Weblog: March 31, 2006



In yesteday’s blog, and in fact all through my website, i make the point that there is no such thing as ‘individual behaviour’ in the sense that the behaviour of an entity is purported to be independent of the spatial-relationships it is bound up in; i.e. the dynamic of the collective is more meaningful than anything we can deduce or construct from the behaviour of individual entities.   the implication is thus that the group dynamic (e.g. ‘community dynamic’)  is more meaningful (richer in meaning and implication) than the dynamics of the individual entities (‘entities’ being humans, organisms, particles or other INDEPENDENT OBJECTS) that are included in the group dynamic.   furthermore, i often allude to physics (relativity) to support this view.  it occurs to me that i should do my best to elaborate on this most basic of issues as clearly and as simply as i can. 


one will not ‘get to this view’ by reading einstein (who is a physicist par excellence), but one can get to it by reading poincaré (who is a philosopher of science who puts the generalizations of physicists in the context of natural reality).   these two have very different views about the fundamental implications of relativity), as can be gleaned, in particular, from the four or five pages in the section Origin of Mathematical Physics in the chapter Hypotheses in Physics in poincaré’s Science and Hypothesis where poincaré points out that the apparent simplicity in physics comes from us ‘letting our mind get ahead of our experience’; i.e. we cannot really decompose sound or light in to mono-frequencies since they do not exist in nature, only in our mathematically idealizing minds (e.g. a ‘frequency’ can only be a ‘single frequency’ if it is never-beginning and never-ending (i.e. if it is continuous all the way from a time of minus-infinity to a time of plus-infinity).  meanwhile, we use the concept of ‘a [single] frequency’ and ‘multiple frequencies’ all the time as if they were ‘real’ but in fact they are idealizations that cannot be confirmed by our experience/experiment.  our idealizing mind has ‘taken the differentiation of frequencies to the limiting notion of ‘a discrete mono-chromatic ray’ (light) or ‘a discrete mon-frequency’ (acoustics), JUMPING AHEAD OF OUR EXPERIENCE.   poincaré also notes that our mind jumps ahead of our experience when we deal with the dynamics of ‘several bodies that move simultaneously’, and this is where i would like to focus in showing, in discussion similar to that of poincaré and to the same end, how it is that there is no such thing in nature as ‘individual behaviour’ (that the dynamic of the individual can only be RELATIVE to the spatial-relational dynamic in which the individual is included).  


we don’t have to be physicists to understand this.  this is a matter of philosophy and natural experience and the manner in which we perceive through ‘feeling’ and ‘seeing’, and as mentioned, poincaré was not just a physicist but a philosopher of science and life.


our attention here is directed to the notion of a ‘body’ (‘corps’) versus the mathematical notion of an ‘object’ which we normally ‘exchange’ for ‘body’.   while a ‘body’ refers to the local concentration of energy in the gravitational field (a ‘form’ in the energy-flow), an ‘object’ is by its nature something that has an idealized ‘absolute’ existence; i.e. it is a local, self-centered entity, and when we speak in terms of ‘objects moving’ or ‘the behaviour of objects’, our mind gets ahead of our experience in accepting that the behaviour can be explained starting from the ‘object/s’ and ‘what they do’ as if their dynamics originated from their local self-centers.   while our experience informs us that we are included within spatial-relationships that are continually transforming (like the man in the cart on the way to the guillotine), we can always let our mind get ahead of our experience by re-constructing the world dynamic in terms of ‘local self-centered objects’ and ‘what they do’. 


so the notion of an ‘independent object’; i.e. the notion of ‘the identity’ of a thing in itself, is problematic, a case of ‘the mind getting ahead our experience’;


“Poincaré argued that the axioms of geometry implicitly rely on assumptions about the nature of objects which they are supposed to “define,” thus giving us a vicious circle that defines nothing (“objects” are implicitly assumed to be invariable bodies). . ... Therefore the axioms of geometry already contain an irreducible assumption which does not follow from the axioms themselves. Axiomatic systems provide us with “faulty definitions” of objects, definitions that are grounded not in formal logic but in a hypothesis — a “prejudice” as Hans-Georg Gadamer might say — that is prior to logic. As a corollary, our logic of identity cannot be said to be necessary and universally valid. “Such axioms,” says Poincaré, “would be utterly meaningless to a being living in a world in which there are only fluids.””


that is, if our world is a tranforming field of energy with local concentrations called matter, we cannot presume any absolute separation between the ‘flow’ and the ‘lumps-in-the-flow’ that we refer to as ‘matter’.   in fact, as schroedinger put in, the ‘material object’ is mere ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’), being an undulation in the quantum wave-structure of space.


meanwhile, we are very used to ‘letting our mind get ahead of our experience’ and going with an ‘object-based re-construction’ of the real-world dynamic we and everything is included in, and confusing this object-based reconstruction, which is what enables the idealized notion of independent ‘individual behaviour’, with ‘reality’.    that is, we can say that dynamics are ‘spatial-relational’ (relative) but we cannot say that they are ‘object-based’ without ‘letting our mind run ahead of our experience’.


of course ‘physics can do it’, as poincaré discusses in The Origin of Mathematical Physics, thanks to these simplifying assumptions, these ‘idealizations’ wherein the mind runs ahead of our experience.  in the last sentence in that section, poincaré reminds us that ‘in the natural sciences’ (biology etc.) these ‘idealization’ based generalizations do not hold and  “c’est pour cela que les naturalistes sont obligés de recourir à d’autres modes de généralisation.” (“it is because of this that naturalists are obliged to resort to other methods of generalization.”)


physics thus recognizes that it’s own generalized formulations are simplifications that describe, approximately, natural dynamical phenomena, and in particular, they do this by OBJECTIFYING persisting features/forms in the energy field-flow and endowing them, by this objectification, with local self-centered (independent) existence which is amenable as a foundation for re-constructing the energy flow-dynamics in the simplified terms of the behaviours of local objects that are seen to relate to their self-centers, and in the case of so-called ‘animate objects’, such self-center based behaviour is seen as being driven by the ‘inner purpose’ of the idealized local ‘independent’ object.


this simplified reconstruction of dynamics based on idealized ‘independent objects’ provides a generalized means of describing dynamics that no longer relies on the particular and unique spatial relationships the individual entity is bound up in.   that is, our experience informs us that we are situationally included within a unique web of spatial-relationships and that our behaviour is relative to these spatial relationships.   it is one thing for us to feel that we would like to actualize some assertive behaviour but in reality what we actualize in the way of assertive accomplishment is co-influenced by the accommodating backpressure of the group dynamic we are included in.   if we are the son of a king or a millionaire, our inside-outward actualizing of assertive potentials may be far more receptively accommodated than were we the son of a farmer or a pauper, thus to attribute our ‘assertive accomplishments’ solely to our inside-outward assertivity would be to over-simplify the dynamical reality.


