obvious, that immanent in the dynamic relations of community a niche was opening that was hot and ready waiting for its full-filling? Or is that ‘too physical’ and we should instead assume that a blueprint or ‘archetype’ arrived ‘out of the blue’, perhaps in dream to the first ever Rector of a university whose ‘erection’ of the university constituted the first ‘seeding’ of this blueprint which then spread out and around the globe?

If we accept this analytical view where things jumpstart locally from ‘blueprints’, ‘ideas’, ‘intelligent intellection’, then we define ourselves as members of the Western civilization belief system. Kropotkin is a case in point.

Epigenetics is showing us that the cell is an ‘organizING’ rather than an ‘organizATION’, the latter and orthodox view of a cell as ‘an organizATION’ that is ‘made to happen’ by the activism of its internal ‘genetic’ components and processes.

Epigenetics shows how ‘receptors’ in the cell membrane sustain an awareness of their environment informing ‘effectors’ that create physical responses that translate environmental signals into an appropriate [environment-fitting] biological behaviour. When we inquire analytically into the cell behaviour, as in the case of analytical inquiry into the dynamics of the pioneer community, we are looking for the internal agents and processes that make things happen, or ‘the genetic agency’ in the form of inside-outward asserting operations. Our answers can only reflect the structure of the questions we ask, and if we ask the question of each internal ‘part’ and ‘process’, ‘what do you do?’, all we can get for an answer is ‘we do this or that’, ... ‘I repair things’. ‘I make cheese’. ‘I transport goods’ etc. etc. and on this basis we can construct a model of the system-as-thing-in-itself in terms of ‘what its parts-and-processes-in-themselves do’.

Gone is flow in which the system is an ‘organizING’ and gone is the outside-inward orchestrating influence of ‘rising to the occasion’ to fill-full an opening niche in the evolving dynamic relations that constitute the system-as-an-organizING-in-the-flow.

So we have a choice, we can go to college and get an MBA and go straight to ‘making-things-happen’ according to intellectual-analytical plans and blueprints or ‘political theory’ side of things [this will get all the little ignorant/primitive people moving in the right direction so as to produce some useful result], or regardless of what sort of education we have, we can tell the politicians to shut up and let our actions be orchestrated from the outside-inward, rising to the occasion to fill-full the opening of a niche-need in the continually transforming confluence of relations we are included in.

Both Kropotkin and Darwin opted for the political ‘making-things-happen’ according to some ‘political blueprint’, the only difference was that while Darwin opted to put into primacy the ethic/value of ‘competition’, Kropotkin opted to put into primacy the ethic/value of ‘cooperation’ in the primacy.

Nietzsche, on the other hand, and all those who acknowledged the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the opening of niche-needs in the continually transforming relational space, opted to put into primacy the ethic/value of ‘rising to the occasion’ [letting the relational situation one is included in bring to blossom one’s assertive potentialities] and continually ‘transcending one’s self’ [i.e. the übermensch or overman].

When the nine others are struggling to lift the horse off the young rider, and this RELATIONAL SPATIAL SITUATION pulls you off your ass and out of your chair, and culminates in the rescue of the rider, you have the option to turn around to the happy observers, give them a high five as if you have just hit a home run, and let your ego run away with the credit in terms of ‘your having made it happen’, and thus impressed with your own powers of ‘making things happen’ [and ignoring the naturally harmonious feeling of ‘rising to the occasion’] you become a ‘politician’, a member of a group that rallies people to come together to ‘make things happen’ based on a ‘political blueprint’.

As the world has a need for products ‘your people’ can produce, you as a politician become a hero, a ‘Captain America’ as you ride the rising crest and report to the people how ‘they are making it happen’ under their ‘leadership’ as in a military or machine/bulldozer metaphor.

But the world dynamic is a fluid thing and the space we live in, on the surface of the earth, is a finite and unbounded space so that when India and China rise up as crests in this fluid dynamic and become less ‘on the take’ and ‘more on the make’, the American crest subsides commensurately.


Is the U.S. [or any nation] an ‘organizING-in-the-relational-world-space’ that answers the situational orchestrating call to ‘rise to the occasion’ and fill-full opening niches, or is the U.S. an ‘organizaTION-in-itself’ whose performance is inside-outwardly determined by a combination of ‘good central Direction which promulgates a good intellectual blueprint?’ in other words, ‘the right stuff’ in a genetic-determinacy sense.

U.S. politicians [i.e. the politicians of any/all nations] will tell you that the latter case is the ‘physical reality’, and that if there is a relative decline in performance it can only be due to the defective quality of the political leadership and the defective quality of the intellectual blueprints they are using.

Historians and Macheans would tell you different; i.e. that nations are NOT ‘organizaTIONS-in-themselves’ but are ‘organizINGS’ in the global relational space that crest and trough in conjugate relation with other crestings and troughings that constitute the continually transforming relational spatial dynamic. The ‘cresting’ is always a relative dynamic. One can’t count on the continuance of being able to buy an entire state for a few beads, or even a few million dollars.

