You are here

The Russian Anarchist Prince Who Challenged Evolution

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

<em>Are we cooperative or competitive?</em>

<p>Darwin&rsquo;s publication of <a href=";... the Origin of Species</em></a> sparked major battles. The most famous may have been between science and religion, but there were disputes within science as well. One of the most heated was whether natural selection favored cooperative or competitive behaviors, a battle that still rages today. For almost 100 years, no single person did more to promote the study of the evolution of cooperation than Peter Kropotkin.</p>

<p>Kropotkin traveled the world talking about the evolution of cooperation, which he called &ldquo;mutual aid,&rdquo; in both animals and humans. Sometime the travel was voluntary, but often it wasn&rsquo;t: He was jailed, banned, or expelled from many of the most respectable countries of his day. For he was not only the face of the science of cooperation, he was also the face of the anarchist movement. He came to believe that his politics and science were united by the law of mutual aid: that cooperation was <em>the</em> predominant evolutionary force driving all social life, from microbes to humans.</p></td><td><img title="back to our regularly scheduled material..." src=""></td></tr></...

<p>Kropotkin was also a Russian prince. A private tutor named Poulain taught him about the French revolution and smuggled anarchist ideas into the Kropotkin household, where Peter&rsquo;s father put on airs about the family&rsquo;s royal ancestry. Poulain also took the boy to visit political agitators in Moscow. In 1854, at age 12, Kropotkin renounced his title, but he was still a child of privilege. He once had a strange encounter with Czar Nicholas I at a Royal Ball, and years later Peter ended up enrolled in the Corp of Pages.</p>

<p>Kropotkin&rsquo;s father couldn&rsquo;t have been happier about his son&rsquo;s prospects at this elite breeding ground for Russia&rsquo;s next generation of leaders. Peter, however, was bored out of his mind. &ldquo;Day after day passes,&rdquo; he wrote his beloved brother, Sasha, &ldquo;almost the best days of life and you can&rsquo;t make use of them, you simply vegetate, you don&rsquo;t live.&rdquo; He quickly rose to become the top student in the Corp, which also made him chief page to the Czar Alexander II (who had succeeded Nicholas I). When he wasn&rsquo;t tending to the czar&rsquo;s needs or taking classes, Peter spent his time doing what he loved to do most: soaking in nature&rsquo;s beauty, reading about the burgeoning anarchist movement in Russia, and learning radical new ideas on evolution and natural selection propagated by an Englishman named Charles Darwin.</p>

<p>One of the perks of being the top student at the Corp was that when he completed his studies in 1862, he had first choice of any government appointment. To the utter amazement of his friends and the bewilderment of his father, he requested an appointment in the newly annexed Amur region of Siberia. The odd choice caught the attention of Czar Alexander II, who inquired, "So you go to Siberia? Are you not afraid to go so far?&rdquo; &ldquo;No,&rdquo; Peter replied, &ldquo;I want to work.&rdquo; "Well, go,&rdquo; the Czar told him. &ldquo;One can be useful everywhere.&rdquo; And so, on July 27, 1862, he went.</p>

<p>Kropotkin&rsquo;s adventures during his five years in Siberia were the stuff of movies. He crisscrossed 50,000 miles of the region, often &ldquo;lying full length in the sled &hellip; wrapped in fur blankets, fur inside and fur outside &hellip; when the temperature is 40 or 60 degrees below zero &hellip;&rdquo; His job was to inspect the dreaded prisons of Siberia, full of not just criminals but political agitators. He did so dutifully, but with disgust. The border of Siberia, he wrote, should have a sign like that from Dante&rsquo;s <a href=";... &ldquo;Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here<em>.&rdquo; </em>The rest of his time was devoted to learning more about anarchist philosophy (often from anarchist leaders who had been banished to Siberia) and, most importantly, studying the natural history of animals and humans there.</p>

<p>Kropotkin expected to see the brutal dog-eat-dog world of Darwinian competition. He searched high and low&mdash;but nothing. &ldquo;I failed to find, although I was eagerly looking for it,&rdquo; Kropotkin wrote, &ldquo;that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of the struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.&rdquo;</p>

<p>Instead he saw mutual aid&mdash;everywhere. &ldquo;In all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes,&rdquo; Kropotkin wrote, &ldquo;I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species and its further evolution.&rdquo; And it wasn&rsquo;t just in animals. The peasants in the villages he visited were constantly helping one another in their fight against the brutal environment of Siberia. What&rsquo;s more, he noted a correlation between the extent of mutual aid displayed in a peasant village and the distance of that village from the hand of government. It was just as the anarchists had suggested. &ldquo;I lost in Siberia,&rdquo; he wrote, &ldquo;whatever faith in state discipline I had cherished before. I was prepared to become an anarchist.&rdquo;</p>

<p>He was also prepared to challenge the biological orthodoxy that natural selection led only to competition. He was still a Darwinist, and an adamant one, but he thought the process of natural selection, especially in brutal climates like Siberia, could lead to mutual aid, not only competition. His nascent ideas on anarchism and biological evolution were beginning to merge into one.</p>

<p>After five years in Siberia, Kropotkin moved on to study at the University of St. Petersburg, where on paper his focus was mathematics, but in reality his major was studying to be an anarchist. He was good enough at it that the czar had him arrested and thrown in the Peter and Paul Prison in St. Petersburg. Kropotkin described its history: &ldquo;Here Peter I tortured his son Alexis and killed him with his own hand &hellip; here the Princess Tarak&aacute;nova was kept in a cell which filled with water during an inundation, the rats climbing upon her to save themselves from drowning &hellip; here were annals of murder and torture, of men buried alive, condemned to a slow death, or driven to insanity in the loneliness of the dark and damp dungeons.&rdquo; Eventually Peter escaped. It was an incredible, front-page news jailbreak, involving months of preparation, spies, shills outside the prison pretending to be drunk to distract the guards, and a co-conspirator playing a mazurka on the violin as a signal to make a break for it.</p>

<p>Soon after, Kropotkin made his way to England. He challenged Darwin&rsquo;s followers, most notably Thomas Henry Huxley, and their claims that natural selection almost always led to competition. Yes, Kropotkin admitted, sometimes that happens, especially in the tropics, but mutual aid was just as common, if not more so. It was a biological reality and a political one. &ldquo;The ant, the bird, the marmot &hellip; have read neither Kant nor the fathers of the Church nor even Moses,&rdquo; Kropotkin wrote. &ldquo;The idea of good and evil has thus nothing to do with religion or a mystic conscience. It is a natural need of animal races. And when founders of religions, philosophers, and moralists tell us of divine or metaphysical entities, they are only recasting what each ant, each sparrow practices in its little society.&rdquo;</p>