this ‘disparity’ manifests between ‘the law’ which is based on the behaviour of individuals seen as ‘independent local objects’ and the principle that ‘all men are equal in the eyes of the law’.   minorities complain that they do not have ‘equal opportunity’.  that is, they complain that there is disparity in the accommodative quality of the community hostpace, it being selectively more receptive or more resistant to individuals in their actualizing of assertive potentials; e.g. there is much cronyism amongst white euro-american males so that they condition the shared hostspace to be more accommodating to ‘their kind’ and less accommodating to ‘others’.    since the law is based on the idealized concept of the ‘independent individual’ and sees his behavior as being locally sourced from within his self-center, driven by his ‘inner purpose’, the law is blind to dynamics seen in the more realistic terms wherein the actualizing of assertive potentials and the accommodating backpressure of the hostspace in which the individual is situationally included MUTUALLY SHAPE the ASSERTING ACTUALITY. 


no matter how extensive and detailed is the examination into the internals of the rich king’s son and into the internals of the poor farmer’s son, the causal source of the greater assertive accomplishments of the rich king’s son will not be discovered.  thus the model of dynamical behaviour in terms of independent object-entities is an over-simplification that makes the model incapable of explaining everyday macro-behavioural phenomena.


the relativity of motion applies generally at the macro as well as micro level and the idealization of absolute motion (as is required for an individual’s behaviour being seen as driven from out his self-center) is an over-simplification that depends upon the idealized notion of ‘objects’ that exist independently of the dynamical hostspace (energy-flow) in which they are included.


if we ask ourselves whether our actualizing of our assertive potentials is co-influenced by that accommodating quality of the community hostspace dynamic we find ourselves situationally included in (imagine different situations such as a white in arab society or an arab in white society etc.) and we find the answer to be ‘yes’ (as it rather obviously has to be) then we have, in a word, established that models of dynamics based on the behaviour of local self-center possessing objects with local self-center-sourced behaviours is an innately over-simplified and indequate model for capturing real-world dynamics.  furthermore, we can say that there is no way that we can isolate our individual dynamic from the dynamic of the shared hostspace in which we are (uniquely, situationally) included.


that is, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR’  (it is a simplified idealization that we find it convenient to use, it is a case of the mind running ahead of our experience).   the behaviour of hurricane katrina is not ‘katrina’s’; i.e. it is not sourced from katrina’s self-center, but is instead innately non-local, a-centric and RELATIVE.  and so it is with the behaviour of the US and/or Saddam’s Iraq and/or the Taliban’s Afghanistan and so on.   our notion of ‘eliminating’ ‘undesirable individual behaviours’.


the ‘hard, clear-thinking’ politics of david warren, mentioned in yesterdays blog acquires its ‘hard, clear-thinkingness’ by clinging tenaciously to the idealization of ‘independent individual behaviour’ wherein we purport the source of the behaviour to lie within the independent individual, and thus the criminal behaviour of a jean valjean (stealing a loaf of bread) is seen to emanate 100% from his interior purpose.   the fact that there was plenty of food around and that the community hostspace was not very accommodating to the actualizing of his assertive attempt to hunt or gather something to eat for the crying, famished children, has no traction or bearing at all, when one is coming from the idealized model wherein individuals are seen as ‘independent’, their behaviour being fully sourced from within (rather than from the mutual influence of hitting and fielding; i.e. from the mutual influence of the actualizing of assertive potentials and the accommodating backpressure of the hostspace the asserting is situationally included in).


on the scale of nations and tribes, the same ‘hard, clear-thinkingness’ can be applied if one holds rigidly to the model of independent object (nation-state, insurgent-movement) based behaviours.  it is this model that allows us to dissolve the spatial-relational relativity of behaviour and thus to speak of ‘good behaviours’ and ‘evil behaviours’ of independent individuals (individual persons, nations, groups).   this has proven to be a convenient camouflage for nations that seek to propagate their ‘superior civilization’.  for example, the colonial powers set up protectorate nation-states by drawing some imaginary lines (convenient to themselves) on a map and having their powerful brothers endorse the mapped space as a nation-state governned by a central authority.  the central authority being one of the tribal chiefs of the region, friendly to the powers, who was then in a position to dispose of the riches of the overall multi-tribal region space and promise some share to the colonial powers, and when the other tribal chiefs rebelled, their actions could then be shown to be ‘illegal’ and ‘criminal’ behaviour whereas the humiliation they experience, by being alienated from their generations-old relationship with the land and one another, by the new radial force of a central autocratic control hierarchy whose powers derived purely from ‘idealization’, the idealization of ‘property’, objectified land’ which comes about when powerful nations impose imaginary lines on the map of a landscape that is innately continuous and unbounded, endowing that idealized ‘property-object’ (the sovereign nation-state/protectorate) with local self-centered existence and local self-center sourced behaviour via a central governing authority.


for the tribal chieftain, for whom the generations-old evolved relationship with the local land and one another was ‘sacred’, ... to have this relationship over-ridden by imposed subservience to a central governing authority born of imaginary line drawing powerful others and their imposed ‘idealization’ of a ‘property-object’ was/is hugely humiliating.  but the ‘hard, clear-thinking’ politics of david warren holds that the illegal, criminal behaviour of the individual person, group or nation is 100% derived from within the individual, so does it follow that the individual guilty of criminal behaviour must be punished, incarcerated or eliminated.   the issue of humiliation through hostspace-based disaccommodation via imposed idealization is a non-issue the david warrens since there is no such thing as hostspace-based disaccommodation in the crisp and clear mental model based on reconstructing the dynamics of our real-life experience by a local self-centered (independent-individual) object based re-construction.


