The Rise and Fall of the ‘Human Being’

<table><tr><td>The concept of a ‘human being’ is, in effect, a[n intentional and unintentional] plot by ‘political authorities’ to keep us ‘in our place’.

It is a Western concept that has been very effectively ‘globalized’.

It’s earliest beginnings can be traced to Parmenides who said, essentially; “There are only two choices, EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ and once we have established ‘what is’, there is no point in further discussing ‘what is not’.” Parmenides added that while we mere mortals can never make up are mind and are always going with the fuzzy logic of both ‘is’ and ‘is not’ at the same time, the Gods would never have it that way. Parmenides was referring to the worldview of those like his contemporary Heraclitus, that saw opposites as being conjugate aspects of the same thing;

<em>"We step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not."</em></td><td><img title="I am not human. I am WORKER!!!" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/treechophuman.jpg"></td></t...

Essentially, Heraclitus sees ‘things’ as ‘dynamic figures’ in a ‘dynamic ground’, ... resonance-features within a transforming relational space;

<em> “All things are an exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods for gold and gold for goods.”</em>

Heraclitus, not Parmenides, was the philosopher of choice of the pioneers of modern physics such as Mach, Poincaré, Bohm and Shroedinger, who similarly saw ‘things’, not as ‘things-in-themselves’ but as resonance features within a continually transforming relational space [‘spatial-plenum’ or ‘energy-field-flow’ or ‘spacetime continuum’].

But the standard Western belief tradition has grown up siding with the views of Parmenides that one must choose between EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ because ‘the Gods/Authorities wouldn’t have it any other ways’. This is where western justice is ‘coming from’ and why we need an ‘authority’ to judge in the sense of discriminating between ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ the case.

Of course, the aboriginal tradition goes with the Heraclitean view of BOTH ‘is’ AND ‘is not’. That’s all you can do if you see ‘things’ as ‘strands in a relational ‘web-of-life’. You can’t present conflict in terms of ‘Crazy Horse’ versus ‘the community’ as in ‘John Doe’ versus the ‘People’ if you regard ‘Crazy Horse’ as a strand in the relational web of ‘community’. That is, the majority of the strands in the relational web has no monopoly on ‘normative behaviour’ that they can use to define the dynamics of a minority of strands as ‘abnormal’ and ‘offensive’, as if the majority was ‘just sitting there minding their own business’. The dynamics in a relational web are innately interdependent/relative so that it is impossible to impute the source of disturbance to a minority or single strand. Conflict is innately relational.

But the path of BOTH ‘is’ AND ‘is not’, while it is the view of aboriginals along with pioneers in modern physics such as Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger etc., is not the common belief in the now globally dominant Western culture. The prevailing belief in the modern world is EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’, as in EITHER ‘guilty’ OR ‘not guilty’. The majority of participants in the community, by way of juries or by way of appointing judges to act for them, get to determine, absolutely, whether a particular local ‘being’ EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ guilty of a crime ‘against the people of the community’.

Thanks to this notion of local, independent ‘being’ of each individual in the collection of individuals we call ‘the community’, the community gets to make absolute judgements of EITHER ‘is guilty’ OR ‘is not guilty’ of ‘an offence against the people’. This means that the majority is never guilty or complicit. The majority is the assumed ‘normative standard’ for ‘correct behaviour’. The majority is the foundation for the absolute ‘authority’ that judges whether behaviour EITHER ‘is correct’ OR ‘is not correct’.

If the absolute powers of a Central Authority, vested by the majority decide to cancel the land reserve treaty with the Cherokee nation and force them into a ‘Trail of Tears’ vacation of their lands, and one or more of them reject this, they are judged by the Authority to be guilty of a criminal offence against the people. None of this mealy-mouthed strands-in-the-relational web stuff that drags the majority into the dirt together with the minority so that all you could ever end up with would be that ‘conflict developed within the relational web of community’, so that all you could ever do would be to seek to cultivate, restore and sustain balance and harmony in the relational web; i.e. we would be deprived of dividing the community up into ‘the guilty’ and the ‘innocence’ so that we could resolve things by ‘punishing the guilty’ while affirming the righteousness and innocence of the majority.

Without the concept of ‘being’ or ‘human beings’, we would be stuck with this ‘relational web’ notion wherein a person BOTH ‘is guilty’ AND ‘is not guilty’ at the same time and where the majority who are not making a disturbance are BOTH ‘innocent’ AND ‘not innocent’ at the same time. Without the concept of ‘being’ or ‘human beings’, the community would be stuck with ‘restorative justice’ in which good and evil or guilt and innocence is seen to reside in everybody by way of the interdependent connectedness in the community understood as a web of relations.

There is no such things as ‘human beings’ in a physically real sense. The concept of ‘being’ is innately dependent on the concept of ‘absolute space’ [Euclidian space] and ‘absolute space’ is an abstraction that should not be confused for ‘physical reality’. Quite a few comments have been made on this, such as the following ones;

<em>‘Space is not Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.”… “Relativity forces us to analyze the role played by geometry in the description of the physical world.” . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Albert Einstein”</em>

<em>“Space is another framework we impose upon the world” . . . ” . . . here the mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature.” . . . “Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.” . . . “the space revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry.” . . . Henri Poincaré, ’Science and Hypothesis’</em>

No Euclidian absolute space, ... no ‘human beings’. [i.e. no ‘things-in-themselves’]

Instead of human BEINGS aka biological ORGANISMS, we have human BECOMINGS aka biological ORGANIZINGS in the continually transforming relational spatial-plenum. Here the quantum logic of BOTH/AND comes into play and we are not forced to make a choice as to whether the human EITHER ‘is material’ OR ‘is not material’, since space is no longer understood as an absolute container inhabited by EITHER ‘emptiness’ OR ‘matter’, but is understood, instead, as a continually transforming relational, spatial-plenum [energy-field-flow] that manifests energy-resonance-features formerly known as ‘material bodies’.

In the ‘relational space’ view [the BOTH/AND quantum logic view], we no longer need a ‘central authority’ as we do when we think in terms of the human as a ‘human BEING’.

The need for a ‘central authority’ arose when we opted for the abstract notion of ‘being’ and portrayed the human as a ‘local, independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

It is only when we start off with this abstract model of a ‘human BEING’ that we are forced to impute the existence of a ‘central authority’ within this ‘BEING’ to explain how it jumpstarts ‘its own development and behaviour’. That is, once we notionally split it out of its web of relations within the relational space it is a resonance feature or ‘organizING’ in, all of the outside-inward orchestrating/shaping influence on developing form and behaviour IS LOST in a mentally explanatory sense, so that in order for our purporting of ‘BEING’ to the human to hang together logically, we are forced to invent a notional ‘INTERNAL CENTRAL AUTHORITY’ as the local internal source of direction of development and behaviour.
We call this INTERNAL CENTRAL AUTHORITY’ the ‘intellectual centre’ or ‘mind’ that purportedly resides inside the ‘BEING’. We examine the nuclear magnetic resonance precessions inside the brain and make synthetic colour coded videos of them and claim that this activity in the brain somehow proves that this is where the ‘mind’ lives. This way, we don’t have to refer to or depend in any way upon the energy-field-flow the human is a resonance-feature in, for the dynamics of human development and behaviour. It all jumpstarts from right in there in the ‘INTERNAL CENTRAL AUTHORITY’ or ‘centre of intellection’ or ‘central processing unit’, or so they say,... and if you buy that, I suspect you are also in the market for a cheap bargain in bridges, like in the New York metroplex.