<p>Kropotkin published a series of books and long pamphlets, including <em>Mutual Aid</em>,<em> The Great French Revolution</em>, <em>Modern Science and Anarchism</em>, and <em>Ethics. </em>He lectured across Europe&mdash;in the places that hadn&rsquo;t banned or expelled him for being a troublemaker&mdash;and in two long speaking tours in the United States. He probably would have returned for a third tour, but after President McKinley was assassinated, anarchists were personae non grata in America. Rumors were even floated in the United States with the preposterous notion that Kropotkin was somehow linked to the assassination.</p>

<p>By the first decade of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, two things still troubled Kropotkin about his theory of the evolution of cooperation. He had been arguing that when environmental conditions changed and mutual aid was especially useful, it seemed to take hold in a population quickly. Really quickly. So quickly that it just couldn&rsquo;t be accounted for by the slow, gradual changes that Darwinian theory of the day proposed. An evolutionist through and through, Kropotkin turned to the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who had proposed his own ideas decades before Darwin about how evolution operates. Lamarck suggested that habits acquired during the lifetime of an organism could be transmitted to the next generation. For example, if shore birds stretched their muscles as far as possible to raise themselves up on wet sandy beaches, their offspring would have longer legs as a result. With Lamarckian inheritance, massive change can happen in a single generation. That gave Kropotkin the speed he needed to explain how mutual aid increased so quickly. Problem 1 solved. Or so he argued.</p>

<p>Problem 2 was this: In real time, as it was happening, what prompted an animal to dispense mutual aid? Kropotkin turned to economist Adam Smith for insight. Though Kropotkin despised the capitalist system Smith had devised in <a href=";... Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations</em></a>, he was enamored with an earlier book of Smith&rsquo;s called <a href=";... Theory of Moral Sentiments</em></a>. In it, Smith made the case that humans dispense mutual aid because we mentally put ourselves in the position of those needing aid, and to &ldquo;minimize our own vicarious pain&rdquo; we help&mdash;we are empathetic. But Adam Smith restricted his discussion of empathy and mutual aid to humans. When Kropotkin lifted that restriction, he found what he needed. &ldquo;Adam Smith's only mistake,&rdquo; Kropotkin wrote, &ldquo;was not to have understood that this same feeling of sympathy [what today we call empathy] in its habitual stage exists among animals as well as among men.&rdquo; Problem 2 solved. Or so he thought.</p>

<p>Almost 100 years after Kropotkin&rsquo;s death, what can we say about his theory of mutual aid? Well, with 20/20 hindsight, he certainly made a mistake aligning himself to Lamarck, but it was a mistake that many, including Darwin, made. And it&rsquo;s still a matter of heated debate whether nonhumans show empathy. My guess is that some do, but the data are scant. But Kropotkin&rsquo;s primary legacy in the sciences is that he was in the forefront of challenging the prevailing Darwinian principle that evolution was strictly about competition and survival of the nastiest.</p>

<p>Today, hundreds of papers come out annually on animal cooperation in nonhumans, and many of these papers show Kropotkin to be something of a prophet. But what Kropotkin cared about more than anything was that understanding mutual aid in animals might shed light on human cooperation and perhaps help save humanity from destroying itself. Whether that happens remains to be seen.</p>


The "theory" of evolution, or darwinism as we call it, is nothing more then thinly vieled westernized white colonialism used prop up the logic of civilization and discredit the cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. To refer to the creation stories of indigenous peoples as "myths" is nothing more then white supremacy and cultural chauvinism. Just like the Klan or S.S. of yesteryear the new brown shirts want to erase all traces of the spiritual wisdom (magik) bestowed upon us by native peoples. Methodoligical naturalism is the new nazism. Darwin is your new fuhrer. "Science" is the new gas chamber.

lol. (A) news wouldn't go far without people trolling on classical anarchists.

Yes, there is much to critique about science, but I can also appreciate the ideas of mutual aid and cooperation along with that.
AND I can also be a fucking filthy nihilist individualist who also hates most people, but in a world without government, would probably flourish among some of them better.

I know this is probably trolling, but primmies do say wacky shit like that sometimes...

Kropotkin bought into the abstract model of the organism as a ‘thing-in-itself’ driven out of its own internal processes; i.e. ‘intelligent intellection and purpose based behaviour’. Lamarck’s theory was a physical theory; i.e. it was ‘evolution’ of the relational space that includes both animate and inanimate forms.

As usual, the author of this author distorts-by-cherry-picking Lamarck’s theory, which is what english supporters of Darwinism did from the get-go which has meant that one can’t even find an English translation of Lamarck’s ‘Recherches sur l’Organisation des Corps Vivans’ (Investigations into the organization of the living body).

“Only two of Lamarck's works are available in English: Zoological Philosophy, translated by Hugh Elliot (1963), and Hydrogeology, translated by Albert Carozzi (1964).”

Meanwhile the ‘new science of epigenetics’ and outside-inward orchestrating source of development was already addressed in Lamarck’s ‘Recherches’ and cannot be found in Darwinism with its one-sided-only inside-outward ‘genetic’ development;

“Lamarck’s Law 2: The production of a new organ in an animal body results from the appearance of a new want or need, which continues to make itself felt, and from a new movement which this want gives birth to and maintains.”

Meanwhile, the author of the above article evidently is unfamiliar with epigenetics where traits acquired from environmental conditions are assimilated in the ‘epi-genome’ which make their way into the ‘genome’; i.e. he says;

“Lamarck suggested that habits acquired during the lifetime of an organism could be transmitted to the next generation. For example, if shore birds stretched their muscles as far as possible to raise themselves up on wet sandy beaches, their offspring would have longer legs as a result. With Lamarckian inheritance, massive change can happen in a single generation. That gave Kropotkin the speed he needed to explain how mutual aid increased so quickly.”

“Almost 100 years after Kropotkin’s death, what can we say about his theory of mutual aid? Well, with 20/20 hindsight, he certainly made a mistake aligning himself to Lamarck, but it was a mistake that many, including Darwin, made. And it’s still a matter of heated debate whether nonhumans show empathy. My guess is that some do, but the data are scant.”

Kropotkin cannibalized Lamarck’s theory and tried to incorporate the ideas while retaining the concept of an organism as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own locally originating, internal component and process driven and directed model [NOT IN LAMARCK’S MODEL WHICH ASSUMED OUTSIDE INWARD INDUCTIVE INFLUENCE OF FIELDS, GRAVITY, THERMAL AND E/M WITHIN A COMMON SPACE]. So, unlike Lamarck, Kropotkin fell into the same trap that continues to paralyze orthodox science, of having to portray biological forms in terms of their being driven purely and solely from an internal ‘intellect’, setting up the notion of hierarchy and mind-body, director-worker, authorities-responsibles split that is scourge of living in Western civilization.