because our culture is continually imbuing in our minds this pseudo-reality (illusion whereby our mind runs ahead of our experience) of ‘independent individual behaviour’, it is not easy (but not impossible, either) to ‘hold onto’ the realization that ‘there is no such thing as ‘independent individual behaviour’ and that our individual behaviour is inseparable from the accommodating backpressure of the common hostspace we are all operating within.   once the imaginary line boundaries of the object-i-fiction ‘sovereign property’ are drawn on a map by the powerful and the nation-state becomes a ‘legal entity’ (an idealization that exists only be agreement amongst the powerful ones who have imposed it) the grounds exist both to humiliate the tribal peoples who reside within the imaginary lines, to alienate them from their traditional relationship with the land and with one another, and to label any angry response to these injustices as ‘illegal’, ‘criminal’ and even ‘evil’. such are the conditions that continue to prevail in the case of iraq and afghanistan and in those north american imposed nation-states which will never be accepted by the grandsons of the humiliated tribespeoples; e.g.;



What are borders? What is the Canada United States border? To the Kanien'keh?:ka (People of the White Flint) the boundary line that divides the upper half of North America between Canada and the US is a fictitious demarcation that slices throughout traditional unceded territory. The territory in question-Kanien'ke (The Land of the White Flint)-was in existence long before Europeans traveled to this beautiful land. In the eyes of the Kanien'keh?:ka the boundary that separates Canada and the US is merely a method devised by European settlers to settle their arguments over what they stole from the Indigenous nations of Turtle Island. The Kanien'keh?:ka see the bickering of these Europeans as the bickering of thieves fighting over the spoils of their crime. As Indigenous people we make no distinction between the US and Canada, there is no difference between our lands on either side of the imaginary line created by Europeans for Europeans. (  http://www.ainfos.ca/04/apr/ainfos00409.html  )


when we allow ourselves to think in terms of independent local self-center possessing objects with independent local self-center driven behaviours such as ‘canada’ and ‘the US’, we are ‘letting our mind run ahead of our experience’.  these nation-states exist only as idealizations in our minds (the minds of some of us) and their existence is proven only by our agreement to their existence and the modifying of our behaviour accordingly, as if they did exist.   the borders of empires dissolve when people stop believing in them or when those who were forced to behave as if they believed in them accrue such power that they no longer have to be subservient to those ‘central authorities’ that demand their belief in them.   the ‘reality’ of their existence and their capacity to source behaviour exists only in our idealizing minds, and only if we are willing to ‘go along with it’, there is no experiential reality that supports the existence of ‘property’ or of ‘the sovereign nation-state’, or generally, of ‘individual object existence’ and individual object-existence-sourced behaviour.


intuitively we know all this, but as far as as mental modeling goes, to BELIEVE in such idealization allows us the ‘hard, clear-thinking’ politics of a david warren, where things can be logically debated and problems solved all within this object-i-fiction world of idealization, far from the innately relative and spatial-relational reality of our felt experience of inclusion within a common hostspace.   of course, to put our faith in ‘idealization’ and its constucts is to alienate ourselves from our natural felt experience of spatial-relational inclusion which is the truer informant of how the world works.   we can label tribal chieftains, humiliated by the ‘take-over’ of central authority empowered purely by some imaginary line-drawing by powerful outsiders as ‘illegal’, ‘criminal’, ‘evil’ and prejudicial to the health of a ‘democratically elected government of a sovereign nation-state’, but they will act out of their humiliation and out of their being alienated from the land and one another and out of the insult that is being delivered to their ancestors who have cultivated their tribal relationship with the land and one another over many generations.  


we can ‘put them down’ and ‘the law will be on our side’ because the law respects the legal status of the nation-state that the imaginary lines say that they are now squatter on, and which demands that they accept subservience to the central governing authority of that legally constituted nation state, endorsed by the world community and particularly by the world powers who commit to help it defend its imaginary-line boundaries from those who would contest them from within or from the outside.


our western culture has a side to it that puts idealization before experience-based reality, and it is very convincingly articulated since experience-based reality is spatial-relational and thus purely tacit (‘fuzzy’) while idealization is hard, crisp and clear, like the ‘supremacist’ politics of a david warren.






Weblog: March 30, 2006


We are ‘the civilized’ are we not?  We, the people of european descent who have managed to save the indigenous peoples from themselves (from their own barbarism) , who began the major job of cleaning up the Americas in 1492 (in spite of what charles c. mann says we dumbly destroyed in his book ‘1491’).  and in spite of this, our  service to humanity, the natives are still complaining, as they drink a beer, watch their television and drive their pickup trucks and snowmobiles.  how can they be so ungrateful?


no, i am not ‘serious’, ... just introducing today’s blog by way of the ‘philosophies of the right’ as the conflict within canada continues to tension up in regard to the role of canada’s military in afghanistan, and as the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitudes come into full blossom, such as ‘Against barbarism, the civilized must be ferocious’ --- David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen.  


my interest is not in politics, right-versus-left per se, ... my interest is in exploring how our conceptions of space and time (mutual exclusion versus mutual inclusion) ‘condition our political viewpoints’.


for example, in the non-euclidian space of relativity, spatial-relational dynamics take precedence over ‘idealized motion’ in terms of ‘objects’ and ‘what they do’.    this is consistent with our understanding that material objects are concentrations of energy included within a hostspace that is a continuously flowing (dynamical equilibrium-seeking) energy flow-field.


now, you might ask, ... what the hell does that have to do with global politics?   and the answer is, that if we put the idealized motion based on the local existence of ‘things’ and ‘what they do’ in an ‘unnatural precedence’ over the spatial-relational transformation of the common living space we are included in, then, and only then, do we come up with the notion of ‘good thing-behaviours’ and ‘bad thing-behaviours’ and the corollaries that ‘some things behave better than others’ and thence on to ‘we can improve the behaviour of the world by proliferating good behaviour and eliminating bad behaviour’.  (i.e. there can be no meaningful assessment of ‘hitting’ [individual asserting behaviour] out of the context of ‘fielding’ [spatial accommodating by the common hostspace collective])


now, if we see things in the terms that ‘we’ have a civilized behaviour that is ‘better than’ the barbarism of ‘others’ out there, this kind of ‘independently sourced behaviour’ [non-relative, ‘absolute motion’] view provides the mental justification for proliferating ‘our’ civilization and eliminating ‘others’’ barbarism in the process.


the first nations peoples don’t buy this type of western reasoning.  they have always known that nature is about ‘balancing’ not about ‘control’ by ‘eradicating the pathogenic’..  for example;