Those who are celling this notion of ‘being’ are having to make up all kinds of stories to explain development as ‘all genesis and no epigenesis’ [no ‘outside-inward orchestrating influence on development and behaviour of their ‘BEINGS’]

Even though Einstein and Poincaré have been screaming out ‘space is not empty’ and <em>“Relativity forces us to analyze the role played by geometry in the description of the physical world.”</em> mainstream [scientific] thinking continues to encourage belief that everything is directed inside-outwardly by a ‘central authority’ or ‘Directive centre’.

Take the migration of salmon, for example. Are we going to consider that the movements of salmon are influenced by the geometry of the spatial relations they are situationally included in; i.e. that the concentrations of plankton in the currents they are swimming in, orchestrate their movements from the outside-inward? Oh, no, not us scientific thinkers who start from the notion of biological organisms as ‘local beings’. We claim that the movements of salmon are directed by an internal centre of directive authority and that there is an internal intellectual program in their interior called ‘migration’ that tells them where to go in an inside-outward asserting fashion. Well, no, scientists haven’t yet found the direction navigating equipment inside the salmon that would have to go with the explanation, but the check is in the mail so-to-speak since according to their theory of ‘being’, it has to be inside the salmon.

How about if we assume that the concentrations of plankton in the ocean currents orchestrate their ‘migratory path’ from the outside-inward. When these currents, which are themselves ‘relational-spatial resonance features’ vary, we don’t have to say that ‘the salmon are wandering about confused’, we can instead assume that they are doing what they always have been doing, letting their behaviours be orchestrated outside-inwardly by the spatial geometry of the flow of nurturance. After all, this is essence of Lamarck and Nietzsche’s and Rolph and Rudimeyer’s anti-Darwinist views of evolution is all about, and it is what Mach’s principle states; i.e. the behaviours of the inhabitants are conditioned outside-inwardly by the behaviours of the habitat.

Are Orca movements orchestrated outside-inwardly by fish school movements? Of course they are. Are reindeer ‘migratory movements’ orchestrated outside-inwardly by the trail of crumbs of ‘lichen exposures’ which vary by season and climate shift? Of course they are.

But we’re not going to find many scientists opting for this outside-inward orchestrative sourcing of behaviour. [Russian and American/Canadian/British scientists are currently fighting about how Inuits/Nenets (people of the deer) survive in the arctic; i.e. is it that their behaviours are orchestrated outside-inwardly by the movements of game, or do their movements all derive from internal accumulated knowledge and intellection?].

Scientists are not ‘allowed’ to let go of the ‘central directive authority’ concept because once one assumes ‘BEING’, one has no choice but to explain development and behaviour in an inside-outward asserting, all genesis, no epigenesis, manner.

Politicians are going with this same ‘science’ which assumes that ‘humans’ and all ‘biological organisms’ are ‘beings’. The aggregation of cells within a being is held together by a central authority, and thus the aggregation of human organisms must self-similarly be held together by a central authority; e.g. the central authority of the ‘community as a collection of beings’ that inhabit an absolute, non-participating space.

This model of the ‘human being’ which insists that ‘organization’ derives from a ‘central authority’ is about to collapse. The cracks in it are everywhere.

In biological cell research, cell development is no longer considered to be entirely inside-outward driven and directed by ‘genetics’. In fact, the ‘cell’ is no longer considered to be a ‘unit of being’ but is instead considered to be a ‘unit of perception’ in that the receptors on the external membrane allow outside-inward environment signals to orchestrate the activities of ‘effectors’ that work the inside-outward asserting development of the cell. This is in agreement with Mach’s principle, and with the concept of space as a continually transforming relational spatial-plenum, as in modern physics.

This ‘rethink’ of the dynamics of cell development and behaviour speaks to a general ‘rethink’ at all levels of dynamics, including that of ‘human collectives’.

That is instead of our insisting that there must be a ‘central directive authority’, as is essential if we conceive of the human as a ‘BEING’, we can instead acknowledge the physical reality wherein human behaviour is orchestrated outside-inwardly by ‘signals from the environment’. This reconceives the basic character of the human from ‘a unit of being’ to a ‘unit of perception’; i.e. a dynamic form that is the connecting confluence of outside-inward orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting influence, and it does the same at the level of ‘community’. Only when we impute ‘local being’ to a community are we forced to explain the ‘organizING’ of community by way of a ‘central directive authority’. In the global flow of humanity, or in the global ecosphere flow, the ‘organizINGs’ are, in physical terms, the connecting confluence of outside-inward orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting influence.

ONCE WE SUSPEND OUR WESTERN HABIT OF IMPOSING ‘BEING’ ON THE ‘ORGANIZings’ [human forms/organizINGs] IN THE CONTINUALLY TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL SPATIAL-PLENUM, WE ARE NO LONGER FORCED TO IMPUTE THE EXISTENCE OF A ‘CENTRAL DIRECTIVE AUTHORITY’ AS AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT KEEPS THE ‘ORGANIZATION’ HOLDING TOGETHER’.

Once we liberate our thinking from this abstract notion of ‘being’ and its ‘either/or’ logical foundations, we can understand transformation of social dynamics as transpiring without any need for a ‘central directive authority’.

That is, we can revisit the evolution of social dynamics and see it, more physically realistically, in terms of the conjugate relation of epigenesis and genesis, rather than in terms of ‘all genesis’ and ‘no epigenesis’.

If your bus is going to stop and an angry demonstration is going to ensue if you, a white man, make a racist comment, then you are not going to keep on making racist comments. In the old view which sees you as a ‘unit of being’, one would say that your ‘central directive authority’ had revised its intellectual programs. But in the new-old view which sees you as a ‘unit of perception’, your inside-outward behaviour is evolving from outside-inward orchestrating influence or ‘signals from the environment’.

It is not about ‘learning’ in the sense of re-programming one’s ‘central directive authority’ and thus changing the inside-outward asserting [all genesis, no epigenesis] sole-sourcing of behavioural dynamics.

If one has a horse that has been ‘whip-trained’ running in a circle in a corral and one throws a stone at the horse, the horse will come immediately to your side. One says that the horse ‘HAS LEARNED’ how to behave, as if this behaviour is fully and solely directed by the central directive authority inside of its head,... but if one is not locked down by the concept of ‘being’, one could alternatively assume that the spatial region close to the person with the whip or the stone is relatively safer spatially, since the individual in the centre cannot wind up to throw the stone or crack the whip if you are standing right beside him. If another child is throwing stones at you, the safest place to be is right beside him where he no longer has room to wind up and throw a stone at you.

In other words, the dynamics of relational space have an outside-inward orchestrating influence on our movements. Only when we assume ‘being’ are we forced to explain all behaviours of the individual biological ‘being’, exclusively in terms of inside-outward assertive sourcing of behaviour, which originates in a notional ‘central directive authority’.

Does the abused wife climb back in bed/embrace with her abusive husband because she is sado-masochist, or is her movement outside-inward orchestrated, as she tucks in to the safest place in the house that she can find?

What does the child in such a household ‘do’?

<em> “Children model their behavior primarily on the behavior of their parents and other authority figures. Whether or not this behavior is effective at producing happiness doesn't prevent the child from modeling it; the modeling is not a result of reasoning, but is due to simple observation and imitation. This mimicry is illustrated in the old saying "Like father, like son," or now better put, "Like parent, like child." Whether parents are happy or not doesn't stop a child from imitating what he or she observes; children are like dry sponges ready to absorb the first water they come in contact with."</em>

When daddy gets abusive, she runs quickly to him to embrace him, just like the whip-trained horse. This is not a ‘learned behaviour’ that is sourced from some ‘program in the ‘central directive authority’ of the ‘human being’’, ... it is sourced outside-inwardly by the orchestrating influence of the relational space the child is included in.