Over the past couple of centuries as the U.S. and the Americas were moving towards their cresting, Britain was undergoing a ‘de-cresting’ with their politicians bickering over the quality of leadership and blueprints and constituents. In the end, British politicians could no longer work the crowd up with suggestions of ethic supremacy, being the ‘chosen people’, the glory of the British Empire [self-glorification of the imperialist blueprint and its imperialist leaders] etc. They had to concede that ‘America’s days had come’ and that everyone has their cresting days.

U.S. politicians, by starting from the choice of seeing ‘reality’ in terms of an ‘organizATION-in-itself’, have only got three things to work from; (a) quality of leadership, (b) quality of intellectual blueprint that inside-outwardly shapes the dynamic of the organizATION, and (c) quality of the people themselves [are they ‘the right stuff’].

All of this avoids the question that the British had to face ; i.e. that it was not their innate ethnic superiority on all of these three (a), (b) and (c) counts that moved them to their cresting, but it was instead the opening of opportunities in the world they were situationally included in.

U.S. politicians are not ready to be overtaken by such humility [both parties claim that "The U.S. is the last great hope of the world"]. They couldn’t get elected on that basis. They have only the three factors to work the public mind with since the public mind sees ‘reality’ in terms of the U.S. as an ‘organizATION-in-itself’. Politicians are definitely not going to admit to problems in (a) and (b) [their own leadership and intellectual blueprints that ostensible Direct the masses] so that leaves them with (c). This sets the stage for the division between 'authoritaries' and 'responsibles'. There is an impossible-to-resolve ambiguity in measuring any notionally 'causal' dynamic as to whether a 'bad' result is due to a 'poor plan that is well-executed' or due to a 'good plan that is poorly executed'.

One political theme is to accuse the management classes of ‘not being the right stuff’ because they are exporting jobs abroad, creating local unemployment and by focusing more and more on financial manipulation that creates working class debt [sentencing them to years of hard labour]. The other political theme is to accuse the working classes of ‘not being the right stuff’; e.g. as being too lazy to work and pay their own way, but this cannot be done overtly/publicly since those votes are needed.

All of this political manoeuvring is fiddling while Rome burns since it is based on the egotist assumption that the U.S. is an ‘organizATION-in-itself’ whose cresting was due to its internal components and processes, namely its quality leadership, the quality of the intellectual blueprints promulgated by its leadership, and by the ‘right stuff’ quality of its people. Nowhere in this can be seen the relational space view of the U.S. as an ‘organizING’ within a common relational flow wherein ‘crestings’ and ‘troughings’ are conjugate aspects of a common dynamic. Of course, the notion of ‘competition’ derives from seeing reality in terms of a plurality of independent ‘organizATIONS-in-themselves’ and if the reality were to be seen in terms of one world dynamic with multiple ‘organizINGS’ included within it [as with storm-cells in the relational flow space of the atmosphere], then competition would no longer make sense, nor would the notion that the world dynamic derived from inside-outward asserting intellectual purpose issuing from a plurality of independent ‘organizATIONS-in-themselves, so that ‘cooperation’ would similarly no longer make sense. What would make sense is ‘rising to the occasion to fill-full the opening niches in the relational space that all are included in, a form of dynamic that one can observe generally in nature, and which is implied in ‘non-dualism’ [e.g. Mach’s principle, relativity, quantum physics].

Of course, this is often the operative ethic in our society [being pulled out of one’s chair to rise to the occasion and fill an opening niche to enable some result that would otherwise be unachievable]. But it leads a person to different ways of participating in the social dynamic, and does not encourage joining in with the egotist politicians who see reality in terms of causal agents ‘making things happen’

This is why ‘politically relevant’ is an oxymoron and why it is ‘ironically frustrating’ because we would like to rise up and ‘make things happen’ the way we would like them to happen, but that is the dysfunctional archetype that is causing all the problems in the first place!

OK, if you were a pianist or guitarist you would have dazzled us with the virtuosity of you genius in music, now, you dazzle us with cerebral symphonies!! If only your keyboard was replaced by a fretboard, but is not all creation equal in its majesty if it remains loyal to the spirit of freedom, regardless of the instrument, pen, sword, guitar, these are tools, no?

But returning to organization vs our anarchist desire to deconstruct the social mechanisms which perpetuate this recycling historical narrative of rape, torture and war, I sourced Nietzsche and Stirner as foundational manuals to get one on ones feet, and despite the centuries of time, Foucault as intermediate. Deleuze is terminal, after that you can occupy yourself learning Linux and screwing the whole copyright existent.

Settle down buddy, we're on your side OK?

if you are talking to me, i was never unsettled. and if you are talking to me,... thanks for your supportive comments!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Predictable and Otherwise Part I"