”In the winter of 1534 discovering Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence, French explorer Jacques Cartier and his crew attempted to make their way down the [St. Lawrence] river. Trapped in five feet of snow and ice-blocked water-ways, the expedition was forced to spend the bitter winter months on the Quebec peninsula. The entire river was frozen above Hochelaga. Existing only on salted meat and biscuits, Cartier's men became seriously ill with what later was thought to be scurvy.  Twenty-five of the 110 man crew died and half of the remaining crew were too weak to take care of themselves. Fortunately for his crew, Cartier met a Quebec Indian named Agaya, who told him of the  Annedda pine tree.  Agaya explained how to strip the needles, pull the bark from the tree and brew a tea. The tea was to be taken every other day. Cartier immediately followed Agaya's instructions, and two of his men volunteered to try the teas.  Within one week, they improved so dramatically that the rest of the crew eagerly awaited their first sip of the brew. According to Cartier's account in his travel log.  "As soon as they had taken it, they asked for more which turned out to be a miracle as for every illness with which they were afflicted, they were cured and restored to health."    (Note: Pine bark contain 5 times the vitamin C found in lemons / James Lind, Scottish Naval Surgeon discovered in 1747 that citric fruits could cure scurvy but the remedy was not accepted by the British  Admiralty for another 50 years).

in western medicine as in western politics, it is not ‘balance’ that is sought but ‘control’ that puts ‘the good’ in authority over ‘the bad’.  thus we use the imaginary line-bounded nation-state concept to ensure that ‘good’ dominates over ‘bad’ rather than seeking to sustain dynamical balance within a free hostspace.

david warren credits george bush with the same realization as he has, i.e; “we are dealing with what amounts to a planetary civil war, between those who accept the state-system descended from the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), and an emergent Islamist ideology that certainly does not.”


this view, based on objectified behaviours that can be ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’, is shared by many people, and david warren is credited with being able to articulate it very clearly, as in this except from his recent writing;


”... there is not and never was a “clash of civilizations” [citing Wafa Sultan]. It is in the nature of things that only one civilization can prevail at one time: that the inferior will aspire to the superior, and be assimilated to it; or else, it will aspire to bring the superior down. The clashes are thus between higher and lower; between civilization and barbarism in their many degrees; and barbarism prevails where its hard beak meets the soft mush of decadence.


... We fight in Afghanistan because that is where our enemy is congregated. The jumbo jets that smashed into the Twin Towers were despatched from an Afghan cave. We have gone to find the bloody bastards who sent them. That is why we are there. That is why we have made the commitment to establish a civilized order in the Afghan wilds.


... For part of the superiority of the high civilization is to be found in its self-confident ability to defend itself, and to uphold civilized norms. We maintain and extend the frontiers of our civilization; or else they shrink.


.. I am so damn proud of our Canadian guys, in Afghanistan. They have taken over a dangerous mission, and they are up to it. Our Kandahar detachment does not consist of “peacekeepers”. A person must have his brains scrambled for breakfast to think it does. For the peace is being imposed. Our guys are not “honest, impartial middlemen” between the Taliban savages and the elected government of Afghanistan. We are there to serve the latter by eliminating the former. It is a kill or be killed proposition. We are there to protect the common people; and therefore to kill the common enemy.”


david warren’s remarks are right on target IFF the world dynamic truly is accurately describable in terms of ‘object-behaviours’.   if we can assume that ‘western civilization’ is an ‘object thing’, an ‘assertive agency’ that is capable of ‘sourcing an assertive behaviour’ that pushes out from its self-center driven by its ‘inner purpose’ (its vision, mission, plans to construct a ‘better tomorrow’ etc.).


but of course the ‘real world’ of our experience does not conform to such a simplified idealization.   the real-world of our experience conforms to ‘mitakuye oyasin’ --- ‘we are all related’ --- as is the situation when one takes into account that the actions of local entities are RELATIVE to the hostspace dynamic in which they are included.


we know how the nation-state has been used to suppress locals, and so we might say that the battle is between using the nation-state as a device whereby those that conceive of themselves as ‘good’ or rather ‘superior’ can ensure the suppression of those they conceive of as ‘bad’ or rather ‘inferior’.  (warren uses ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ aspect of global civilization; i.e. the civilized and the barbaric).


my citing of the following comment on the Zapatista movement is not ‘political’ but seeks to bring out one example of the numerous struggles around the world to restore man’s relationship with the land and one another to its natural precedence over the central control of the nation-state;

“In Fall 1996, the Mexican president signed an agreement with the Zapatistas (called the Accords of San Andreas). The Accords said three things: First, that the Mexican government will grant limited autonomy to the Indigenous people of Mexico, so they can conduct their own civic affairs, such as holding their own courts according to their customs (including religious customs). Second, Indigenous people may control their own development, which will be sustainable, rather than the destructive development that globalization would bring. Third, that Zapatistas being held as political prisoners would be set free. Since these accords were signed, the Mexican government has done nothing to implement them.

On a more poetic note (and this movement is full of poetry), the Zapatistas see Indigenous people as the forgotten memory of the Mexican nation -- the people who preserve color, song, and diversity in an increasingly monochromatic global economy. They are rebels with dignity, rebels for dignity.

The Zapatista vision offers local community autonomy as an antidote to globalization. Each community would have control over its internal affairs, its economy, and the natural resources that surround it. The Zapatistas demand that collective rights be included in the Mexican constitution. This is a major departure from the institutionalization of individual rights, both human and civil, that the international community now supports.”

it is not just the residue of colonized indigenous peoples who wish to restore man’s relationship with the land and one another to its natural precedence over central control, there are numerous internet based new-culture movements such as ‘GIVE’ that orient to this same direction or, rather, this same precedence-giving, e.g;

“GIVE means Globally Integrated Village Environment, a research institute set up to explore the full potential of regional and local economies and human ecologies which are embedded in global streams of communication.


The idea of GIVE is that these communication streams have dramatical influence on the things that matter in our life. Whatever we do begins in our mind as a conscious choice, but also as a result of our knowledge and wisdom. If we have access to the worlds best knowledge, we can dramatially change our living environments. If we have this access even in the small villages, the small villages can become our real homes again. We can bring the wealth of our civilisation back to a simple and secure environment, where we dwell with nature and have learned to join forces with the living world around us. We become stuarts of the planet and can halt and reverse the degradation of soil and landscape. We are using microelectronics - not to flood the world with “products” it does not need anymore, but to provide for ourselves with decentralized fabrication based on renewable resources. We are sharing design and knowledge to constantly improve this process. We create villages where we live our values together with others, but these villages become Global Villages by connecting and working with each other on the global cultural heritage of mankind.”   --- Franz Nahrada

one can also cite the ‘sovereigntist’ (i.e. anti-sovereigntist in the sense of anti-central-control) movement in quebec that seeks to preserve local cultural heritage that is seen as being suffocated by central control based administration, as an example of this persisting desire to restore man’s relationship with the land and one another to its natural precedence over the autocratic control hierarchy of the sovereign property based nation-state.  (now, this does not mean an ‘abandonment’ of federalism.   the iroquois six-nation confederation was much admired by engels and marx and also by the founding fathers of the united states, who borrowed from its balance-oriented thinking (there was not then a readiness to accept the equality of women as was an integral aspect of the iroquois confederation)).