Kropotkin’s problem was that he didn’t borrow ENOUGH of lamarck’s work. if he had have, he could have let go of this silly notion of the ‘existence of local systems-in-themselves with locally originating internal process driven and directed development and behaviour’ which for some reason, still mesmerizes supposed intelligent minds. the only reason for that being, as b.f. skinner suggests; “Society strikes early, before its new members are able to defend themselves from cultural-belief brainwashing.”

The bottom line is that ‘competition’ or ‘cooperation’ is NOT THE QUESTION, the question is, why the fuck do we believe in the notion of ‘local things-in-themselves’ that are the basis for coming up with this ‘question’ as to whether nature ‘made them to compete’ or ‘made them to cooperate’? they don’t fucking exist. they are abstractions. one can’t find anything in modern physics [lamarck included physics in his biological theory] to support the ‘existence’ of a ‘thing-in-itself’.

I haven't read a single one of your posts but goddamn if you don't make @news worth it.


no one exists at all; no one must choose anything; float, baby. let the outside in and you will do without having to know or choose. this is how REAL change happens, without direction or will.


if we are born into a culture, we are most surely indoctrinated in its belief systems from birth. indoctrination is built into architecture of our language [Sapir Whorf hypothesis]. therefore, as our loving parents look into our crib and speak to us, transported in their utterances like a virus that infects, is the cultural indoctrination.

we do not ‘exist’ [as ‘local material beings/systems’] if we are raised in an aboriginal or eastern culture. that is, in these cultures we understand our self as an ‘experiencing’ rather than a ‘being’; i.e. an experiencing which, as in the relativity and quantum physics view of the world, that understands space as a continually transforming relational spatial-plenum; i.e. an intrinsically interdependent, interconnecting web of relations.

few amongst us who are raised in the Western culture ‘bump into’ this alternative view of self and otherness built into aboriginal and some eastern culture beliefs system, until after our view of ‘self’ and ‘other’ has become firmly entrenched in us by the standard processes of cultural indoctrination, so we don’t get the chance to ‘choose’ when we are young; i.e. we don’t even know that aboriginals and certain eastern cultures have this view of ‘existence’ as ‘experiencing’ rather than ‘material being’;

“In eastern philosophy, Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) or "impermanence" describes existence. It refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that goes on to form new plants.”

why should we NOT start from the notion of our ‘self’ as ‘an experiencing’ rather than as a ‘being’? are the seven billion people on the earth are all ‘separate beings’? how about the gazillions of insects, plants, animals and material objects? is the world dynamic REALLY constituted by the newtonian actions and interactions of these gazillions of things, or is the universe, our common living space, more realistically understood as a continually transforming relational energy-charged spatial-plenum, as in modern physics? Are we ‘experiencing-participants within a continually transforming eco-sphere’ or do we each enjoy our own discrete local ‘existence’ as a material being, one amongst a diverse gazillion of discrete local beings, who by their movements and interactions within a fixed and absolute space and time reference frame, causally/assertively co-produce the world dynamic?

is there something wrong with that latter picture? after all, our observations suggest that the biosphere is a fixed volume within which a huge variety of forms, ourselves [forebears and heirs] are continually gathering and being regathered, in the manner as storm-cells in the atmosphere. not only the aboriginal and certain eastern cultural belief systems reject the notion of ‘our existence’ as local material beings [the source of mind-matter split and thus the manager-workers split], Western philosophers do as well; e.g.

“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

our ‘experiencing’ is the basis for understanding our manner of participating in the world, but there is no automatic requirement to go from ‘experiencing’ to endowing ourselves with absolute local material ‘existence’ in the sense of ‘being’. in fact, not only does this fragmented view of the world NOT jibe with our experiencing, this seeing ourselves as ‘existing’ as local material beings, thinking this way seems to be causing us a lot of problems, as physicists like Mach and Schroedinger and Bohm have tried to get across [it’s difficult to keep up with the continuing pace of indoctrination of the globally dominating Western belief from-birth indoctrination].

“The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.”---David Bohm, ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’

is it so difficult to reject the notion of our ‘existence’ as local material beings? other cultures never fell into the trap of such abstract over-simplification of our experiencing, so they are not having to struggle to escape from their own brain-washing. of course, the now globally dominating Western civilization is busily trying to co-opt everyone into believing in the ‘existence of sovereign states’ as real ‘beings’ and arguing that the best amongst these should lead the rest. the belief promoted by both U.S. political parties is that the U.S. ‘exists’ as an ‘organization-in-itself’ and is the ‘last best hope on earth’.

does the U.S. REALLY ‘exist’ as a ‘thing-in-itself’? is it an ‘organizaTION-in-itself’? No, in physical reality it is an ‘organizING’ within the continuing relational dynamic of global society in which such ‘organizINGS’ we call ‘states’ and ‘empires’ are continually gathering and regathering in the manner of storm-cells in the atmosphere.

the belief in ‘existence’ is a dangerous self-deception, as bohm suggests. belief in the concept of ‘existence’ as in ‘being’ splits ‘dynamics’ into two parts since ‘existence’ notionally strips space of its relational/self-organizing quality. the two parts of a ‘local material being’, whether ‘organism’ or ‘organization’ are; ‘mind/leader/authorities’ and ‘body/follower/responsibles.

That is, the belief in humans and/or states as local ‘existences/beings/organisms/organizations’, once accepted, removes the organizing power immanent in a relational space and logically constrains ‘organizing’ to jumpstart from the actions of the local things-in-themselves ‘beings’. and since these fragments or ‘local beings’ WHO UNDERSTAND THEMSELVES AS SUCH are animated by a local internal source of drive and direction [internal intellection and purpose], their organizing can only come from a leader-follower arrangement [relational space is no longer seen as ‘relations’ and therefore it is not seen as an organizing source], whether the collection of ‘beings’ is a collection of ‘human-things-in-themselves’ or a collection of ‘sovereign state-things-in-themselves’.

within the people-collective within the sovereign state, this belief in ‘being’ leads to the election/appointing/self-appointing of an overall leadership/directorship. within the sovereign-state-collective within the biosphere, this belief in ‘being’ leads to the election/appointing/self-appointing of an overall leadership/directorship.

