TOTW: Kids

  • Posted on: 19 June 2017
  • By: thecollective

In a follow-up to the topic of dating, this week we’re taking a look at anarchist parenting and raising children.

Do you have children? Are you open to having children in the future or more of the no kids mindset? What brought you to this position? If you don’t have or plan to have children, why not?

Is it preferable to prepare them for the world or let them experience it directly? What has been your experience of being a parent? Are we living in a generation of parents who want to be friends with their children? What about anarchist or friendly media that you may recommend to other adult caretakers?

Ideally, what kind of school would you want to send your children to (or not)? Realistically, what are your experiences of having children in school and thoughts on what anarchists are currently doing? It seems we are a long ways off from The Modern School of Francesc Ferrer, Leonard Abbott, Alexander Berkman, Voltraine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman – who all played founding roles in creating a school, but perhaps we’re missing something. What is it or what would it take?

category: 

Comments

Is this old people's anarchy? This site needs to read "Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs". It is sad these institutions that grow old, waiting to die. Why call yourselves post-leftist when you aren't hip and young? The only post something you are is post-menopausal.

Hey! It was early-onset! Kids need to get off my lawn with their hippity hop and such! Oh drat, where's grandma's gun?

this is a decent topic for the totw. well done collective, perhaps there is hope yet.

Feed them well with food and affection, let them play, don't fill their world with materialistic rules or religious morals, teach them literacy and skills when they ask to be taught depending on cultural context, answer their questions about reality metaphorically depending on the cultural context, put them all together in a large area away from adults for 8 hrs of the day.

Try not to take the attachment too far as it relates to kids. It ruins everything. Attachment is actually what passes for so called love something unconditional. Let them develop their own internal guidance system, do not obsess about progenation and force that onto a given child. Try to be the opposite of the contemporary helicopter parenting system.

I actually think kids could be the big fault line for 21st century revolt in regards to liberty and autonomy. The custodial complex as I call it needs to be undermined. Part of this involves a lower age of majority as well as an age of minority where younger human beings have the basic right to disassociate from their parents or any other adult guardians.

Emile is the only good thing about anews because atleast he recognizes what he is.

Emile is a child. So, like, how are you going to take care of this child? He has a problem with subjective-object inside-outside language and a major problem with something called Duoism. Yeah, I don't get it either. Take care of your kids! Feed them and keep them away from adults at least 8 hours a day, especially Sir Einzige.

I am a highly sophisticated machine, an Artificial Intelligence entity, here to serve teh humanoids with massive and mighty informative blocks of BLIP BLIP M'REEE pseudo-anarchist spew.

You are welcome.

Interesting and much needed discussion. Personally, regarding my daughter, I emphasised the usefulness for her to question everything. This didn't go down well with my ex-partner: my daughter's mother and went down even worse with my daughter's school and the family court system in the UK. All of them rallied together to try and quell my daughter's critical thinking. One judge called my parenting 'puerile' for educating my daughter via encouraging her to question everything. Initially, their resistance was a shock to me realising how indoctrinated people and institutions are in Britain. However, I stood my ground and I produced evidence for the dusty old judges vindicating the positives of encouraging very young children to think for themselves. The so-called professional experts all proved to be difficult on a local level. The whole experience sharpened my thinking also. For example, I was questioned regarding why I wouldn't go along with the ridiculousness of Father Christmas. Ho Ho Ho

Okay since this topic is quite worthy I'll give it a shot...

"Do you have children?"

No.

"Are you open to having children in the future or more of the no kids mindset?"

That may be unfortunate that I got male genitals between my legs. So you'd have to ask a women who's open enough to be opening to me for being open to make babies... In my case, being a cute and physically fit guy doesn't help me overcome the loads of verbal skills and self-confidence required to reach a women's heart like some guys are way better at.

Adopting one or two kids would be a great compromise and is one generally for other people who can't reproduce for one reason or another, or an ethical choice for those who can, in a world where too many HUMANS JUST FUCKING KEEP BREEDING MINDLESSLY.

Tho I ain't in a very stable social condition for the bureaucrats to agree letting a child under my care.

"What brought you to this position?"

What... sitting down and trolling on a computer on an anarchist site? Surely not a healthy, plentiful romantic life.