in nature, we have this sort of ecological networking based on sustaining dynamical balance amongst a multiplicity of local mutually influencing participants, the same sort of balancing based on spatial relationships as when we drive friendly in the shared hostspace of freeway traffic-flow.

what david warren articulates so clearly is ‘colonial theory’.  it is based on a belief that there are ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ movements in our global civilation and it is imperative that our ‘superior’ aspect go to war against our ‘inferior aspect’ (no sign of ‘dynamical equilibrium seeking here, the message is that the ‘good’ must constantly keep a lid on ‘the bad’.), i.e;

It is in the nature of things that only one civilization can prevail at one time: that the inferior will aspire to the superior, and be assimilated to it; or else, it will aspire to bring the superior down. The clashes are thus between higher and lower; between civilization and barbarism in their many degrees; and barbarism prevails where its hard beak meets the soft mush of decadence.

afghanistan then becomes an outpost of ‘the good aspect of our global civilization’ which persists because of the protective backup we continue to give to it, as in the case of the ‘protectorate’ of ‘libya’ set up by mussolini, described earlier in these march, 2006 blogs (mussolini dropped rebel tribal chiefs out of his military aircraft into the center of their villages to ‘discourage’ the rebellion and of course such action may simply drive the rebellion underground rather than cultivating genuine support for the new central governance authority.  people will of course vote in elections and ‘democratically elect’ a government to make the best out of their limited options, but the people are not going to be given access to a referendum as to whether they should have this centrally-governed nation-state system or not.   they are not given the choice of going back to an iroquois multi-tribal federation which retains the precedence of local tribal peoples’ customs, their relationship with the land and with one another, as many afghanis and zapatistas are prepared to fight to the death for.

our military thus has a mission, in this context of david warren’s and those of the same mindset, to impose the values of our civilization on others so as to paternalistically ‘save them from their own barbarous traditions/elements’; i.e. as warren say;

“Our Kandahar detachment does not consist of “peacekeepers”. A person must have his brains scrambled for breakfast to think it does. For the peace is being imposed. Our guys are not “honest, impartial middlemen” between the Taliban savages and the elected government of Afghanistan. We are there to serve the latter by eliminating the former.”

this colonization by a ‘superior civilizaiton’ proposed by warren has quite a history of its own, cited by a muslim author who is incensed that the current Pope Benedict has lectured muslims, holding them responsible for policing their own, as if the insurgencies have nothing to do with the bolshy practices of the western powers, which, as warrens comments make clear, have not divested themselves of their superior culture’s‘nobless oblige’ colonizing mission;

“According Steven T. Newcomb, Director of the Indigenous Law Institute, Pope Alexander VI delivered the Inter Cetera papal bull on May 4, 1493.  Accordingly, this document, issued shortly after Columbus' first voyage to the Caribbean, expressed the pope's earnest desire that "barbarous nations be subjugated and brought to the faith itself," "for the spread of the Christian Empire." Earlier such crusading Vatican bulls called for "perpetual slavery" of Africans, by capturing, vanquishing, and subduing them, and by taking away all their possessions and property.

In the year of the Columbus quincentennial, these papal documents were [recognized as] instrumental in the injustices committed against the peoples of the Americas, Oceania, Africa, and Asia. Such papal bulls directly sanctioned colonization, the slave trade, and bloody campaigns that resulted in the deaths of millions. Scholars have correctly identified the Inter Cetera bull as the historic cornerstone of colonialism worldwide.”


 * * *

ok, moving right along, ... is there such a thing as a ‘peace-keeping mission’?   we might as well work our way through this since we use that term all the time.  warren would admonish and label people (mushy lefties) for even stopping to reflect on this question, i.e;

“The pansies of the Left are already fibrillating: “We didn’t think this was going to be a war!” Grow up, little people.  ...  this is the ancient story. The peace and freedom, the religious and cultural and scientific creativity of a high civilization, depend finally on the will to maintain order, to vindicate the right, to stop the criminal and insurgent. There is no neutral ground between civilization and barbarism. There is not even a boundary. You are either going up, or you are coming down.”

if one has the ethic of nature as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (we are all related, our good and bad brothers included), then the mission is to intervene without judgement to help restore dynamical balance and harmony (not to permanently commit to keeping a lid on the evil and inferior).   we do this all the time in real life even as children and teenagers.  it is a viable model which the late larry hein (jesuit priest) refers to as the ‘third model of God’ (i.e. three models of Governance), the three being (a) the chieftain who enforces the rules of right and wrong (‘fairly’), (b) the parents of the prodigal son (mushy leftists who wait for their sons to repent and forgive all, for those that repent), and (c) the autistic teacher/student model where one intervenes into conflict without judgement (assuming that we each live within our own emotionally shaped worlds) to limit injury while allowing the antagonists to revive their own local dynamical balance and  harmony (i.e. to give them time to heal naturally, since only the natural organism can heal itself and the ‘doctor’ can merely open up the space for the organism to do its own healing).

such an inclusive and balance-oriented, rather than mutually-excluding of good versus bad, philosophy as is embodied in (c) does not use the euclidian absolutes of ‘up’ and ‘down’, ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ in their approach to governance.   just as nature includes all, the good, the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, so it is with the philosophy of (c), ‘mitakuye oyasin’.

thus, THERE IS INDEED ‘MEANING’ AND ‘RELEVANT PLACE’ FOR ‘PEACE-KEEPING’ in the sense of non-judgemental (non-side-taking) intervention into regions of conflict to open up some space for conflicting parties to heal themselves.

meanwhile, few people would deny their abhorrence of female genital mutilation, stoning to death of female adulterers, the stoning to death of women who secretly educate their daughters, and the condemning to death of a muslim that has converted to christianity (abdul rahman, who was to be tried under Shariah law in afghanistan) and so the question arises as to whether ‘we’ should go to war against those who condone the continuance of such practices.