GONE from the mind and heart, once we accept our status as ‘beings-that-exist locally and independently’ is the understanding that organizing comes from the relational space we all share inclusion in, that, as Emerson observes in ‘The Method of Nature’, both inhabits and creates the organism. Deprived of ‘relational space’ as the source of organizing by this notion of ‘existence’ as local ‘beings’, the process of ‘organizing’ becomes constrained to ‘leader-follower’ mode; i.e. to ‘politics’, not only at the level of the collective of human beings but on the level of the collective of states;

“With Mitt Romney as President and Paul Ryan as Vice-President, we can restore and revive that American story we know and love. The world will know it, our children will tell it and our grandchildren will possess it for years to come. God bless America! This is our time! We are truly the best last hope on earth!” ---Mia Love, speech at Republican Convention 2012

“I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so.” ---Senator Barack Obama, Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, April, 2007

As Nietzsche points out, there is a flip involved here in the notion of ‘power’. The person or group that ‘rises to the occasion’ and makes an otherwise impossible outcome come to pass [the 4th man who makes it possible to push the stuck car out of the ditch, or the nth nation that turns the tide of events in WWII] can start to believe that these amazing ‘outcomes’ derive from his own ‘amazing being’ and that he is therefore destined by fate to exercise ‘power OVER’, as in the metaphor of the ‘powerboater’ rather than ‘sailboater’ [the latter ACKNOWLEDGES that he derives his power and steerage from the dynamics he is included in].

In the U.S.’s “leading the world in battling immediate evils as with Nazism in WWII”, the ‘sailboater model’ would acknowledge the contribution of 23 million Soviet Union citizens [etc.] who died in that undertaking who ‘conditioned’ the common space in such a way that the U.S. effort, like the 4th man who triggered the liberating of the stuck car, helped bring things to the tipping point. The powerboater model assumes that the agency of a ‘being’ derives from its local internal components and processes and from nowhere else [i.e. NOT from the relational dynamics he is included in]. But in a view of space as ‘relational’, there is a conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation so that it is impossible to separate out the ASSERTIVE influence of the dynamic figure and the ACCOMMODATING influence of the dynamic ground; i.e. these are conjugate aspects of one dynamic and that one dynamic is ongoing ‘relational-spatial transformation’.

This ‘flip’ from understanding one’s power in terms of ‘rising to the occasion’ [will-to-power] to ‘deliberately determining outcomes’ [power-over] is ‘narcissism’, ‘egotism’ and it involves the flip from ‘becoming’ to ‘being’, from ‘experiencING’ to ‘experiencER’ and from ‘organizING’ to ‘organizaTION’. it is a ‘falling from grace’ as depicted in stories such as ‘On the Marionette Theatre’ by Heinrich von Kleist

‘Existence’ as in ‘Being’ is an abstract concept that is screwing us up because, while it is very useful, we are confusing it for reality, and thus obfuscating the PHYSICAL REALITY of ‘becoming’, ‘the flow’, ‘the tao’, the continually transforming relational spatial-plenum, the spacetime continuum etc.

We don’t ‘really’ 'exist' as local fragments of ‘being’ as our Western cultural indoctrination is having us believe, we are ‘experiencings’ rather than ‘experiencers’ [subject and object are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of perception/becoming]

The person [flow-feature] that is ‘graceful’ or ‘full of grace’ as in von Kleist’s story, is continually ‘rising to the occasion’, letting the orchestrating influence of the dynamic habitat he is situationally included in draw his/her assertive potentialities into blossom. this is our ‘übermensch mode’, the mode wherein we 'live our becoming’. If we become ‘narcissist’ and start admiring our power and beauty as if it were coming from our innate ‘being’, then we ‘fall from grace’ and start ‘coming from out of our own interior’ as 'we are'... where the buck starts and stops for deliberately determining ‘outcomes’ as driven and directed from our internal intellection and purpose. This belief in our ‘existence’ as ‘local, independent beings’ or ‘local material organizations’ with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour is our ‘fall from grace’. It is evident not only in individual organizings aka ‘people’, but also in individual group organizings known as ‘sovereign states’.

tldr, ULTRA hippy-fucking-dippy

roll on Emile; ultra-irrelevance

i didn’t think you’d read my response, but thank you for engaging because between us we did create an ‘archetypeal’ examplar of what goes on in our society. and in case others may have been reading this exchange, i will try to ‘close out’ with a summary of this ‘social dysfunction’ using the example of the U.S. in WWII. the dysfunctional archetype arises from misinterpreting the animative sourcing of dynamic behaviour.

(1.) Conflict arises in the relational space of global community.

(2.) The people of the U.S. ‘rise to the occasion’

“I know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and the impossible” ---Nietzsche

(3.) In dynamics in general, there is no way of splitting apart the influence of the asserting agent and the dynamics of the habitat he is included in. For example 23 million soviet citizens died in resisting Nazism and thus pouring some water on the troubled global terrain, as the U.S. came to the rescue to put the fire out. Mach’s principle articulates the fact that the dynamics of all of the global players/inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants. Like the sailboater, the U.S. is deriving its power and steerage from the dynamics of the habitat it is included in [e.g. including the soviet effort].

(4.) Politicians cultivate the ‘ego’ of the U.S. that sees the U.S. as a local, independently-existing ‘organization’ with its own locally originating, intellection and purpose driven and directed behaviour. Both Democrat and Republican politicians characterize the U.S. action in terms of ‘battling evils and promoting good’;

“we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.” --- Barack Obama

and both political parties describe the U.S. as ‘the last best hope of earth’; e.g.

“I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so.” --- Barack Obama

(5.) As with individuals and with groups of individuals, the animative sourcing of behavioural dynamics can be ‘outside-inward orchestrated’ from the unfolding relational space of community. This is non-political and it is the familiar FEELING of ‘rising to the occasion’ recalling nietzsche’s comment in (2.) above. But once the action ensues, IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO RE-CHARACTERIZE THE ACTION and reduce it to fit the standard model of a human as an intellection and purpose driven and directed machine. It is no longer the formless call of relational space inviting one to ‘rise to the occasion’ that is understood as the animative sourcing of the action, it is instead the internal intellection and purpose that is portrayed as being the source of the action. This ‘substitution’ is because the standard model of an organism constrains its behaviour to being fully and solely internal component and process [inside-outward] driven.

(6.) The behaviour of indigenous aboriginal cultures depart from the behaviour of Western civilization at this juncture. The indigenous cultural understanding tradition, does not make this substitution of ‘intellection and purpose’ for the outside-inward behaviour orchestrating influence tensions that arise in the relational space of community. In the Western civilized world, ‘behaviours’ have migrated steadily to being information and knowledge driven and put into the purpose of “battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good” This ‘substitution’ of ‘animative sourcing’ short-circuits man’s relation with the relational space he is included in, and instead of being a man who is continually ‘rising to the occasion’ [transcending himself or being in übermensch mode], he becomes driven by moral purpose, and pictures himself as a local, independently existing thing-in-itself that is fully and solely internally driven and directed by knowledge, intellection and purpose [ostensibly ‘moral purpose’ as in ‘it is good to produce profit out of the context of cultivating and sustaining balance and harmony with the dynamics of the transforming relational space we share inclusion in]

(7.) as already noted, it is always possible to reduce our experiencing of ‘rising to the occasion’ to the ego and politics based rendering in terms of ‘intellection and purpose driven and directed behaviour’. This corresponds to the simple ‘linear’ view that Poincaré mentions associates with how we understand ‘space’. If we understand space as ‘Euclidian’; i.e. as an absolute fixed empty and infinite operating theatre, then the inhabitants of this operating theatre will be absolute ‘things-in-themselves’ that move about and interact within this space, in which case they must be animatively sourced from the inside-outward by their internal components and processes. The alternative non-Euclidian ‘relational space’ would prevent the splitting apart of the dynamics of the inhabitants and the dynamics of the habitat; i.e. these two would have to be understood relationally as with the relation between storm-cells and the flow of the atmosphere they are included in. This is what modern physics holds to be ‘physical reality’ and this relational space is described by Mach’s principle.