Daddy does not ‘miss’ what is going on here. Once an emotional/relational bond is established, whip-training can commence.

Political authorities do not ‘miss’ what is going on here; once an emotional/relational bond is established, whip training can commence. People will run towards the police to avoid being abused by the police/authorities.

Not all cultures have this belief in the need for a ‘central directive authority’ because not all cultures see the ‘human’ as a ‘human being’.

Belief in the need for a ‘Central Directive Authority’ to keep a community hanging together stands or falls on the common belief in ‘being’ and in the human as a ‘human being’, a concept that has us see dynamical development and behaviour in terms of ‘all genesis’ [all inside-outward directed sourcing of development and behaviour] and ‘no epigenesis’ [no outside-inward orchestrative sourcing of development and behaviour].

We are currently experiencing the erosion of the intellectual foundations of colonialism, or, in other words, we are living in the era of the ‘fall of the human being’ as a belief-based concept.

Comments

Best rollover in a while.

I think this sums up what u sayin thar brah, stay cool,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G_msX9iHwg

As Edward Said said about the Other...

"a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are."

Eloquent and concise, how I envy him!!

yes, many of us are no longer human, but killer clowns from outer space, rather

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=557346411661&set=pb.50001008.-220...

wholesome gals with anarchist values what!

read first sentence... "Wait... is this by Emile?...... Oh, yup."

Nope.

uh, except, yupp

happened and true

no. it wasn't. it was written by a right-wing christian.

oh my bad

You attribution of an inside-outward authorship to the relational dynamic formING known as emile is highly offensive. Naturally, the offense is in the form of a relational perception.

OMG! I just want Emile to read some Foucault or Baudrillard, at least we would have a reference point, as flimsy at it might be, but nevertheless more solid than psuedo-scientific jargon!!

you forgot to rampantly use gratuitous 'scare quotation marks'

"The concept of ‘being’ is innately dependent on the concept of ‘absolute space’ [Euclidian space] and ‘absolute space’ is an abstraction that should not be confused for ‘physical reality’."

Why is the concept of being dependent on absolute space?

That's true, reality in its sensual form is essentially spatial, or the environment. Time, sound and scent are acquired abstracts relevant to a species which comes later, if there be a comprehension of time, of a past and future.
If we were to say that the future of 'human being' required a negation of obsessing time or fetishing the historical grand narratives of cultures or particular doctrines, (just choose any religion, myth or politic), then we would instantaneously be allowed what we call anarchism, it would be there totally, and not just inside my own head. Dig?

Agreed. Our sentient experience is inherently ‘relational’. The abstract/logical notion of our ‘independent local existence’ or ‘being’ opens the way to elevating into an unnatural primacy, logical intellection. Logical intellection is the stuff that “the historical grand narratives of cultures or particular doctrines, (just choose any religion, myth or politic)” .... are ‘made of’.

As soon as we start thinking in terms of ‘being’, we disconnect ourselves from the relational space that we are included participants in, and we start thinking that ‘we must be here for some purpose’ [we ‘owe’], and then we go in search for ‘that purpose’ to find some ‘grand narrative’ that fits, and this distracts us from the physical reality of our inclusion in a continually transforming relational space; i.e. it distracts us from the call to ‘rise to the occasion’ [the unfolding spatial-relational unfolding that we are uniquely, situationally included in], ... it distracts us from the call to ‘take our place in the natural scheme of things’.

Instead of letting our behaviour be guided/orchestrated by our experience of situational inclusion within a continually transforming relational space, our notion of 'being' has us using our rational thoughts based on ‘belief’ in some ‘grand narrative’ to direct our behaviour, such as demonstrating our membership in a superior race by besting and dominating others to show up their inferiority while allowing some crumbs from our table to ‘trickle down’ and feed them; i.e. those whom we have just stomped and pissed on to demonstrate our superiority.

the locally gathering dynamical forms in a relational space have no meaning ‘in their own independently-existing right’, their meaning is like the meaning of the actions of a man who is in the middle of a ‘human pyramid’ which, as is made clear by the ‘three body problem’ in mathematics, is impossible to solve for. [i.e. in the relational space of the atmosphere, the behaviour of one of the multiple cells/whorls has no meaning in itself; the whorls are not sourcing the flow they are in, the flow they are in is sourcing the whorls].

as Nietzsche observes, Heraclitus is correct in his view that reality is a continual state of becoming, and is not a state of being. Physical reality is eternally changing, and is never a constant, immutable state of being. ‘Being’ is an empty fiction; ‘becoming’ is what is real.

As Nietzsche further suggests, we are not responsible for the fact that we exist; i.e. we are not created by any divine will, nor for any divine purpose. If we were created by God, then we would be accountable to God for the fact that we exist [we would 'owe']. If we were accountable to God, then God would be an objection or contradiction to our existence [we would be born with a debit corresponding to a divine credit]. Thus, Nietzsche argues that God does not exist. If we deny God, we deny accountability. By denying that we are accountable to God, we redeem ourselves. [we “allow ourselves what we call ‘anarchism’].

That is, 'anarchism' viewed in this way is the freedom that comes with such redemption or 'extrication' from trapping ourselves [or letting our religion our culture traps us] in some or other role in some or other 'grand narrative'.

You ask;

“Why is the concept of being dependent on absolute space?”

‘Being’ implies “some thing that physically locally exists”; i.e. some thing that is ‘local, tangible/visible, material’ and ‘disconnected’ from other ‘beings’. If we examine two ‘beings’; A and B, they are not TWO beings if they are two hurricanes in the same flow-space, they are only two visual features that the observer discriminates and may give names to such as Katrina and Rita. There are no persisting ‘beings’ in a flow-space that is in a continual state of becoming since the forms are purely ‘spatial-relational’.

In order to establish the local ‘being’ of a ‘thing’ such as ‘A’, we have to distinguish between it being merely ‘schaumkommen’ as Schroedinger says (‘appearances’ that the observer imputes ‘being’ to), or possessing actual PHYSICAL local being. In order for TWO or more ‘beings’ to exist in a common space, they need to be truly ‘locally existing’ in a physical sense rather than merely being two ‘features in a common flow’ such as in a relational space or ‘field-flow’; i.e. features that we, as observers, impute local being to by defining and naming them and endowing them with LOGICAL BEING even though they are ‘appearances’ and lack ‘physical local being’. This practice is common and born of discursive/logical convenience. As John Stuart Mill observes;

“Every definition implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the existence [local being] of the object defined.”

In other words, we use language to impute ‘being’ to such things as two storm cells in a common flow-space such as the atmosphere. There is just one flow with internal currents and resonance-based features, but as observers whose gaze orients to the resonance features in the flow, our habit is to use language to identify, name and define two ‘local beings’; e.g. ‘Katrina’ and ‘Rita’ whose behaviours are intrinsically interdependent by way of physics; i.e. Mach’s principle describes this mode of interdependence of two ‘dynamic forms’ [NOT local beings] in a common relational space;

“The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat”.