this brings to mind the experiences shared by a friend with the New Orleans Police Dept. who recounts that his most dangerous of encounters have been in answering domestic dispute calls (in the rough districts he works).  while the woman may have called 911 because she is being beaten by her partner, the police officer intervening has to be concerned that if the male partner resists and has to be taken by force or threatened with lethal force, the same female who ‘blew the whistle on him’ may attack the police officer.   the point is, that she wants help in reforming him, not in killing him or putting him away for the long terms.  she could have done either of those herself, by shooting him or leaving him.   she wants the ‘good in him’ to increase in proportion to the ‘bad in him’ and she is not ready to give him up; i.e. she is seeking ‘transformation’ rather than judging him as ‘either good or bad’.

and so it is, in many cases, with local communities that have continued to cultivate/condone abusive practices.   they could use ‘policing’ help from foreign military to give them some space for transformation, rather than having them ‘blow away’ their brothers whom they suspect to be capable of abusive practices.   the potential for alienating an increasing proportion of the local population is strong, depending upon how the foreign military ‘policing force’ sees its role and how it carries itself.

the alienated proportion is certainly going to be increased if david warren’s columns are circulated amongst afghanis in the manner that the danish mohammed cartoons were circulated within the islamic community.

therefore, the david warrens and other western-civilization supremacists, by their attitudes and remarks are increasing the dangers for the troops.

to summarize today’s blog, much of the support for sending canadian troops to afghanistan, rather than being based on ‘peace-keeping’ (giving the local peoples of the region space to ‘heal themselves’) is based on the belief in the supremacy of western civilization and the need to propagate it globally or to have it fall.

this view is based on the ‘object-i-fiction’ that there is some discrete entity called ‘our civilization’ that is capable of sourcing its own behaviour, having it push out from its own self-center driven by its vision, mission and plans for constructing a ‘better tomorrow’.  

if, on the other hand, we accept our experience-validated natural reality that we are all included within a common, shared hostspace dynamic, where our local actions have nonlocal interdependency, then it makes sense to orient our social dynamics management efforts to the cultivating and sustaining of dynamical balance and harmony on a centers-everywhere (non-euclidian space/ relativity of motion) basis.




Weblog: March 29, 2006


Yesterday, my ‘inclusionality counterpart’ in the UK (Alan Rayner) asked if i might forward one of my commentaries on ‘exceptionally performing teams’ to one of his students exploring the issues in regard to - ‘the business case for corporate social responsibility’ (CSR).


her notion was that “... trying to make CSR practices profitable misses the point, and that it allows social problems to persist. A more appropriate view therefore would be a systemic, inclusional one.” and  she was looking for prior work that explores; “... how solutions in our current thinking only perpetuate the problem, and a more inclusional view expands our perspectives.”


well, i have inquired into and written a fair bit in the past on ‘exceptionally performing teams’ from an ‘inclusional’ viewpoint including an article entitled ‘Complexity and the ‘Learning Organization’’, published in the (Santa Fe Institute) journal *Complexity* (Complexity, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 14-22, 1997), but my earlier work seems, in retrospect, ‘more obtuse’ than my current writing.   that is, my continuing work has informed me, not differently, but more simply and directly, that our problem is with ‘idealizing’ entities as ‘objects’. 


that is pretty simple (which unfortunately makes it more ‘objectionable’); i.e. ‘if your model is based on independent objects with independent object behaviours (‘objecti-i-fiction’) then the implementation of the model in the real world will deliver unintended results, ... making the use of such models ‘incoherent’ (bohm) and dysfunctional.


and since the typical ‘business case’ orients to benefits to ‘the corporation’, seen as a local object with a local object behaviour that pushes out from its self-center driven by an ‘inner-purpose’ (vision, mission, business plan), the typical business case is object-i-fiction based.


it is not easy to critique something that so many people take for granted as ‘good practice’, or rather, it may be easy but it is hard for such views to elicit serious consideration because everyone ‘knows YOU are wrong’ on the basis that ‘the millions of others in which they include themselves can’t be wrong’.


so, there is little difficulty in meeting the objective to show; “... how solutions in our current thinking only perpetuate the problem, and a more inclusional view expands our perspectives.”  but there is a great deal of difficulty in eliciting any serious consideration of these ‘inclusional’ ideas.


i say this from years of experience, not just mine but that of others who i have worked with, ... but that is another story.


the exceptionally performing teams i formally studied (and those i have continued to study informally, from outside observation) literally and deliberately let their own DISCRETE/OBJECT identity dissolve in the hustle-bustle of the community activity in which they were included.  so we can’t really talk about ‘what THEY did’ since the ideal that they exist as a local team-object with local, independent, team-object behaviour that pushes out from the center driven by their internal purpose NO LONGER PREVAILS.  


this is the general case.  we can’t help but let our notional independent local center-driven object-self attune TO SOME DEGREE to the suprasystem dynamic of the shared hostspace we are operating in.   we know this from navigating crowds or driving on busy freeway.  in order to persist in our idealized identity as a local independent object WHOSE BEHAVIOUR IS SOURCED FROM ITS INTERIOR, we would have to resist any tendency to let our movements be shaped by the accommodative backpressure of the common space our operations are included in.   but that is not realistic because we are intuitively motivated by the desire to ‘sustain harmony in the flow we are included in’.   OUR INSIDE-OUTWARD ASSERTING BEHAVIOUR IS THEREFORE RELATIVE TO OUR OUTSIDE-INWARD SPATIAL-RELATIONSHIP GUIDED BEHAVIOUR.   in other words, we let our inside-outward asserting self/identity ‘flex’ relative to the accommodating backpressure of the hostspace we are included in.


now, we can fight against this by designing a team or business organization like a bulldozer, that truly strives to execute a fully one-way inside-outward precision plan; i.e. a plan that is fully dictated by and executed in a self-center-driven manner, regardless of the conflicts that arise with others operating in the same shared hostspace.  in that case, we would be striving towards the unrealizable idealization that we (our team, our business organization) is a local, self-center driven object of the idealized type that is foundational to our object-based modeling.   of course, if we have a thousand such organizations operating within a shared hostspace, we would not likely refer to these operations as ‘co-operation’.


the point is, that the individual (person, team, corporation, nation) always ‘flexes’ his independent self-center driven agenda when operating within a shared hostspace, and when multiple (three or more) entities do this at the same time (move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence), a dynamical complexity arises that cannot be resolved in ‘causal’ terms (this is the ‘three body problem) and the behavioural evolution becomes ‘co-evolutional’ (the notion of the individual self as the causal source of his behavioural evolution dissolves)


this is pretty simple stuff in the sense that we all know it from experience; i.e. we make our plans as if we were going to execute them in empty euclidian space but in fact we have to operationalize them within a shared hostspace in which multiple others, whose plans we don’t know, are attempting the same thing.   thus we have to either ‘flex’ and let our behaviour be guided by outside-inward spatial-relational influences or we have to ‘take over’ the operations  of others and impose ONE PLAN that will govern everyone who is operating within the shared space.  this is difficult to do on a global basis although the attempt to do so by the ‘most powerful’ seems to highlight the current trends in business and politics.