(8.) ‘beyond good-and-evil’ corresponds to ‘rising to the occasion’ [one might be rising to the occasion to rescue a child from stampeding cattle or etc. etc.] and it is relational space based with an outside-inward animative sourcing. Don Quixote is a classic story about a man who didn’t want to wait to be ‘called on to rise to the occasion’ like the chivalrous knights immortalized in the literature, so he set out to impose moral judgement on everything and generate some ‘axes of evil’ that he could tilt at and thus hurry on the process so that he could say to his stalwart friends like Sancho Panza “we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good”. That is, ‘moral judgement’ of ‘what it would be good to do’ becomes the basis for ‘purposive behaviour’ and its coupling with knowledge and intellection can be substituted as the animative sourcing of behavioural dynamics, and this is what happens in Western civilization. What gets ‘short-circuited’ is man’s awareness of his situational inclusion in a continually transforming relational space, that is constantly beckoning him to ‘rise to the occasion’. In the case of WWII, the U.S. clearly ‘rose to the occasion’ deriving from inclusion in the global relational space of community in which tensions and conflicts were arising, and this can always be ‘reduced’ to the linear [one-sided only asserting behaviour] described as “battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good” . But what about Vietnam and Iraq? Did ‘the tool of reductive reasoning run away with the workman’ as Emerson suggests; i.e. did moral judgement rise up to become where the buck starts and stops as far as animative sourcing of behavioural dynamics is concerned.

Summary: the pioneering work of the IWW derived from people ‘rising to the occasion’; i.e. to resolve rising tensions in the relation space of global community, however, it was met with resistance based on ‘moral judgement’ of what constituted ‘good’ and ‘evil’ actions, and if the general dynamics of community as it was were deemed ‘good’ then those whose actions disturbed or disrupted the community dynamic were ‘bad’. That is, Western civilization embraces a social dynamic based on moral judgement of good and bad behaviour, which sees individuals as knowledge, intellection and moral purpose driven and directed machines that move about and interact in an absolute fixed, empty and infinite [non-participating] operating theory [absolute space and absolute time].

The reduction of outside-inward orchestrating relational tensions that would invite us to ‘rise to the occasion’ are always reducible to the linear model of ‘what things-in-themselves are doing’ as they were in this forum exchange [i.e. things-in-themselves seen as knowledge, intellection and moral purpose driven and directed machines].

I think what you wrote is an archetypal examplar of what you write. Its your religion. That's cool. Just don't confuse it with anything other than that.

You can call it ‘religion’ if you want. Like Schroedinger, I would call materialism ‘illusion’ although Mach called materialism ‘religion’. In the field of fundamental science, eastern philosophy where nothingness is the source of everything [purely relational energy-field potentiality] has resonated far more with findings than has western philosophy and its notion of ‘void space’ punctuated by local material being. It is clear that the issue of duality versus non-duality lingers on and haunts the cellars of our western scientific views that we use on an everyday basis to design our institutions and practices. There is a long list of philosophers that have pointed to philosophical issues in the foundations of science and these philosophical issues have not been resolved; e.g;

“Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.” ---Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics

Meanwhile, labelling a philosophical view such as nondualism ‘religion’ is a popular way to try to discredit it without having to deal with it. It is like trying to swat a pesky fly that won’t go away and for good reason, it smells something dying.

My philosophical views align with Schroedinger’s and Mach’s and so you could as well instruct them that their philosophies are not philosophies but religions, and that your own scientific views magically avoid any/all underlying philosophical issues.

My above comment on the flip from acknowledging outside-inward relational sourcing of dynamic behaviour to converting it to inside-outward intellection and purpose driven behaviour [ego-inflation] does nothing other than assume a relational space, the type of space that is used in general relativity that doesn’t depend on ‘space-matter’ dualism, only on spatial-relations [as in energy-fields]. In a relational space, there can be no absolute motion and no absolute material being. Everything is in flux (relational transformation). So where does 'particulate matter’go?

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” ----Erwin Schroedinger

Erwin is no longer with us, but just for clarity, could you tell him as you have just told me, that his philosophical non-dualism is religion, and that you can confirm, with 100% certainty, that his views are entirely outside the field of ‘science’ while yours are entirely within.

Your comments, all comments, all of being is within the quantum flow of the relational space. Your scientific explanation embraces all. At least in your tyrannically arrogant perspective.

What I am interested in is politics, "the master art."

Those who, in their benighted ignorance, of course, mistakenly believe in the inside-outside, doer deed "fiktion" stake out very fixed plans and rally enormous resources behind those plans. They dominate the political field.

Going on ad nauseum about Mach and Schroedinger poses no kind of challenge or threat. Call what you write spiritualism, monism, religion, philosophy of science, cant, droning on... it should not be confused with anything political. And politics, unfortunately for you, is that dimension of reality that is the concern of any political ideology including anarchism. What is this site? Anarchist news.

A note on politics.

aboriginal cultures never had ‘politics’. they never had an organizing scheme that installed an absolute supremely powerful central authority that imposed ‘common purpose’ on all of its constituents.

the globally dominating Western culture politics come from ‘common belief’ in the ‘sovereign state’ and its absolute supremely powerful central authority that imposes ‘common purpose’ on all of its constituents.

the organizing of aboriginal communities comes from their resonant relationship with the land. it is not, like its Western counterpart, driven onesidedly from the inside outward, from internal intellection and ‘common purpose’. new settlers do not become part of the oasis community because they have chosen to take the oath of ‘common purpose’ required by the supremely powerful central Poobah.

If you are resonance with the common living space you are in resonance with one another.

That is implicit in Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”. Outside-inward ---inside-outward resonances, as with flow engendered convection cells, storm cells, give rise to persisting forms such as that of the tornado.

Modern physics suggests that ‘resonance’ is the ‘archetype’ for ‘organization’ rather than a collection of local ‘beings’ with ‘common purpose’.