If they are ‘relational features in a common flow’ we cannot realistically impute to them ‘their own behaviour’, unless the space they inhabit is ‘absolute vacuum’ so that their behaviours are in no way ‘interdependently connected’ as they must be if they are features within a relational space. In other words, multiple cells in a common flow may have LOGICAL LOCAL BEING that we disburse at our pleasure using language [names and definitions] without having PHYSICAL LOCAL BEING.

Now this difference between LOGICAL LOCAL BEINGS and PHYSICAL LOCAL BEINGS is important to social issues such as ‘justice’ as can be explored via the split between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’

[N.B; notice that the 'have' - 'have-not' dynamic is spoken of 'out of the context of the physical nature of the space that this dynamic transpires within; i.e. it could be an infinite flat plane or the finite and unbounded space on the surface of a shere].

Western monotheist religious traditions assume that we are ‘human BEINGs’ created by God. Moral law and the ten commandments etc. rest on the assumption that our behaviours arise purely and solely [inside-outwardly] from ourselves as local, independently-existing human BEINGS. Thanks to this assumption, we develop the social behaviour management approach or Justice system based on laws that govern ‘individual behaviour’, the behaviour of ‘individual human beings’.

But according to modern physics and Mach’s principle, space is a relational mediating medium that gives an ‘interdependence’ to our behaviours. For example, if 1% of the people monopolize almost all of the land and the fresh water and other resources, and the 99% are starving, their behaviour [tearing down fences and taking food from those with over-abundance] is reciprocally related to the behaviour of the monopolizers [this would not be true in the case of Euclidian (absolute) space which is fixed, empty and infinite].

There are two behaviours that are involved; (a) ‘monopolizing access to the common living space and its resources’ and (b) seeking to restore balance to access to the common space and its resources’,. These behaviours, in the real physical space we live in, ... are not ‘independent’, but are related in a manner described by Mach’s principle.

‘ABSOLUTE SPACE’ is ‘LOGICAL SPACE’. Nothing is ‘absolute’ in our physical experience. Only in LOGICAL SPACE does there exist local, independently existing ‘beings’ with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour. This LOGICAL ABSOLUTE SPACE scenario is what we use to justify the application of moral law to the behaviour of these notional local beings (‘things-in-themselves’), who are notionally the absolute jumpstart initiators of their own behaviour. If they become ‘thieves’ in the eyes of the law, this ‘thieving behaviour’ is sourced from nowhere else but from the internals of their ‘local being’; i.e. from their internal ‘thieving purpose’. In this LOGICAL view, the physical monopolization of access to the resources of the common living space doesn’t even enter into it.

The Justice system does not have to talk about ‘spatial-relations’ in order to administer the law. The law applies to individual behaviours, and the law prohibits theft and it apprehends, convicts and punishes thieves. It sees ‘thievery’ as a problem, but not ‘monopolization of access to the common living space. No way!

Western society applauds those ‘superior performers’ whose ‘superiority’ manifests in their acquiring monopoly positions of access to the common living space and its resources.

This issue has cropped up before.

Many people believe that God created human ‘beings’ and that for reasons only known to Himself, he created some ‘inferior races of people’ and some ‘superior races of people’. This gives us an explanation for how some people manage to monopolize access to the common living space and its resources, and how others are destined to become serfs and lackeys of the former. Darwin concretized this thought with these same ideas in his 1859 book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Adam Smith, almost a century earlier in his 1776 book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” had reflected the general tone of common public thinking on this matter; i.e. that it was part of God’s unknowable plan to set up a hierarchical values scheme; God, angels, superior races of men, inferior races of men, animals, insects, minerals etc. etc. and to let it ‘play out’ with those 'closer to God' ruling over those below them as in Genesis 1:28

“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” – Genesis 1:28

What Smith said in ‘The Wealth of Nations’ included;

“ Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.” —Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

In other words, it was ‘God’s Will’ that some people monopolized access to the land and its resources, and the solution was not ‘to restore balance’ but to accept the imbalance as God’s will, and to leave the unlanded serfs with two sticks and a stone to recover from the ‘lock-in’ established by the landlord classes. And if they used the stone to smash a window and the sticks to pry open some warehouse doors, they would be breaking God’s laws that apply to the behaviour of human BEINGS, and we can’t forget that not only monotheist religion but also mainstream science declares that the behaviours of local BEINGS arise from nowhere else but from their own local, internal processes such as their [thieving] intellection and purpose.

These so-called ‘beings’ are ‘logical local, independently-existing beings’ rather than ‘physical, local independently-existing beings’ [there is no such thing as the latter in the relational space of our physical experience] and absolute space is the ‘logical space’ that supports the notion of ‘logical beings’.

‘THE LOGICAL REALITY’ ≠ ‘THE PHYSICAL REALITY’.

Which one do we want to use to guide our social relations? Mach’s principle says that the behaviours of the monopolizers and the behaviours of the thieves are not ‘independent’ implying that that the ‘monopolizers’ and the ‘thieves’ are not ‘local independently existing beings’, and that the immoral thieving behaviours do not simply derive from internal thieving intellection and purpose, but derive from the monopolizing behaviours via the mediating medium of relational space.

Western Justice is founded on a ‘logical reality’ based on belief in ‘local, independently-existing beings’ with their own local, internally jumpstarting behaviours. In this case, as in Adam Smith’s and Darwin’s line of thinking, the split in acquired wealth between the 1% and 99% is a manifestation of the ‘superior races’ and the ‘inferior races’ identifying themselves.

Excuse the length of this response to your question;

“Why is the concept of being dependent on absolute space?”

It could have been answered with logic; i.e. if A and B are ‘local beings’ or ‘things-in-themselves, then there must be no third element C such that A = C and B = C so that A = B (the logic of the excluded third). If C is space, space must be an absolute vacuum that precludes any influence of the A leaking through to modify, in any way, B in order for A and B to be said to be local, independently-existing ‘beings’.

But such an explanation doesn’t go so far as to show how our BELIEF IN LOCAL, INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING BEINGS ‘plays out’ in our social dynamics. As Nietzsche observed, our belief in ‘beings’ is based on an unjustified-by-physical-experience LEAP from ‘Dinge an sich selbst betrachtet’ (‘Things considered in themselves’ [e.g. hurricanes]) to ‘Dinge an sich’ (‘Things-in-themselves’) = ‘beings’ in a LOGICAL sense.

As Mach and Schroedinger [et al] observed, in physical reality, our essence and behaviour is ‘connected’ via the mediating medium of space [‘space’ is ‘relational’ and thus does not support any local, independent existences aka 'beings'].

How much longer can this concept of 'the human being' persist? It will persist so long as we put logical debate in an unnatural primacy over physical experience.

Bullies, blackmailers, and liars are not 'superior performers', they are what they are.

Sometimes one has 'cognitive dissonance' and wants to believe, as 'Emile' does, that in another environment certain 'beings' would be different; this is often not the case.

Sometimes one has 'cognitive dissonance' between the public 'persona' and the actual thoughts and actions which are 'essential' to certain persons 'being'. Their 'values', their 'beliefs', that cannot always be 'broken down'.

Essentialism cannot be thrown out the window; it has its dangers, as Emile has pointed in in length - bigotry presented as total moral relativism is complete horror.

"Instead of human BEINGS aka biological ORGANISMS, we have human BECOMINGS aka biological ORGANIZINGS"

I like this, but... Why "Instead of?"

"Here the quantum logic of BOTH/AND comes into play and we are not forced to make a choice as to whether the human EITHER ‘is material’ OR ‘is not material’, "

But we are forced to make a choice of becomings/organizings *INSTEAD OF* beings/organisms? Does this not make your favored "both/and" contingent upon "either/or" which you attempt to admonish? Your "quantum logic" has not even remotely escaped "being" and is not a logic of or for "becoming." You have further transposed another "either/or."