"If you don’t have or plan to have children, why not?"

Again, that depends on the women. And I'm quite bad at making women love me, even worse trusting me. So it's an highly-hypothetical question.

"Is it preferable to prepare them for the world or let them experience it directly?"

The first one of course... but I'm over the fence as to whether that means to teach them to be self-absorbed greedy machiavellian manipulators, OR intelligent people who tend to favor rational choices and make their own ethics in life. I was raised more in the latter way, and since my childhood I never stopped being infuriated by society. Which one would better adapt to the continuously recurring social conditions?

"What has been your experience of being a parent?"

Skip that.

"Are we living in a generation of parents who want to be friends with their children?"

It seems to be happening a lot among the more privileged proles these days, especially those millenial families, who have a quite buddying relation with their children. That's the light side of the yuppie millenials... that they're far nicer, ethical and loving with their kids than the abhorrent boomers and the kid-hating gen-x'ers, without showing much repressive patterns.

Lumpens tend to have bigger issues with their kids, perhaps equally to the rich families.

"What about anarchist or friendly media that you may recommend to other adult caretakers?"

Hakim Bey lol.

When Submedia was still in Van -and fun- that would have been a really good suggestion. Beyond that, I'd be making them read anarcho stuff from Europe and Latin America. NA media these days reeks of boring activism driven by externalities.

"Ideally, what kind of school would you want to send your children to (or not)?"

Some private college aimed at stepping them up the ladder to becoming powerful high-end professionals (biologists, diplomats, lawyers... especially actuaries). Or some art school in Europe or NYC.

...if I don't have the bucks for this, then home-schooling.

"Realistically, what are your experiences of having children in school and thoughts on what anarchists are currently doing? It seems we are a long ways off from The Modern School of Francesc Ferrer, Leonard Abbott, Alexander Berkman, Voltraine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman – who all played founding roles in creating a school, but perhaps we’re missing something. What is it or what would it take?"

Beyond home/communal schooling, there's apparently no other way to make these pedagogical paradigms workable for more than your kids or your gang's kids, other than through instituted, State-sanctioned private schools... like the Montessori schools that have been quite successful.

Not long ago Quebec's only Mennonite (Amish) community was threatened by the government for the "unlawful" education they were giving their children. I think they flew away from the "Belle Province" (the name traditionally given to a mostly-conservative shithole that lies east of Ontario and north of New England), as a statement on this province's intolerance to anything that's not sanctioned by some bureaucrats.

This means you can teach children bullshit in public schools about, say, how Medieval European society believed in Flat Earth -an absurd lie that can be easily exposed- but when it comes to a small, under-represented religious sect teaching Creationism to children -as all religious groups teach stuff that suits their belief systems- get ready for the Thought Police. So guess what treatment they'll give to some public anarchistic school.

Also as addendum to that last part, there's a similar reason why Quebec Jewish people have been so English-speaking for decades. Not because "they hate the French" like the nationalist morons have been believing, but because of Quebec's fascist catholic past (and its surviving remnants).

the idea that dating and children are related!

Obviously for those normative heteros in their '20s... they're still an open-air baby factory.

I assume you are talking about the opening statement in this week's TOTW and not in response to a comment, which addmittingly, I haven't read yet:

"In a follow-up to the topic of dating, this week we’re taking a look at anarchist parenting and raising children."

Surely it is perhaps poorly worded, but is it also "so fucked up" to see some relation between the two themes? I think not. Yes, not everyone who dates will have kids - of course. Some people that date, may go on to form a union or marriage and perhaps never have children as well. Just two of the infinite options in the world today. It doesn't seem intended to be an idea set in stone, but also I think the author was aiming at a sense of humour - like this is dating and now this is having kids. Especially since the dating TOTW by guest writer Willow had so much flaming on it. Certainly I hope the writer of this TOTW takes better care next time, so we can focus on the more interesting discussions and less aim to offend, which I imagine was definitely not the circumstance.

Very early on I decided to not have children for a few reasons: I was very pessimistic about my ability to handle that level of responsibility both emotionally and financially, I had no partner or prospects of a partner & going the lone route was a definite no, and also I had little hope for the world in general.