What would organization look like without an imposed ‘common purpose’ and having only resonant relations with common living space dynamic? If it didn’t need ‘common purpose’ then it wouldn’t need ‘politics’. What would it look like?

“To Engels, Morgan’s description of the Iroquois [in Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and The League of the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois] was important because “it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a society which, as yet, knows no state.” Jefferson had also been interested in the Iroquois’ ability to maintain social consensus without a large state apparatus, as had Franklin. Engels described the Iroquoian state in much the same way that American revolutionaries had a century earlier: “Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The household is run communistically by a number of families; the land is tribal property, only the small gardens being temporarily assigned to the households — still, not a bit of our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is required. . . . There are no poor and needy. The communistic household and the gens know their responsibility toward the aged, the sick and the disabled in war. All are free and equal — including the women.” — Bruce E. Johansen, Forgotten Founders

If Mach and Schroederinger’s view of space as ‘relational’ and ‘animate form’ as resonance-based are on target, then we don’t need politics with its imposing of ‘common purpose’ for our organizing purposes. we can use resonance with the land.

The masters of politics have a lot of status in our culture [they hijack a lot of power] but zero status in aboriginal society. Should we look to politicians to give us advice as to the validity of the views of Mach and Schroedinger?

Western culture has been explaining ‘organization’ in terms of ‘common purpose’ all over the place, unlike aboriginals. Orthodox biology would have us believe that the cells in the body are much like us humans. We see them like we see ourselves as ‘local material systems with their own locally originating, internal-process driven and directed behaviour’. They are even said to have the equivalent of a brain-like directive function in the centre [nucleus] of each of them that tells them what to do next, how to reproduce themselves. We call this brain like function ‘genes’ or ‘DNA’. Evidently, all of these cells, if they are all ‘like us’ must direct themselves with a ‘common purpose’, a kind of ‘picture of the organism that they are all working to build and sustain’. But how do they all work together with ‘common purpose’ to produce the one organism in which they are all just ‘parts’. Or is this just ‘anthropomorphism’ as Nietzsche charges?

This ‘common purpose’ as a prerequisite for organization is NECESSITATED by starting off the assumption that the constituents are ‘things-in-themselves’ operating in an absolute fixed, empty and infinite operating theatre, ... rather than in the relational space proposed by Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm, Schroedinger and others.

‘Politics’, the purveyor of ‘common purpose’ stands or falls with the assumption that space is Euclidian, the necessary condition for the existence of ‘thing-in-themselves’ whose behaviours are seen as deriving fully and solely out of themselves, out of their own internal processes such as ‘intellection’.

Orthodox biologists often make comparisons between ‘politics’ and Darwinism;

“It is one of the contradictions of a democratic society in a highly advanced technological world, … to make rational political decisions, you have to have a knowledge which is accessible only to a very few people.” [Lewontin continues by noting;] “that different people have different interests, and therefore the struggle is not a moral one, it’s a political one. It’s always a political one, and that’s the most important thing you have to recognize… that you may be struggling to make the world go in one direction, … [while] somebody else is struggling to make it go in another direction, and the question is; who has power? And if there’s a differential in power, and if you haven’t got it and they have, then you have to do something to gain power, which is to organize. “ – Richard Lewontin [Lewontin is a Darwinist fundamentalist, to use Stephen Jay Gould’s terminology]

How many people have actually tried to bring down Darwinism? Those whose theories differed and included outside-inward influences had their theories labelled as ‘religions’, were accused of being Creationists and were drummed out of mainstream biology, if they refused to ‘renounce their theories’; i.e. to follow Galileo’s example; "I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold the condemned opinion and have not held it since the decision of authorities...”

The long list of people who included outside-inward influence in combination with inside-outward influence [i.e. resonance] as the source of organizing, and who orthodox biology has ignored, is considerable, and any one of these theories would have eliminated the need for ‘common purpose’ to explain the sourcing of organization i.e. Nietzsche, Rolph, Rüdimeyer, Roux and Lamarck.

And how about that crazy old French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck! He actually used the physics of ‘fields’ like gravity, thermal fields, electromagnetic fields [he called them ‘les fluides incontenables’, ‘the fluids that can contain but which cannot be contained’] to explain cells as being the excitation of ‘les fluides contenables’ by ‘les fluides incontenables’; i.e. these environmental outside-inward influencing fields induce a membrane effect over normal mineral-saturated fluids. The cell is then effectively seen as a ‘unit of perception’ rather than a ‘unit of being’ [local, material system-in-itself]. How crazy is that? Darwin didn’t need to bring ‘fields’, the stuff the universe is made of, into the model. Cells could also be modeled like ‘atoms’ or ‘building blocks’ first, and someone else could figure out how to ‘get the common purpose’ that was holding the model of organization together, infused into them. It wasn’t urgent, the thing-in-themselves cells model works pretty good as long as you don’t ask a lot of questions.

‘Politics’, the purveyor of ‘common purpose’ stands or falls with the assumption that space is absolute/non-relational, the necessary condition for the existence of ‘thing-in-themselves’ whose behaviours are seen as deriving fully and solely out of themselves, out of their own internal processes such as ‘intellection’.

Biology’s imputing of ‘common purpose’ that brings organization to a collection of ‘things-in-themselves’, the same model that is foundational to politics, is ‘in trouble’. Epigenetics have already confirmed Lamarck’s basic outside-inward influence-incorporating model, and that is only the beginning of the trouble. The discoveries being made in the plant world are showing unexplainable ‘intelligent plant behaviour’, that looks a lot like ‘human behaviour’;

“Twenty years ago just uttering the words behavior and plants in the same sentence would have resulted in scientific excommunication!” [scientist and ecologist J.C.] Cahill insists. “And that’s because for a long time, I think, we were hung up on the fact that plants are sessile, they don’t move, or at least we don’t see them move. And because of who we are, I think we’ve always equated behavior, even intelligence, with movement.”

Exploding the myth of a passive plant world [the documentary ‘Smarty-Plants’] uncovers the real “secret world” of plants and reveals a landscape pulsing with sex, movement, communication, and social interaction. This is a world where plants talk, forage, wage war and protect their kin; a world where plants behave a lot like us.

Nietzsche would bust a gut laughing at this one, having accused science of being ‘anthropomorphism’; every cell and every organism, including plants, are assumed to be ‘local, independently-existing material systems with their own locally originating, internal constituent and process driven and directed behaviours’. That is how man sees himself, and he has imputed this same model to all cells and organisms including plants and storm-cells [Sandy, Katrina]. When it comes to organized collections of these ‘units of being’, the implication can only be that they are somehow endowed with ‘common purpose’. This arises out of biology’s avoidance of relational [non-euclidian] space. Biology has to avoid it so long as it remains anthropomorphism. Only absolute fixed empty and infinite space can make sense of the notion of a 'thing-in-itself' with 'its own internally driven and directed behaviour' as Western man sees himself.