This basically comes down to 'you must EITHER choose "either/or" logic OR "both/and" logic.' This makes it not an esacape, but an indulgence. Do you contend that your proposed "either/or" option that you have presented is the only viable one? Or can your "quantum logic" account for both "either/or" AND "and/both?"

My honest opinion of most of your thoughts on these matters is that you're really good at what you're really bad at. Half of that is complimentary, half is insulting. You can take it as "either/or, but it is "Both/and."

p.s.

there's an entire article to refer to. brevity, without basically re-stating everything in the article, should be relatively easy. but I don't expect it.

most forums replicate the television news. the discussions always start within an already superficial discursive space and never leave it; i.e. these discussions never question the underlying assumptions that 'grounds' the discussion. so we discuss the behaviours of syria, israel, palestine, iran, ... and what we should do about these behaviours, who is right and who is wrong, ... without even questioning whether 'sovereigntism' makes sense; i.e. putting the massive resources and power of a hundred million people into the hands of a central authority [egotist, power-hungry politicians] who will carry those millions into this action or that which can have massive consequences, not only for them but for everyone in the world.

what are the unquestioned assumptions that provide the 'floor' for news reporting and forum discussions? as someone above offered;

"a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are." - Edward Said

if we want to deal with today's issues seriously, one has to include the normally unquestioned assumptions that constitutes the floor upon which the repetitious, never-get-anywhere 'usual' arguments transpire in.

oh yes, including the tools of inquiry in our inquiry requires a lot more words. but who has time for this? brevity is essential, we don't want to dither about in a lot of philosophical investigations. we need to get on with it, stick with the basics, keep it simple stupid. no national news media are going to start off with;

"as we look out at the thousands of people who are dying in syria and palestine, and in afghanistan and iraq, and as we remember the millions of people in the 20th century that similarly 'died before their time', one begins to wonder about the wisdom of organization based on hierarchical authority and sovereign states; i.e. we start off this news broadcast by questioning whether such forms of organization are in the people of the world's best interest."

hey, many of the participants in this forum know that we don't have time for that shit. we need to get straight into the discussion of what is going on and whose actions are justifiable and whose are not; we need to sort out the various military strategies in play, and figure out how we can best support the good guys and help defeat the axes of evil. we have had lots of practice in this throughout the 20th century, we need to bring our best debating skills into the 21st century. we must look to our 'political leaders' for solutions here, as we have always done...NOT!!!

I stumbled upon Edward Said by chance on a quiet afternoon sauntering about on the net. Gonna see what else he's done. He reminds me a bit of Roland Barthes, maybe.

it's not "keep it simple, stupid," it's "i'm familiar with your content and positions, INCLUDING this one from past discussions. A bunch of paragraphs on your position on "brevity" which I was already familiar with. Do you understand what I mean, now?

The basis of my inquiry should absolve the inane assumption that I think "we don't want to dither about in a lot of philosophical investigations." Your refusal to engage in a particular aspect (that which I quoted/criticized) in a concise way as if information/insight can be acquired and accounted for cumulatively is an insult to the depth of the philosophical investigation that *one aspect* contains.

It's not akin to military strategy or looking to political leaders to be like "hey, let's discuss the immense depth of one aspect of a philosophy with some base assumptions of familiarity with surrounding materials."

You suggest that i contradict myself in regard to my ‘choosing between’ EITHER/OR and BOTH/AND logic; i.e. you say;

“This basically comes down to 'you must EITHER choose "either/or" logic OR "both/and" logic.' This makes it not an esacape, but an indulgence. Do you contend that your proposed "either/or" option that you have presented is the only viable one? Or can your "quantum logic" account for both "either/or" AND "and/both?"

your latter suggestion is correct.

if we are going to make use of 'logic' in the real physical world of our experience, we have to acknowledge that logical entities must ‘live somewhere’; i.e. in some sort of ‘space'. ‘either/or’ logic implies absolute space, the simplest possible space while ‘both/and’ logic implies a more complex space [curved space or relational space];

““Space is another framework we impose upon the world” . . . ” . . . here the mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature.” . . .Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.”. . . Henri Poincaré, ’Science and Hypothesis’.”

a ‘second degree’ [relational or curved] space implicitly includes a ‘first degree’ [absolute space] but not the other way around [mathematically, absolute or ‘rectangular’ space is a special case, curved space is the general case]. for example, if we ‘differentiate the pressure distribution’ in the continually transforming space of the atmosphere, we get ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ anomalies. when we started off, the dynamic figures and the dynamic ground were describable by ‘BOTH/AND’ logic, but after we differentiated, we end up with EITHER positive figures OR negative figures and the ground becomes a non-participating reference frame.

when we ‘measure a thing’, we have to frame it within a fixed reference grid. in quantum physics, the act of measurement ‘collapses the probability function’ or in other words ‘eliminates the uncertainty’ associate with the ‘local being’ of the thing. thus measurement is like defining the thing and we could say; “every measurement implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the existence of the thing measured”. until we have measured the pressure anomaly constituted by the storm cells/hurricanes, BOTH/AND logic applies to ‘dynamic figures’ and ‘dynamic ground’ as given in Mach’s principle. but after we have measured one or more pressure anomalies [using an absolute space reference framing to relate it to, as we must to ‘measure’ it], this implicitly allows us to ‘split it out’ of the dynamic continuum it is included in. in other words, before we imposed a measuring frame [with an absolute measuring rod and absolute time clock we brought in from outside of the physical phenomenon], the dynamic figure ‘related’ to the ‘dynamic ground’ it was included in. but in making the measurement, we reduce the dynamic figures to local, independently-existing things that populate an absolute space reference frame where EITHER/OR logic applies.

Thus, if we start with BOTH/AND, we can have BOTH ‘both/and’ logic AND ‘either/or’ logic because we are starting in a curved space [polynomial of degree two] and we can reduce it by ‘differentiating’ to a flat space [polynomial of degree one] where only EITHER/OR logic applies.

so, we can use both flavours of logic, both/and and either/or, however we have to remember that the space of our physical experience is ‘relational space’, according to the findings of modern physics where ‘both/and’ logic applies and where either/or logic does not apply. however, science is always looking for ways to simplify things, as Mach says,

“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” –Ernst Mach

so, if we want to go ‘with our experience’, we use both/and logic which corresponds with the space of our physical experience, and if we want to simplify things and go ‘with local beings’, we can use the ‘either/or’ logic of ‘logical intellection’ or ‘rational intellection’ [implying absolute space or measuring reference grid space] which re-renders dynamics in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

if we put our experience in the primacy and use rational intellection as a support tool [sailboater mode] we get a different social dynamic from that in which we put rational intellection in the primacy [powerboater mode], since rational intellection is the ‘polynomial of degree one’ mode which is ‘already reduced’, and therefore excludes the both/and logic based behaviour [where we understand ourselves as strands in a relational web].

we all know how ‘this feels’. if we are in both/and sailboater mode, our behaviour is firstly orchestrated by our sustaining balance and harmony with the dynamic ground we are included in. if we are in either/or powerboater mode, our behaviour is being firstly directed and driven from out of our internal knowledge, rational intellection and purpose. we don’t escape from the dynamic ground, we just ignore it. the powerboater captain who holds to his course and time-based schedule without compromise to his inclusion in a dynamic ground, is the captain of the Titanic. ignoring the dynamic ground he is included in; i.e. putting it second to his feature role in a grand narrative shortly to be published in the New York Times as he makes the fastest transatlantic crossing ever, may work out for him, or it may not.

to put experience into the primacy over the either/or logic of rational intellection lets us use rational intellection in a supporting role.

to put the either/or logic of rational intellection first, turns us into a powerboating machine that leaves wreckage in our wake even if we manage to stay ahead of it for awhile, but the problem is [the karma is], in living in a curved space, that as we proceed forward, the wreckage/garbage we thought we left astern in our wake, we soon see coming over the horizon and approaching our advancing bow. in a curved space, there is no absolute motion, there is only transformation of the relational space we share inclusion in.