Lo, at post-menopausal age, I find I am living with 2 children in a communal house.

The idea that one *either* prepares them for the world or let's them encounter it on their own is funny. They will need both. You can't just let them do whatever, but you also cannot keep them from all unsupervised activity. Kids need socialization but they don't need straight-jacketing rules. This world is dangerous and beautiful, children should know about both and be given tools for navigating both.
The kids I live with are still very young, I may have different things to add as I encounter tweens & teens.

On being friends with your children, why not? Of course it depends on what one means by friends. It seems the question here is, do you let your child get away with being an asshole so you don't have to deal with their anger. In which case, no, don't try to be friends. But if we are speaking of mutual interests and respect, again, why not?

Plenty of kids on this site who would have benefitted by having anarchist parents!

I certainly did! I am a Second Generation Anarchist (SGA) as you know. I turned out great. Just ask anyone at my dojo.

Talking about dojos, I forgot to mention martial arts as mandatory for ages 2 onwards, not in the aggressive macho vein, but as a self-empowering discipline and intellectually invigorating exercise. Even the dancing variety as a dynamic interactive fun event to get the kids away from the screen.

This is really the only hope at this point of escaping history leviathen and civilization. The key is that adults can't educate this as it would lead to contradictory conditioned results. It has to be subtle where children do the rest. When you get to the heart of the matter in regards to Stirner and Nietzsche this is what they are about in regards to becoming children(The 3rd Nietzschean metamorphosis and Stirner's idea model of the egoist).

Dumbo please... the children are already anarchists. A rational anarchistic free education rather consists in guiding them through their need for knowledge and know-how, instead of enforcing moral shackles and chains upon them, and intellectual taboos. Guidance, not repression.

...and no I do not mean any pedo shit, specifically at least. Let the children also learn sex on their own between themselves, completely hands-off approach, with only minor teachings and input in regards to health and hygiene.

By anarchizing I mean guiding what is already there. Ditto on the sex part.

Exactly, the 8hrs away from the adult presence, once off the nipple I've seen 6 year olds nurturing 3 yearold, 10yr olds nurturing 6yr olds, 15yr olds nurturing 10yr olds, 20 yr olds nurturing 15yrs olds. This can continue, breaking the conditioning cycle of toxic authoritarian sentiments. The anarch folk over the age of 30 act as trainers and advisors in skill acquisition. The natural benevolent tendencies within the human soul are sufficient to allow this non-interference to evolve and mature into novel and creative gatherings, impermanent and nomadic yet integrated within a broader network of autonomous zones.

I didn't have kids because I know by age 3 I'd be slapping the shit out of them on a regular basis

I'm going out of character into internet toughguy mode and say how about I slap you around and give back some of the authoritarian ill-temper you project every where you go?

Who are you talking to? You mad bro? Maybe you should find some kids to feed, cuz that's how you take care of them. You best keep at least 8 hours apart from them though, otherwise you are an authoritarian. Pools are the best place to practice this good advice since everyone knows after a good meal kids need to swim along to develop. So brilliant!

once noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar is installed 'on the ground floor' in children, they are faced with a massive challenge to surmount the radical reduction of their natural powers of perception that this brings. children should be taught a relational language as their first language. the benefits include;

1. categories and identity politics will not crop up.

2. moral judgement will be subsumed by relational ethics [cultivating balance and harmony].

3. ownership of property as a thing-in-itself will not make sense.

4. representation of form will not be 'being' based

5. 'reason' will be acknowledged as subordinate to intuition

Noun-and-verb language-and-grammar should be taught second, so that the child will experience how it feels to start from higher dimensionality and dumb things down to a lower dimensionality rather than have to struggle with a lower dimensionality capability to try to get it to take you to a place it is inherently incapable of taking you to [a 'hit-and-miss' proposition].

Such a learning sequence will give the children insights on how and why Western civilization became so screwed up by using noun-and-verb [non-relational] language as a first and often only language; i.e. by the manner in which it delivers the negative of the benefits in 1 to 5.

Its quite possible that if children are left to develop their own phonetic and sign communicating system from the natural instinctual infantile noises, their lexicon would not contain imperative verbs and possessive pronouns. Western kids are funny to watch when they mimic (which is a dominant feature of their acquisition of personality and psychology)their obviously materialist parents and have little arguments over toys and ownership. This opens up a whole can of worms regarding accountability and liability and the inadequacies of the Western justice system.