The obvious answer to all of biology’s growing problems with theory is that space is relational. Mach’s principle then applies and so does Lamarck’s and Nietzsches theories, and 'there goes' the notional need for ‘common purpose’ for organizing. If the organization no longer needs common purpose, the organization no longer needs 'politics'.

What does a society without politics look like? Engels and Jefferson had a glimpse of it that is cited above.

so, what you need is a politics that explodes its own need for existence. you need a plan that detonates itself as a plan. if a melting pot is the symbol of performativity, you need he boiling point as beyond the limit of despair. "another flashing chance at bliss." god damn, imagine how the possibility of bliss might illuminate the sheer calculability of labor commodification and absolutely blow it up, destroy it, discombobulate it.

from this proceeds endless swells...

interesting observation. however we don’t ‘need’ anything. we have everything we need. we just have to let go of what is holding us back; namely what we thought we needed; e.g. ‘politics’.

you might say, in general, that we don’t ‘need’ dualism. the physical world is non-dualist. we use Aristotelian logic to reduce non-dualism to synthetic, mutually opposing entities or agencies;

for example, in quantum physics, matter and space are not mutually excluding opposites as Aristotelian logic would have us think of them; material particles are resonance-structures within an energy-charged spatial-plenum. matter is to space as tornadoes are to the atmosphere's flow-space.

similarly, creation and destruction are not mutually excluding opposites; in a purely relational energized flow-space, ‘material forms’ are continually transforming. Our attention is drawn to material forms that are ‘relatively stable/persisting’, although forms are continually gathering and being regathered within the continually transforming relational spatial-plenum. the ‘base-case’ is meanwhile ‘energy-flow’ with ‘no elemental material lumps in it’.

psychologically, Western European colonizers believed they were ‘creating a wonderful new world of cities and farms etc. in North America while the indigenous aboriginals claimed that that they were, at the same time, ‘destroying a wonderful established world’ on Turtle Island [every new housing development associates with destruction of a forest]. the aboriginal view is in terms of transformation wherein ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation of the spatial-plenum. The Western dualist view which splits construction and destruction apart and psychologically allows one to see ‘construction’ in its own right[obscuring the physical reality of transformation] has given rise to huge environmental problems.

The dualism ‘order’ and ‘chaos’ are the dynamic counterparts to ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’; i.e. ‘order’ is where things are moving from the general ‘chaos’ of ‘collapse of structure’ [‘destruction’] back towards ‘building of structure’ [‘creation’]. our visual observations see ‘transformation of the relational space we are included in’ in terms of the dynamics of ‘forms’. For example, within the transforming atmospheric flow we are included in, we see forms such as ‘tornadoes’ gather in. With the help of language, we treat these forms as ‘things-in-themselves’ and we re-render the dynamics of the transforming relational space we are included in, in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. As Nietzsche points out, we jump from ‘Dinge an sich selbst betrachtet’ to ‘Dinge an sich’, ... from ‘things considered in themselves to things-in-themselves’. And as John Stuart Mill says on the same topic; “Every definition implies an axiom; that in which we affirm the existence of the object defined”.

all the dualisms arise from using the logic of the excluded third and dissolve using the logic of the INCLUDED third [Lupasco et al] which applies in a ‘relational space’.

for example, ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ are resolved within the dynamic of transformation of relational space, as is the finding of modern physics according to Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger et al.

the long list of Western dualisms; cause/effect, free will/determinism, good/evil, mind/body, one/many, self/other, subject/object, can similarly be seen as the product of our application of Aristotelian logic to the dynamic of the transforming relational space we are included in.

getting back to your comment on exploding politics and exploding plans, ‘design/construction’ is another dualism. as Emerson says, in the flow of nature, pear trees gather and pears gather on the pear tree. This does not mean that the ‘pear-tree is the jumpstart creator of pairs’, the pear tree and its pears gather in the flow [they are included in it and are it, and do not separate out of it]. Similarly, the fruits of man’s labour do not jumpstart out of the man since the man gathers within the flow. Only on the basis that man were a ‘thing-in-itself’ would one view the fruits of man’s labour as being fully and solely sourced by the man. that would be like regarding the form-in-the-flow we reified and called ‘a pear tree’ as the full and sole jumpstart sourcing of the ‘pear’. This is what Aristotle did with the acorn relative to the oak tree. This is the ‘creator/created’ [cause/effect] dualism.

As Mach pointed out, that’s not how it works in a ‘spatial-plenum’. Mach’s principle is; “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.”

This is easy to ‘intuit’ in the case of storm-cells in the flow of the atmosphere or with resonance structures in any fluid dynamic, however, our language has put us in the habit of seeing dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, as if in an absolute fixed, empty and infinite operating space.

This has been so in the case of ‘genes’. We see these as blueprints that are responsible for the structures that have formed. The implementing agency was meanwhile ‘left floating’ and so was any identifying of the implicit agency that kept the whole developing structure coordinated as a single thing.

Only recently did the problem of the not-yet-identified implementer of the genetic blueprints become the object of scientific scrutiny;

“As is described by H.F. Nijhout, genes are "not self-emergent," that is, genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can't control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by "environmental signals." Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” ---Bruce Lipton

Epigenetics is the name for the new outside inward influence and thus we have the dualism, genetics/epigenetics which is our observation-based reduction of the non-dualist transforming of the relational spatial-plenum.

Instead of the development of form being seen as a one-side cause-effect genesis, we now see it as the conjugate relation of outside-inward orchestrating [epigenetic] agency and inside-outward asserting [genetic] agency, ... as in the standard or ‘archetypeal’ resonance structure [tornado where flow converges inward and downward at the top [sink] and where the flow diverges outward and upward at the bottom [source]. ‘sink’ and ‘source’ are another dualism that is a reduction of the resonance structure which is purely spatial-relational flow.

Prior to acknowledging that ‘epigenetics’ [blueprint implementer] was the conjugate partner of ‘genetics’ [blueprint], the cell nucleus was considered to be the ‘brain’ that implemented the genetic blueprint. After epigenetics, the cell ‘explodes its own need for existence’ and the plan is a ‘record of its own constructions’.

Here we have the analogy to ‘politicians’ and ‘plans’.