I'm certain I agree with the substance here, but I think the application and examples utilized are absolutist and exempt from the suggestions.

"we all know how ‘this feels’. if we are in both/and sailboater mode, our behaviour is firstly orchestrated by our sustaining balance and harmony with the dynamic ground we are included in."

If you were in "both/and" "mode," how can you portend to know and claim that something is "firstly" happening? When did you start measuring and counting that, how, and how are you certain?

" if we start with BOTH/AND, we can have BOTH ‘both/and’ logic AND ‘either/or’ logic because we are starting in a curved space"

But, if we, as you said "*REMEMBER* that we *ARE IN* curved relational space," how did could you "START" any other way? If someone *doesn't* "remember", but you contend that either way, they ARE IN such space, how are you certain of the "starting point" from one position or the other really exists or can be determined at all? You have an "either/or logic" bias towards "both/and logic," and according to "both/and" logic and existing curved-relational space, you are arbitrarily and therefor inadequately and only inversely applying "either/or logic." You are doing what you condemn in a way that does not absolve it from "coming first," with an "order" ("DO THIS FIRST!!!") that can not be accounted for and is your invention; that's dictation, that's directive. Authoritative, even. "We don't escape from the dynamic ground, only ignore it." is what I'm saying about your propositions, in fact. However, I don't think it can be ultimately escaped or ignored, only "navigated" variously with the appearance of "ignore/acknowledge," and I don't believe there is any particular or reliable application or result from either. (no particular or reliable application or result from *both* "either/or" logic *and* "both/and" logic.)

I think some of your attempts at correct ideas are the best examples of how your ideas are incorrect. I think the titanic can be piloted the same with both "flavours of logic."

"in a curved space, there is no absolute motion, there is only transformation of the relational space we share inclusion in."

If there is "only" transformation that we "only" share inclusion in, why are you so *focused* and concerned with determining what "our wake" even is, or where it begins and ends? In living in a curved space, there is no "point" with which to attribute belonging to what "lies ahead" when we "proceed forward," there is only *relat*-ive difference between "the garbage" and "us." Why are you so biased towards attributing so much responsibility and agency to humans? Neither us nor what allegedly comprises "the garbage of our wake" asked to be in either position of existence, and I'm not inclined to think anything else has some innate positionality of which thing or the other is to get out of the way or avoid getting in other ways. (which is to say, there is no objective "should" or "shouldn't" to determine in these matters.)

All matter is relational, all time is an illusion, all attempts to impose static order on our becoming causes untold psychic harm. Smoke DMT!

i appreciate this. haters gonna hate, but i would feel a lot better about more anarchists if they took philosophical and metaphysical questions as seriously as they take themselves as political 'subjects', since what is a subject anyway? not that there's no answer but an attempt must be made to pose the question in order to have a halfway sensible way to use such a word.

to be fair i didn't really have time to read the entire thing, but i do want to see i would like to see these critiques of dualistic notions of 'community' and 'justice' deployed more within the anarchist milieu, in which they have been all too indiscriminately utilized in a manner more befitting of the explicitly-authoritarian left.

Most all political-economy takes place in *Newtonian space* where formal logic and empiricism are the most useful tools. We might leave things like ' constitutional-relativism' to the Post-Modernist types - even if its fun laughing at them.

combining "formal logic and empiricism" is oxymoronic. you probably intended "formal logic and rationalism" [see, for example Rationalism vs. Empiricism

as poincaré has pointed out, 'formal logic and rationalism', while useful in simplifying our experience, employ abstract idealizations to 'correct our experience' [for the convenience of simplifying our mental models].

in other words, the use of "formal logic and rationalism" is the problem, not the solution.

Re “more deployment within the anarchist milieu of critiques of the dualistic notions of ‘community’ and ‘justice’”

It is evident that there is a big split in our society on the issue of dualism versus non-dualism; e.g. “if you are not with us you are against us” versus “we are all in this thing together”.

The place to keep one’s eye open for signs of who is advocating which, is in discussions of ‘community’, ‘justice’ and ‘development’.

non-dualism is not new. the aboriginal culture and all ‘original cultures’ are grounded in it while technological cultures have been working strenuously to get rid of it. non-dualism has been advocated WITHIN SCIENCE for over a century, starting with Mach, continuing on through Bohm and Schroedinger and supported by ‘relational theorists’ like Rovelli and Smolin, the scientists in the ‘transdisciplinarity’ movement (Nicolescu etc.) and those logicians like Lupasco who have worked on the ‘logic of the included middle’ (‘both/and’ logic).

non-dualists are ‘tolerant’ in the sense they acknowledge the value of BOTH ‘both/and’ AND ‘either/or’ logic, and see the former as being a higher level of reality and the latter a lower level of reality, in a manner that parallels ‘curved space’ [where opposition is reciprocally complementary as in the space on the surface of a sphere where, when the people in that space are pushing out and inside-outwardly diverging, they are at the same time accommodating this diverging by outside-inward converging], ... and ‘rectangular space’ [where opposition is absolute and splits the universe into polar opposites, whether ‘up/north’ versus ‘down/south’ or ‘left/west’ versus ‘right/east’]. That is, the two levels of reality acknowledged by non-dualists relate in the same way as ‘curved space’ relates to ‘rectangular space’; as Poincaré says, in the manner that a polynomial of degree two relates to polynomial of degree one [we can fit either one to the same data; e.g. three points can be used to form a triangle on a flat plane or on the surface of a sphere].

to summarize the issues in a short blurb [reams of complicated stuff have been written on this], to help bring anyone who might be reading this, who might not be familiar with the dualist/non-dualist debate, onto the ‘same page’, the historical issue WITHIN SCIENCE in regard to dualism versus non-dualism is; ‘which of these 'realities' best matches the phenomena of our physical experience’. Mach, Poincaré, Bohm, Schroedinger, Rovelli [and Nietzsche], while recognizing the utility of dualist logic (standard Aristotelian logic), opted for non-dualism and regarded dualism as a convenient because simpler special case. F. David Peat wrote ‘Blackfoot Physics’ to illustrate how the non-dualism implicit in aboriginal ‘thinking’ agreed with the non-dualism in relativity and quantum physics.