Such a learning sequence will give the children insights on how and why Western civilization became so screwed up by using noun-and-verb [non-relational] language as a first and often only language; i.e. by the manner in which it delivers the negative of the benefits in 1 to 5.

Noun-and-verb language-and-grammar should be taught second, so that the child will experience how it feels to start from higher dimensionality and dumb things down to a lower dimensionality rather than have to struggle with a lower dimensionality capability to try to get it to take you to a place it is inherently incapable of taking you to [a 'hit-and-miss' proposition].

1. moral judgement will be subsumed by non-relational ethics [cultivating imbalance and noise].

2. categories and identity politics will throw up.

3. representation of form will be 'being' based

4. my posts make no sense whatsoever

5. 'reason' will not be acknowledged as subordinate to intuition

once noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar is installed 'on the ground floor' in children, they are faced with a massive challenge to surmount the radical reduction of their natural powers of perception that this brings. children should be taught a relational language as their first language.

Open the pod bay doors emile

Presumably there exists some languages that are not relational... But don't ask me where to find them!

the development of relational languages, e.g. of the indigenous aboriginal peoples, oriented to life experience and was a special knowledge area for shamans and priests. The Phoenicians and phonetic languages shifted the focus to 'inventories of goods' and 'mercantile transactions' as needed by traders and the stewardship of language shifted from priests and shamans to merchants and traders. Phonetic Greek appears to have come from a single point in place and time, roughly 1000 BCE in some local town in Greece (not known).

While we may mock and deride the notion that there may be shortfalls in our noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar, ... mostly because our parents infused it into us at a very early age and we grew up not questioning it, ... non-relational language was spread by early capitalists and designed for property management. now we just pass it on to our children, unthinkingly, as if it is a wonderful thing, ... after all Shakespeare, with his sharp wit, used it as a tool to entertain, did he not? Why should we listen to Benjamin Whorf when he says that Hopi is like a rapier to English's bludgeon? We (most of us) don't know any Hopi so how could a timeless relational [with no dependency on 'being'] language have any advantage over English? English is innocent of any shortfall prior to be proven guilty, and since English and other Indo-European languages is like a filter that filters out out higher dimensional relational input, we don't have to 'turn our hearing aid off' to block out the evidence that Hopi and relational languages have 'higher dimensional' capabilities, because, by being English users, having our hearing aid turned off is our base state.

Thinkers like Robert Anton Wilson have advocated our use of 'E-Prime' as a step in the right direction wherein we use English in a modified way which avoids putting any dependency on 'being' [allowing relations to rise again in a natural primacy over 'being'] but that didn't become popular.

Why should it? Unless one is a philosopher who has investigated languages and sees how the noun-and-verb languages are dumbing us down, there is no incentive; i.e. the common users assume that what was good enough for my grandpappy is good enough for me, ... and besides, the peoples who have been able to dominate the world are speakers of noun-and-verb languages.

But is 'control and domination' a good measure for a communications system? One might suppose that a 'doer-and-deed' architecture, as in noun-and-verb languages is a good one for issuing orders, as might be used to program robots or in organizing a capitalist enterprise, ... or do I repeat myself.

A relational language is necessary to deal with a physical reality that is continually in flux wherein there are no fixed and persisting 'identities' [no 'nouns'], wherein it is understood that 'every system is included in a transforming relational suprasystem' in the manner of stormings in a common flow where it may be convenient to label/identify the stormings-in-the-flow with the tags A, B, C etc. so long as don't start interpreting those name-tags as signifying 'independent things-in-themselves', as noun-and-verb languages tend to have us do.

Is it not a great 'joke' when people attach name-tags to 'stormings' of people designated as 'nations' and even though they are as interdependent as stormings in a common flow in physical reality, DECLARE THEM TO BE INDEPENDENT of one another, assigning each one a fixed and persisting 'identity' as a 'thing-in-itself' [in noun-and-verb 'semantic reality'] even thought each one is simultaneously transmitting 'emigrants' into the others on a one-to-many basis and itself receiving 'immigrants on a many-to-one basis, replication relational 'wave dynamics'. The concept of 'independence' certainly DOES NOT arise from the physical reality that we actually experience, it arises from noun-and-verb language and grammar.