The politicians in the ‘nucleus’ of the organization are assumed to be the ‘brains’ or ‘mind’ that is the ‘jumpstart’ implementer of the ‘plans’ just as in man’s own view of himself. This notion of a ‘jumpstart source’ of development and behaviour, that we call ‘mind’ or ‘brain’ is a kind of ‘ghost-in-the-system’ contrivance that we are forced to come up with so long as we refuse to acknowledge any simultaneous outside-inward influence, and therefore ‘non-dualism’. [the brain as physical organ does not have to be interpreted as a JUMPSTART source of behaviour; e.g. there are no jumpstart sources of behaviour in a relational space. e.g. the physical brain could be a recording and playback device for reflecting on our ‘experiencing’].

so, where you say;

“what you need is a politics that explodes its own need for existence. you need a plan that detonates itself as a plan”

this is what it ‘looks like’ in re-synthesizing the nondualism that we have broken apart in dualisms. nature doesn’t break the uni-flow of the tornado into ‘input/output’ or ‘sink/source’, these dualisms are something we invent for the convenience of dealing with the dynamics of transformation in terms of Aristotelian logic.

the notion of ‘mind’ or ‘brain’ as jumpstart animating source of development or behaviour is a dualist contrivance, that persists, oddly and inappropriately, because of our denial of the physical reality of nondualist transformation of the relational spatial-plenum.

the nucleus of the cell is no longer its ‘brain’ or ‘blueprints/plans’ implementer. we have recognized that it is not necessary to think of organization as being sourced from the center, inside-outwardly, and that we can understand organizing instead in terms of the conjugate relation of outside-inward-orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting agency, as with resonance structures in a flow.

the mistake we made in putting in a notional ‘mind’ that directs the implementation of plans from the centre of the organization in the case of the cell is the same mistake as in ‘politics’ where we mistakenly believe that we need to put a notional ‘mind’ that directs the implementation of plans from the centre of the organization called the sovereign state, or the organization called the business enterprise etc.

this error of inventing a political scheme to implement plans from the centre of the organization is an artefact of apply the ‘dualist’ view to a nondualist physical reality. as emerson says, the tool [of analytical intellection] has been running away with the workman].

here you have it, the essence of hippy dippy: "we don’t ‘need’ anything. we have everything we need. we just have to let go of what is holding us back; namely what we thought we needed; e.g. ‘politics’."

just let go, float in the quantum sea of outside-inside (non)directedness. then a revolution will happen. then we will be (like?) aboriginals.

this some serious, imperialist, delirious cultural appropriation.

tip toe through the tulips emile:

one has to remember that ‘politics’ as a process of imposing organizATION on a penned-in collective from the ‘top-down’ by a ‘central authority’ was the invented device of colonization, ...the politics of enslavement, and you can forget about whatever other variety of definitions of ‘politics’ you may want to use to 'obfuscate'. my remarks about ‘letting go of politics’ are aimed at those politics that enslave a penned-in-collective, the politics of colonization.

for clarity, let’s call the politics of colonization, ‘politixxx’

politixxx = secularized theological [i.e. ‘religious’] practice/ritual designed to sustain absolute central control over the human inhabitants of a bounded and militarily policed land reserve.

“All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, not only because of their historical development ... but also because of their systematic structure.” --- Jens Bartelson, Bartelson, ‘A Genealogy of Sovereignty’

“State sovereignty "is a 'religion' and a faith." (Lombardi, Mark Owen. "Third-World Problem-Solving and the 'Religion' of Sovereignty: Trends and Prospects

The skillfully drawn borders that cartographers have provided for us are ... spiritual and philosophical abstractions representative of a form of quasi-belief. They are ... not detached maps of reality as proponents would have us believe. These geographies reflect an ardent desire to make (or impose) sovereignty a physical reality as natural as the mountains, rivers and lakes.... ‘[Id.]

This suggestion [that State Sovereignty is a religious concept] is startling because we are used to the western notion of separation of church and state. Western discussion can speak of "common will," but gets nervous with the thought that this phrase only acquires meaning in spiritual terms. As we have seen, however, western political thinking itself is grounded in theological concepts of "Christian nationalism." The notion of "absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original" is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This "God died around the time of Machiavelli.... Sovereignty was ... His earthly replacement." ---Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. "Interrogating State Sovereignty

so, are you defending the retention of religious ritual; i.e. politixxx?

since all politics is politixxx (by your definition) then why make any distinction? your alternative is primitive culture which had its own political intentionality (not politixxx i suppose?) regardless, if you are opting for primitivism just come out from behind all your hippy dippy, machian quantum gibberish and say so. then give some kind of concrete theory of transition from politixxx to primitive politics of anarchism. simple as that... ("all we have to do is let go of politixxx" is not acceptable as it does not define who "we" is referring to and it does not give any semblance of an idea of how "letting go" gets us from politixxx and capiltalism to primitive anarchy.) otherwise, please stop.

Sonnet to Emile -

Some more radiant relevance from your pen,
Graces these trolled pages,
Are we to surrender our pertinent sentences (tomes ahem),
And place a metaphysical gun to our heads,
Just because a moronic troll,
Sends a snarky piece of vitriol,
Empty of content,
Merely an,,,ad hominem?
Shine on scientific anarchist quartz,
Your sustainable mind can function even with warts,
Protein, oxygen and water,
With carbohydrates and fibre to,,,assist.

Sonnet from an anarchist against irrelevance

Some more cant from your keyboard
Leads into a thicket of blah
Are we to remain, alternately, dazed and bored
And place a metaphysical gun to our heads
Just because an arrogant teen
Sends out Mach in reams
Full of nothing
Merely a whim
Drone on in pseudo-Nietzschean schmaltz
Your quantum bosh is like bath salts
Soothing, stunning, sonorous
With a dash of indigenous to entice

An anarchist Haiku to reclaim cerebral territory after an onslaught -

Quantum bosh?
Gravity makes it go splosh,
But not posh!
It is a cultural slosh afterall, no?

or Zen Haiku--

Metaphysical gun goes pop!
Nothing but Mt Fuji
Blowing smoke
My brain is in my groin!?

Up oneside down the
Other, coming, going, down
When topsy turnvies

Society can work like a big band with mutualism -

Yep that's a new finding the inductive outward inward environmental input into gene selection within one generation. Darwin denied the notion of rapid mutation and Spencer then adopted it to use as a reactionary barrier against any ideas about mutating and revolutionizing social blue-prints.

Challenged Evolution? Give me a fucking break and RTFM before you write, goddammit!
Kropotkin simply challenged the *Malthusian* conception of Evolution of a war of one against all that was used to justify social darwinism. Kropotkin actually expanded on Darwin's original work in the way Darwin only implied, that organisms that practice mutual aid are in fact the "fittest".

and centuries later Kropotkin is still completely irrelevant...

How is Kropotkin "irrelevant"? This shit is completely relevant. So called "Darwinism" is used by capitalists as a justification for their shitty system. Mutual aid IS anarchism.


could not read past "respectable countries"

No, it reads 'most respectable'.)))

John Dupre is the shit.

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.

User login

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.