The difference between dualist and non-dualist ‘thinking’ is as follows;

(1.) Dualist thinking: Aristotle formulate three laws of thought which constitute what we commonly refer to as ‘logic’ [there is more than one system of logic, as will be discussed momentarily, but we normally think of ‘logic’ as being ‘logic’; i.e. ‘dualist logic’]

“Classic laws of thought:---The principle of excluded middle, along with its complement, the law of contradiction (the second of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of these laws). Because the principle of identity intellectually partitions the Universe into exactly two parts: "self" and "other", it creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The principle of contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the principle of excluded middle is an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.” – Wikipedia, Logic of the Excluded Middle

In the dualist view, for example, the ‘superior performer’ and the ‘inferior performer’ are mutual opposites so that the ‘superiorior performer’ is like a ‘crest’ that is independent of the ‘trough’. In the nondualist view, as with divergence which is at the same time convergence in the curved space on the surface of the earth, the one is the reciprocal complement of the other [the two are in conjugate relation as given by Mach’s principle]. If the ‘superior performers’ are acquiring more land, the ‘inferior performers’ are getting ‘foreclosed’ on and giving up land. Nietzsche, an aggressive non-dualist, puts it like this;

“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067”

The point here is that if space is relational, as Mach’s principle captures it, then there is a conjugate relation between inside-outward asserting and outside-inward accommodating. Einstein referred to this as ‘reciprocal disposition’ and it has been called ‘reciprocal backpressure’ or ‘back-reflection’ etc. Picture spherical soap-bubbles as they are growing and expanding by warmth from the sun, as they expand, their own inertia [which is relative to the universe] reflects back and compresses them from the outside-inward, transforming them into hexagonal cells. These forms [hexagonal cells] do not arise from inside-outward ‘genesis’ but arise instead from the conjugate relation of outside-inward orchestrating/organizing influence and inside-outward asserting/organizing influence.

The ‘new science’ of ‘epigenesis’ is major supporting evidence for physical phenomena as being better described by non-dualism than by dualism.

However, dualism, as built into formal logic, the tool we use to reason with in our debates, is why we thought of evolution as ‘all genesis’ and ‘no epigenesis’ until that view crumbled with stem-cell research and discovery of the receptor-effector conjugate relation in cell membranes.

And of course, the capitalist economy’s focus on growth is rooted in Aristotelian logic wherein ‘growth’ can go on indefinitely. However, in the non-dualist view, growth/production is reciprocally complementary to decline/consumption so that continued growth can only lead to ‘implosion’, just as ‘inside-outwards divergence and ‘outside-inward convergence’ are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation of relational space [see Nietzsche’s above comment].

(2.) Non-dualist Thinking: “With the advent of quantum physics, the classic logic (binary logic) used to understand the macrocosm was no longer useful to explain the reality of matter for, in the quantum universe (microcosm), the principle of identity of classic logic is not valid. So it was only possible to understand microcosm from the point of view of a non-classical logic.”

Scientific research has been primarily grounded in dualist logic and is thus concerned with just one level of reality [e.g. where ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ are absolute polar opposites, so that ‘growth’ is taken to be real and unlimited, rather than bound up with ‘decline’ in the relational-space dynamics of ‘transformation’]. This ‘dualist reality’ approach was very successful in the development of technology in Western society. It resulted in many benefits that offered a more comfortable life style—though not necessarily healthier, and undeniably dangerous to the continuity of the human race, as the resources of the planet have been overused. Such success also contributed to the blindness of science to new approaches.

In these anarchist forums, there are many dualist voices arguing for the continued ‘growth’ of ‘the anarchist movement’ while only very occasionally does one hear non-dualist voices arguing for ‘transformation’ rather than ‘growth’. That is, as in the Egyptian ‘Arab Spring’ when police join the protestors, this is, at the same time, BOTH ‘growth of the protest movement’ AND ‘transformation of the community’. The dualist logic of the excluded middle cannot capture ‘transformation of the community’ since it separates ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ into two mutually exclusive camps. Dualism says that ‘growth’ cannot, at the same time, equal ‘decline’. Whereas non-dualism says that ‘growth’ [‘creation’] and ‘decline’[‘destruction’] are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation.

Given that the community is ‘one thing’ [as in Nietzsche’s comment], all growth in the anarchist movement IS NOT 'REAL GROWTH’ but is ‘transformation’ of the community’. If we count up all the anarchists who have ‘joined the team’, they are the same people who were there all the time, just painted with a different colour. There is no such thing as ‘growth’ of the anarchist movement IN PHYSICAL REALITY, the physical reality is the 'transformation of community’. This is Mach’s principle. This is the non-dualist view which accepts TWO LEVELS OF REALITY.

Relativity and quantum physics [as well as ‘epigenetics’] meant that the classic logic (binary logic) used to understand the macrocosm was no longer useful to explain the relational physical phenomena and understanding it required the new point of view of a non-classical logic. The non-classical logic [i.e. the non-dualist logic of the INCLUDED middle] is described by Nicolescu/Lupasco as follows;

“To every phenomenon or element or logical event whatsoever, and accordingly to the judgment which thinks of it, the proposition which expresses it, to the sign which symbolizes it must always be associated, structurally and functionally, a logical antiphenomenon, or anti-element or anti-event and therefore a contradictory judgment, proposition or sign in such a fashion that the former can only be potentialized by the actualization of the latter, but not disappear such that either could be self-sufficient in an independent and therefore rigorous non-contradiction – as in all logic, classical or otherwise, that is based on an absoluteness of the principle of non-contradiction.”

The point half-way between actualization and potentialization is a point of maximum antagonism or ‘contradiction’ from which, in the case of complex phenomena, a T-state (T for “tiers inclus”, included third term) emerges, which is capable of resolving the contradiction (or ‘counter-action‘), at another, higher level of reality. “ - Lupasco, Stéphane., Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie, 1951. [see also; ‘Stéphane Lupasco et le tiers inclus. De la physique quantique à l’ontologie’, by Basarab Nicolescu]

The example of the ‘growth of the anarchist movement’ as mentioned above, could be used to put Lupasco’s description of the ‘logic of the included middle’ into perspective, and how ‘two levels of reality’ are involved. Poincaré also discusses these two levels of reality in terms of the split between ‘pragmatist idealists’ and ‘realists’. In other words, this is a ‘psychological thing’ [whether one goes for BOTH 'both/and' AND 'either/or' (pragmatist idealists) or rejects BOTH/AND and goes only with ‘EITHER/OR’ ('realists')]

When Poincaré said that ‘Cantorism is a disease that mathematics will have to recover from’, he was talking about ‘Cantorian realism’ where we define things logically (inside-outwardly, without ‘outside-inward shaping influence’). We proceed from the general to the particular not from the entity’s unique situational inclusion in the transforming relational space but by first assuming a ‘locally existing’ common genus; e.g. ‘humans’, and studying their similarities [giving us the general] and differences [giving us the particular]; e.g. two legs, two arms (long or short, hairy or smooth), three orifices (..) etc. Once we have defined the genus and the qualification for membership [e.g. ‘anarchist’], it is, to the Cantorian realist, as if we can have as many of these things as we want, as if we can order them from a supermarket of infinite supply in the sky (there is no conjugate outside-inward---inside-outward relation as in Mach’s principle; e.g. as in storm-cells – flow relationship which requires a mutually interdependent outside-inward---inside-outward relational definition ).

Once one declares that there is such a thing as an ‘anarchist’, one can imagine that there is a group of anarchists and that this group is ‘growing’ and that this growth is ‘real’. We are using standard Aristotelian logic here where we have two groups, ‘anarchists’ and ‘non-anarchists’ that are understood as mutually exclusive. We can see them lined up on either side of the street and taunting one another. Some are changing sides and crossing the street in one direction and in the other. There is a material dynamic going on here and we could measure the weight of the anarchist and non-anarchist factions in long tonnes to show ‘who was winning’; i.e. which group was ‘growing’ and which group was ‘declining’. Of course, if they were lined up on the north and south side of the equator, and more were moving from non-anarchist south to the anarchist north, the ‘growth’ in the anarchist population would be abstraction and the physical level of reality would be understood in terms of ‘reconfiguration’ of the ‘one-space’ on the surface of the sphere, or ‘transformation’ of the relational space on the surface of the sphere.