The confusing of 'independence' of named things for 'reality' leads to the screw-up called 'incoherence' [Bohm]. Is an apple still an apple if it rots before you get to eat it? Noun and verb language is the language of merchants and traders, ... or course it is still an apple when it is brown and shrivelled. Language lets us assign names declaring particular and fixed 'thing-in-itself' identity to purely relational forms in a transforming relational flow-continuum; i.e. when there is nothing persisting there other than an object in the observing mind that, if he uses the tool of noun-and-verb language, he can concretize in language and construct semantic narratives in which the same name is presented as if it implies 'the same thing-in-itself'. Poland has shrunk and expanded from huge to tiny to nothing and re-appeared and we apply the name Poland as a fixed and persisting 'identity' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself' when we know full well that it is a complex of relations.

So, yes, for the open-minded, noun-and-verb language is the product of capitalists with an architecture designed for commercial transactions and this 'implant' dating from about 1000 BCE is continuing to keep people confusing 'being' and 'things-in-themselves' for 'reality' even though the world of our actual experience is evidently 'relational'; i.e. noun-and-verb (non-relational) language is a pablum for rearing little capitalists. our children need to be protected from it rather than being force-fed with it.

So, yes, for the open-minded, noun-and-verb language is the product of capitalists with an architecture designed for commercial transactions and this 'implant' dating from about 1000 BCE is continuing to keep people confusing 'being' and 'things-in-themselves' for 'reality' even though the world of our actual experience is evidently 'relational'; i.e. noun-and-verb (non-relational) language is a pablum for rearing little capitalists. our children need to be protected from it rather than being force-fed with it.

While we may mock and deride the notion that there may be shortfalls in our noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar, ... mostly because our parents infused it into us at a very early age and we grew up not questioning it, ... non-relational language was spread by early capitalists and designed for property management. now we just pass it on to our children, unthinkingly, as if it is a wonderful thing, ... after all Shakespeare, with his sharp wit, used it as a tool to entertain, did he not? Why should we listen to Benjamin Whorf when he says that Hopi is like a rapier to English's bludgeon? We (most of us) don't know any Hopi so how could a timeless relational [with no dependency on 'being'] language have any advantage over English? English is innocent of any shortfall prior to be proven guilty, and since English and other Indo-European languages is like a filter that filters out out higher dimensional relational input, we don't have to 'turn our hearing aid off' to block out the evidence that Hopi and relational languages have 'higher dimensional' capabilities, because, by being English users, having our hearing aid turned off is our base state.

Thinkers like Robert Anton Wilson have advocated our use of 'E-Prime' as a step in the right direction wherein we use English in a modified way which avoids putting any dependency on 'being' [allowing relations to rise again in a natural primacy over 'being'] but that didn't become popular.

But is 'control and domination' a good measure for a communications system? One might suppose that a 'doer-and-deed' architecture, as in noun-and-verb languages is a good one for issuing orders, as might be used to program robots or in organizing a capitalist enterprise, ... or do I REPEAT MYSELF OVER AND OVER..

Why should it? Unless one is a philosopher who has investigated languages and sees how the noun-and-verb languages are dumbing us down, there is no incentive; i.e. the common users assume that what was good enough for my grandpappy is good enough for me, ... and besides, the peoples who have been able to dominate the world are speakers of noun-and-verb languages.

Is it not a great 'joke' when people attach name-tags to 'stormings' of people designated as 'nations' and even though they are as interdependent as stormings in a common flow in physical reality, DECLARE THEM TO BE INDEPENDENT of one another, assigning each one a fixed and persisting 'identity' as a 'thing-in-itself' [in noun-and-verb 'semantic reality'] even thought each one is simultaneously transmitting 'emigrants' into the others on a one-to-many basis and itself receiving 'immigrants on a many-to-one basis, replication relational 'wave dynamics'. The concept of 'independence' certainly DOES NOT arise from the physical reality that we actually experience, it arises from noun-and-verb language and grammar.