the NATURAL alternative is to accept diversity and to work on schemes to sustain harmonious flow while respecting diversity.  this is essentially what we (many of us) do when navigating with the shared space of the busy freeway traffic flow; i.e. we do not have information on why this or that driver swerves suddenly or why this or that driver brakes suddenly (there could be many reasons other than ‘malicious intent’; i.e. they were tired and they drifted off for a moment, they dropped a lit cigaratte between their legs, their child got out of the car seat, they were distracted by the attractive individual in the adjacent vehicle, they were on an emergency call on their cell-phone etc., they had a bad at the office which was inciting road rage.).  


its pretty hard to incorporate all this in ‘a master plan’ so instead of going for ‘fault-intolerant operationalizing of our center-driven behaviour’, Nature has developed ‘fault-tolerant’ RESILIENCE that orients to the sustaining of dynamical balance (spatial-relational harmony/resonance) as the means whereby a diversity of dynamical entities do their thing within a shared hostspace/habitat.   nature is always balance-seeking.  the hurricane may look like ‘chaos’ and it may be born by ‘the butterfly effect’ but it is highly ordered behaviour which arises so as to transport thermal energy from the equatorial to polar regions, and like the ocean currents to be induced by spatial-relational balance-seeking.


so the question to ask today’s business planners is; ok, i understand your vision, mission and business plan, now where are you going to deploy this?  


at which point he will look on you as an annoying imbecile and respond, ‘why, right here in our community, of course!’.  


if, at this point, you reply; ‘but our community is a common hostspace with all kinds of stuff going on in it, and you haven’t even mentioned the spatial-relationships that are involved and the fact that your operation is not a ‘linear add-on’ but a transformative intervention, ... your plans only speak to ‘what YOU are going to do’, as if you were free to ignore the rest of the activities in the shared hostspace.  will the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace you are operating in not shape the actualization of your assertive plans, ... being more receptive here and more resistive there?  and will this response by the hostspace dynamic in which you are included and the spatial backpressure based modulating of the actualizing of your assertive plans not be mutually shaping?


the planner might respond; ‘we will do the best we can, adapting our plans where we have to’, or something like that.  in other words, he will have an ethic of bumping into others and letting ‘who wins’ and ‘who loses’ determine the alteration to the plan.


the exceptionally performing teams, on the other hand, accept that we live in a continuously flowing hostspace dynamic where many things are moving under each other’s simultaneous mutual influence and so ‘the plan’ cannot be foundational.  instead, the hostspace dynamic the team is included in is taken to be ‘foundational’ (after all, it is going on all the time and there is no ‘empty space’ such as is implied by the idealized plan in terms of the team/organization-as-object with self-center-driven behaviour).  the exceptionally performing team thus operates on the notion that their team behaviour is RELATIVE to the common hostspace dynamic in which they are included, and so they go and talk to their customers, their suppliers, their service contractors, the people of their host community (including their families), a sampling of all those with whom they will be involved with in moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, in order that their inside-outward asserting can better ‘attune’ to the outside-inward influences of the dynamical suprasystem of community (the shared hostspace) that they are included in.


these ideas are ‘not new’, they have been propounded by, for example, martine dodds-taljaard (The Devil is Suboptimization), Boulding, Ackoff and others, but there is little ‘take-up’ of them since our western acculturation is all about ‘suboptimization’ in terms of idealized ‘local self-center equipped objects’ that ‘exist independently’ and which have ‘independent’ behaviours that push off from their self-centers driven by their internal plans and purposes.  


of course this is unrealistic.  these so-called ‘independent’ organizations who see their own assertive behaviour in ABSOLUTE terms have no choice but to operate in a shared hostspace in which their behaviour is relative to the dynamical suprasystem in which they are included.  there can be no meaning ascribable to ‘their hitting’.   ‘their hitting’ can only take on meaning relative to the fielding in which their hitting is situationally included.


so all we have to do to answer our initial question about ‘the business case for CSR’ (corporate social responsibility) is to recognize that ‘hitting’ and ‘profits’ are the same kind of one-sided (inclusion-in  a common hostpace ignoring) ‘performance indicator’ that purports to reflect the ‘independent behaviour’ of the object-entity (the individual, the team, the corporation, the nation).


PROFITS ARE NOT THE MEASURE OF THE INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE OF A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, simply because ‘independent behaviour’ is a fiction, an ‘object-i-fiction’.  there can be no meaning to ‘hitting’ out of the context of ‘fielding’.  in other words, the notion of independent behaviour of an object-entity is untenable and thus THE NOTION THAT THE CORPORATION PRODUCES THE PROFITS IS UNTENABLE.


the members of the exceptionally performing teams that i interviewed understood this.  they recognized that they were included within a web of dynamical interdependencies with their customers, the people in the host communities they were operating in, their suppliers, their service contractors and they recognized that their behaviour was RELATIVE to this interdependent network dynamic (in fact, a spatial-relational dynamic since in reality, all of these activities were transpiring within a common community hostspace).   the ethic was thus to ‘let go’ of any rigid team identity and the unbudging self-center driven purpose and plan that typically issues (or attempts to) from such idealized ‘object-entities’ and to instead allow an authentic team identity to evolve by the manner in which resonance could be sustained between the inside-outward actualizing of assertive potentials of the team and the outside-inward accommodative backpressures from the shared hostspace dynamic in which the team was situationally included.    


in operating in this way, the team was unique and authentic because of its unique situation within, and relative to, the shared hostspace dynamic, but it had lost its idealized ‘self-center based existence’ and it had lost its idealized ‘independent’ behaviour that had previously been seen as pushing out from its self-center driven entirely by internal purpose and plans.   the team’s identity was now ‘spatial-relational’ in the manner of the hurricane within the atmospheric hostspace dynamic, wherein there was no fundamental distinction between the team dynamic and the environmental (hostspace) dynamic it was included in, ... the former being a ‘flow-feature’ of the latter, as is the more realistic way of looking at nature’s dynamics.