That is, it is not necessary for them to ‘cross the street’ and ‘weigh in’. We could have a crowd standing still and we could identify the anarchists as the one’s smiling and the non-anarchists as the ones frowning, and the one’s smiling would be trying to get the one’s who are frowning to break into a smile. The crowd is one and the same crowd, there is just a transformation of values/demeanor/style. The notion of ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ are abstractions that should not be confused for physical reality. Only if we look at each group separately can we speak about ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ but everyone is capable of BOTH ‘smile’ AND ‘frown’.

The pragmatist idealist will say that the Aristotelian dualist logic of ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ is ‘idealization’, but ‘useful idealization’ [Nietzsche terms it ‘Fiktion’, but ‘useful Fiktion’]. The ‘realist’, on the other hand, will consider ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ as ‘physical reality’, and he will have his number count and weigh-in results to confirm the ‘growth’ of his group, just as he confirms the growth of his ‘industrial production’. For example, the growth in the number of board-feet of lumber coming out of his mill, he considers to be ‘real growth’, but others may notice the simultaneous decline in the forested area. The common living space is the same common living space, but it is undergoing transformation. That is the non-dualist view. That is Mach’s and Nietzsche’s and Poincaré’s etc. etc. view.

Where we are at today, in this forum and in public discourse in general, is that ‘the realists are in control’ and ‘realism’ has been institutionalized in our definitions of ‘community’, ‘justice’ and ‘development/evolution’. The people who believe in the reality of ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ as supported by standard logic, are in control. If you are expressing pragmatist-idealist [non-dualist] views that claim that ‘growth’ is not real, they may pick up a board coming off the production line and wave it at you, saying, here’s a piece of the ‘growth’ i’ve been talking about, i’ll whack you with it and then you can tell me again that it is ‘not real’. He is NOT going to talk about the conjugate aspect of the decline of the forest and thus the greater ‘physical reality’ of ‘the transformation of the relational space we share inclusion in’. He is not going to be converted to a ‘tread-lightly injun’ because his plans include a doubling of production over the next few years, as is the way of almost all industrial producers, who are competing for a larger share of existing markets and for expansion of the existing markets.

The political leaders of the sovereign states, who are also the protectors of our ‘realist institutions’ are ‘realists’ whose politics are married to a growth economy. They want us to keep spending, keep consuming to keep the wheels of industry and economy turning ever faster. They are putting blinders on as to the real physical phenomenon of ‘transformation’ of the relational space we all share inclusion in. They are putting blinders on as to the reality that there is no such thing as ‘growth’ in its own right. ‘Growth’ and ‘decline, ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation of the relational space we share inclusion in.

It should be obvious by now that there is no such thing [no such thing [in physical reality] as ‘growth of the economy’ in the earth’s ecosphere, as the ‘realists’ contend, there is only ‘transformation’ of the relational space of the earth’s ecosphere. It should be obvious by now that there is no such thing as ‘growth of a ideological faction’ such as ‘marxism’ or ‘anarchism’ as the realists contend, there is only ‘transformation’ of the one community that inhabits the finite and unbounded space of the earth’s ecosphere. And it should be obvious that one cannot divide up community for the purpose of courtroom justice to ‘the people’ versus ‘the accused’, as if the ‘accused’ were mutually exclusive of ‘the community’. the Aristotelian 'principle of identity' is abstraction that does not correspond to physical reality.

anyhow, dualism and non-dualism and ‘realism’ and ‘pragmatic idealism’ is where inquiry into ‘community’ and ‘justice’ and ‘development’ lead. decolonization is clearly forming from ‘non-dualism’ and ‘pragmatic idealism’, however, ‘anarchism’ in general seems to remain a mix of things at the moment.

I liked this better when Tiqqun did it.

The Question of Intelligibility.
One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also - quite as certainly - not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author, - perhaps he did not want to be understood by "anyone." A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against "the others." It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we have said,) - while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them. And to say it between ourselves and with reference to my own case, - I do not desire that either my ignorance, or the vivacity of my temperament, should prevent me being understood by you, my friends: I certainly do not desire that my vivacity should have that effect, however much it may impel me to arrive quickly at an object, in order to arrive at it at all. For I think it is best to do with profound problems as with a cold bath - quickly in, quickly out. That one does not thereby get into the depths, that one does not get deep enough down is a superstition of the hydrophobic, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. Oh! the great cold makes one quick! - And let me ask by the way: Is it a fact that a thing has been misunderstood and unrecognised when it has only been touched upon in passing, glanced at, flashed at? Must one absolutely sit upon it in the first place? Must one have brooded on it as on an egg? Diu noctuque incubando, as Newton said of himself? At least there are truths of a peculiar shyness and ticklishness which one can only get hold of suddenly, and in no other way, - which one must either take by surprise, or leave alone.... Finally, my brevity has still another value: on those questions which preoccupy me, I must say a great deal briefly, in order that it may be heard yet more briefly. For as immoralist, one has to take care lest one ruins innocence, I mean the asses and old maids of both sexes, who get nothing from life but their innocence; moreover my writings are meant to fill them with enthusiasm, to elevate them, to encourage them in virtue. I should be at a loss to know of anything more amusing than to see enthusiastic old asses and maids moved by the sweet feelings of virtue: and "that have I seen"- spake Zara-thustra. So much with respect to brevity; the matter stands worse as regards my ignorance, of which I make no secret to myself. There are hours in which I am ashamed of it; to be sure there are likewise hours in which I am ashamed of this shame. Perhaps we philosophers, all of us, are badly placed at present with regard to knowledge: science is growing, the most learned of us are on the point of discovering that we know too little. But it would be worse still if it were otherwise, - if we knew too much; our duty is and remains first of all, not to get into confusion about ourselves. We are different from the learned; although it cannot be denied that amongst other things we are also learned. We have different needs, a different growth, a different digestion: we need more, we need also less. There is no formula as to how much an intellect needs for its nourishment; if, however, its taste be in the direction of independence, rapid coming and going, travelling, and perhaps adventure for which only the swiftest are qualified, it prefers rather to live free on poor fare, than to be unfree and plethoric. Not fat, but the greatest suppleness and power is what a good dancer wishes from his nourishment, - and I know not what the spirit of a philosopher would like better than to be a good dancer. For the dance is his ideal, and also his art, in the end likewise his sole piety, his "divine service."

The Realistic Painter.
“To nature true, complete! “ so he begins.
Who complete Nature to his canvas wins?
Her tiniest fragment’s endless, no constraint
Can know: he paints just what his fancy pins:
What does his fancy pin? What he can paint!

Foot Writing.
I write not with the hand alone,
My foot would write, my foot that capers,
Firm, free and bold, it’s marching on
Now through the fields, now through the papers.

The Pen is Scratching. . . .
The pen is scratching: hang the pen!
To scratching I’m condemned to sink!
I grasp the inkstand fiercely then
And write in floods of flowing ink.
How broad, how full the stream’s career!
What luck my labours doth requite!
Tis true, the writing’s none too clear
What then? Who reads the stuff I write?

To my Reader.
Good teeth and a digestion good
I wish you these you need, be sure!
And, certes, if my book you’ve stood,
Me with good humour you’ll endure.

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?
A
Y
A
x
E
8
6
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "The Rise and Fall of the ‘Human Being’"
society