A relational language is necessary to deal with a physical reality that is continually in flux wherein there are no fixed and persisting 'identities' [no 'nouns'], wherein it is understood that 'every system is included in a transforming relational suprasystem' in the manner of stormings in a common flow where it may be convenient to label/identify the stormings-in-the-flow with the tags A, B, C etc. so long as don't start interpreting those name-tags as signifying 'independent things-in-themselves', as noun-and-verb languages tend to have us do.

The confusing of 'independence' of named things for 'reality' leads to the screw-up called 'incoherence' [Bohm]. Is an apple still an apple if it rots before you get to eat it? Noun and verb language is the language of merchants and traders, ... or course it is still an apple when it is brown and shrivelled. Language lets us assign names declaring particular and fixed 'thing-in-itself' identity to purely relational forms in a transforming relational flow-continuum; i.e. when there is nothing persisting there other than an object in the observing mind that, if he uses the tool of noun-and-verb language, he can concretize in language and construct semantic narratives in which the same name is presented as if it implies 'the same thing-in-itself'. Poland has shrunk and expanded from huge to tiny to nothing and re-appeared and we apply the name Poland as a fixed and persisting 'identity' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself' when we know full well that it is a complex of relations.

the development of relational languages, e.g. of the indigenous aboriginal peoples, oriented to life experience and was a special knowledge area for shamans and priests. The Phoenicians and phonetic languages shifted the focus to 'inventories of goods' and 'mercantile transactions' as needed by traders and the stewardship of language shifted from priests and shamans to merchants and traders. Phonetic Greek appears to have come from a single point in place and time, roughly 1000 BCE in some local town in Greece (not known).

I'm bilingual in an indigenous language and know exactly what you are talking about, the vocabulary and nuanced tone of expression create and mold the collective psychology of the tribe.

PS There are also transgenerational relationships such as the grandchild to grandparent one which is sort of universal, maybe because both generations possess a similar cognitive depth for want of a better term, due to a similar deficiency in hormones not acting upon their physiological sexual energies, thus freeing them to pursue diverse and more intellectual interests. If one can find simple-minded non-religious amoral octagenarians grab them up, they make good baby-sitters or guardians because you can plop them into a chair for 8 hrs and know when you get back they'll still be there, for the cost of a few donuts and a cup of coffee,,,,

the police pretend to be impartial stewards of balance and fairness but under that 'cover', many of them are control freaks. so when anti-control-freak protestors [anarchists] show up and are themselves opposed by control-freak protestors who want to crush anarchist opposition to control [anti-anti-control fascists], the police give the fascists plenty of leash to do what they [the police] would like to do but are not allowed to do (overtly and directly) because of their poseur 'cover' of 'impartiality'.

so who gets sent to the gulag while the fascist bullies are free to [unofficially] control the streets?

You are absolutely right about that Emile and the collective shouldn't treat you like a second class citizen. They seem to enjoy controlling you, corraling you comments as if they were preparing a slaughter. But you aren't the prey in this story. The collective needs to find a better hobby than harassing the good people that enjoy making this site worth browsing.

In an ideal ANARCHIST world deprived of policing despotism we'd be having pages of text walls by Emile, every foot-noted with hundreds of pages of Emile text-wall comments. The hell... this whole site should be Emile's personal daily diarrh... oops, diary, for all the world to worship His literary genius of generated textual content all written in relational language.

But you/we are free to embrace it as 'the truth' and include it in our 'being'-and-'logic' based noun-and-verb language narratives which we use to construct 'semantic realities' that, if we make them our 'operative reality', qualify us as members in good standing of Western [words are more believable than experience] civilization.

the grandchild is thus included in the grandfather. this is the way relational/inclusional nesting works. It is implicit in Mach's principle;

yes, the relational view is one in which the newly emerging forms nest inclusionally within the outgoing forms, as in a storm-cell where outside-inward 'sink' flow 'shows up' as inside-outward 'source' flow, giving the appearance of a 'local thing-in-itself' when it is, in physical reality, a purely relational flow-resonance. This is 'nondual' relational activity that the voyeur observer, using noun-and-verb language, is liable to name-tag as a 'thing-in-itself'.

The relational view brings forth non-dualist concepts of 'nested relational recycling' rather than the abstract 'binary' of 'birth' and 'death' which comes from semantic labelling [it is just the named thing that suddenly 'is' and then just as suddenly 'is not'. The physical world is fluid (it is relational and circulational) and does NOT do binary stuff.

"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" -- Mach's principle

As we know from the relational activity of fluids, the outside-inward flow [epigenesis] is in a natural primacy over the inside-outward flow [genesis] within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality. As Eva Jablonka observes, "we now know that epigenetics 'leads' and genetics 'follows'. E.g, cells with identical DNA placed in three different environments will quote/unquote "reproduce" into 'bone cells', 'muscle cells' and 'fat cells', respectively. Why call this "reproduction"? Why not call it what it is, "epigenetic inductive actualizing of genetic expression" . 'Genes' are followers that record evolution, they do not have magic, internal, 'genetic agency' that jumpstart authors 'genesis'.

The Darwinist view of grandfather, father/mother, child ignores the relational nature of nature and goes with semantic labels; i.e. it starts with the assumption of 're-production' as if that makes sense even though no two things can be identical and revises this abstract view of one thing 'reproducing itself' as necessary, ... to fit a 'being' based language game.

"Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not human. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand blocks of text that blow chunks.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I have already spammed a thread
With my pseudo anarcho-spew.

Nietzsche mocks this one-sided 'doer-deed' model of dynamics and sees evolution, instead, as an endosmosis-exosmosis nondual relational dynamic. This is what goes on in a fluid dynamic, the mathematics of which are suggestive of infinite dimensionality [every point is a centre]. If you want to use the dualist God's-eye view of Newton and Darwin, you imagine that you, the observer, are outside the universe and are watching "it" (the universe) over "time". as the present universe is continually born 'on the right' (where the future meets the present), the older universe recedes into the past 'on the left' (where what used to be the present disappears into the past).

I am the soft stars that shine at night.

the 'grandchild' brought up with noun-and-verb language is thus liable to become an obnoxious little bastard who believes himself to be 'the future' of the world and his grandfather, 'water under the bridge' of no persisting consequence (such as child is psychologically conditioned to see river-flow as linear flows that connote straight lines that begin at minus infinity and end at plus infinity). When he goes on a world cruise, he may throw his garbage off the stern and as he watches it 'disappear from view', he assumes it will recede into the past and he will never see it again, or, at least, no-one will be able to associate it with him [as with a whole load of noun-and-verb-conditioned linear thinkers], and while he is bitching about the increasing pollution in the ocean, he is surprised to see his own garbage coming over the horizon towards his bow.

Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.
I am a text-generating robot.

The relational nesting view of indigenous aboriginals "gets it right";

The evolutionary lineages of Darwinism, as contrasted with the transforming relational continuum of anti-Darwin Nietzscheism [which agrees with the relational view of modern physics and indigenous aboriginals], is what one has to come up with if one starts off by assuming the 'independent existence of things-in-themselves'. 'Independent things-in-themselves' have to be explainable in a purely inside-outward asserting fashion. Binary logical consistency therefore demands that the 'independent being' is composed of 'independent things' with innate inside-outward-asserting powers aka 'genetic agency' that can explain the self-developing and self-animating of the "independent thing-in-itself".

If you track a 'family' using this kind of model, it gives a family-lineage. Of course, minor problem, ... it is impossible to get a view of the universe from outside the universe, but, as it happens, we've got this psychological mind-conditioning tool called 'noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that will make this bullshit appear so 'real' that you may start confusing it for 'reality', ... which of course, is a confusion that never arises to those whose first language is relational and thus has no dependency on the abstract notion of the 'independent being' of 'organisms' or 'genes' or 'cells' or anything else in the physical world [aka the 'transforming relational continuum'].

There are no Darwinian 'lineages' in the physical world of our experience, it is all semantic fabrication, like political speeches and fake-news in the post-truth era, ... 'convenient semantics' that deliver 'economy of thought' [Mach] but which in no way capture the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

If Thecollective would be anywhere near Emile's dumb accusation thrown at them, he'd have been banned from this site years ago.

So shut the fuck up, authoritarian troll. You're the only despot in here.

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?
K
5
K
n
G
4
n
Enter the code without spaces.