so what did they use for a ‘business plan’?   they just made one up.   as mintzberg and others have suggested, business plans are for shareholders and for analytical pegagogery.  they have little rapport with the way the world works; e.g;


Governmental, non-governmental (NGO’s) and educational institutions continue to dedicate considerable efforts towards the promotion and training of business planning activities for entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, the importance of business plans by entrepreneurs has limited empirical support. We compare and test instrumental and institutional theories to explain the widespread prevalence of the business plan dogma. A quantitative/qualitative research blend was used to compare and test the two theories. Instrumental explanations to the widespread prevalence were rejected in the quantitative study, while the institutional explanations were supported in both the quantitative and qualitative study. Instructors intent on utilizing the business plan dogma might stress pedagogical benefits rather than instrumental. This research suggests that lecturers would be better advised to focus on factors more important to nascent firms, such as social structure and networks. http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/Babson2001/I/IB/I_B/i-b.htm#THE%20DOGMA%20OF%20BUSINESS%20PLANS


today, ‘shareholder interest’ dominates in the dynamics of business investment.  a ‘business plan’ is required by the shareholders and the business plan portrays the firm as ‘an independent entity’ which it is not, and it portrays the behavioural performance of the corporate entity as ‘independent’ and as pushing out of its self-center driven by its ‘inner purpose’ (its’ business purpose and plans, its vision and mission etc.), which it is not.


the ‘business plan’ and ‘business case’ then, are fictional stories based on the ‘object-i-fiction’ of the existence of ‘independent object entities’ with ‘independent object entity behaviours’ when we are in reality addressing dynamics that are innately inclusional and mutually interdependent.


the making of ‘the business case’ for CSR is thus ‘self-delusion’.   if a business is big and powerful enough, the customers, suppliers and service contractors will play the ‘follower role’ in its dancing with the business ‘leader’ and try to make it look good in the same way that employees play the follower role to the manager’s lead so as to make him ‘look good’ (because they need the money).  because it is our habitude, in western cultural tradition, to describe the world in the stark terms of ‘what things do’ (ignoring their inclusion within a shared hostspace dynamic), we attribute what the boss does or what the company does, entirely to ‘the boss’ or to ‘the company’ (‘hitting’ out of the context of ‘fielding’), according to the business plan wherein instructions cascade down from the top in a machine-like imagery (machines have independent behaviour that pushes out from their self-center driven by their internal energies; i.e. in assessing their performance we ignore their consumption of fossil fuels and their polluting output, their inclusional participation in our shared hostspace).  so, to underscore this object-i-fiction of the independent behaviour of the corporate object-entity, we now reward the CEO with 1000 times (one thousand times) the compensation of his average employee.   as bill moyers observes in Restoring the Public Trust;


“... on the eve of President George W. Bush’s second inauguration, the editors of The Economist,  reporting on inequality in America, concluded that the United States “risks calcifying into a European-style, class-based society.” 


As great wealth has accumulated at the top, the rest of society has not been benefiting proportionally.  In 1960 the gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was thirtyfold.  Now it is seventy-five fold.  Thirty years ago the average annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives in the country was 30 times the pay of the average worker.  Today it is 1000 times the pay of the average worker.   A recent article in The Financial Times reports on a study by the American economist Robert J. Gordon, who finds “little long-term change in workers’ share of U.S. income over the past half century.”  Middle-ranking Americans are being squeezed, he says, because the top ten percent of earners have captured almost half the total income gains in the past four decades and the top one percent have gained the most of all – “more in fact, than all the bottom 50 percent.”


to summarize today’s blog, we continue to operate with a fictional model of social and business dynamics based on the ‘object-i-fiction’ of the ‘independent’ existence of object-entities and their ‘independent’ behaviour that pushes out from their self-center driven by their internal purpose (their internally generated vision, mission, plans).  ‘the business plan’ is one such ‘object-i-fiction’ (the personal resumé is another).   there is no mention in this fictional model of the reality of the shared hostspace we all operate within whose dynamic our individual dynamics are relative to.  no, we continue to portray motion as ‘absolute motion’ attributable to the assertive agent as if he (person, team, corporation, nation) were operating in empty euclidian space.


all of this clean and tidy object-i-fiction modeling ignores one trivial!? bit of reality; the fact that we all operate within a common, shared hostspace where ‘independent behaviour’ (absolute motion) is meaningless (where motion is instead relative), and thus the business plan is a complete fiction because its foundations are a complete fiction.  the man who ‘loads sixteen tons’ follows the lead of his boss, and then we credit the boss with ‘independent assertive achievement’ in his own ‘independent right’, the same for the corporation, the same for the nation-state.  how can we separate the boss’s ‘lead’ from the worker’s ‘following’, a following that may very well be light and responsive not because of the boss, but because the worker has a wife and children to feed, clothe and shelter?  in the dance of business in the shared hostspace of community, there can be no meaning given to ‘the dance lead’ (the assertive) out of the context of ‘the following’ (the accommodative), these two are a dynamical one-ness that we mentally split apart and then proceed to explain the dynamic solely in the ‘causal model’ terms of the assertive performance of independent object-entities.


ok, i admit that this has not been very helpful to Alan’s student because it simply exposes the flaw in our mental modeling in such a way as to make it EVEN MORE UNACCEPTABLE to most people, particularly to those who are heavily invested in the ‘shareholder interest’ ethic.


one can hope for the creativity of students who have an interest in ‘getting to the bottom of this’ to come up with new ways to share the ‘inclusional’ inquiry/viewpoint that do not alienate others.  this challenge, however, grows with the growth of the ratio of CEO’s compensation to average worker compensation since such massive affluence equates to huge power over those who are struggling to survive, and thus tends to perpetuate their responsive following of the dance lead, staying out of the way of having one’s toes stepped on (being crushed) by an increasingly ‘heavy-weight’ dance-‘partner’. 






Weblog: March 28, 2006


yesterday’s discussion on the division between piaget’s ‘structured learning’ and vygotsky’s ‘situational learning’ encapsulates the essense of the basic divisions in our society.   it is the same division as that which sourced the vicious debates in evolutionary biology between dawkins et al (structured evolution) and stephen jay gould et al (situational evolution).    now that gould has died, the dawkinsian revisionists are busy trying to complete the discrediting of gould’s ideas, accusing him of having introduced confused ideas into the science of evolutionary biology.


what gould maintained, which was anathema to the rigid structuralist view of dawkins (wherein evolution pushes out from the center of independent genes driven by some kind of inner-purpose within the gene (selfishness)), ... was that ‘hitting’ (assertive accomplishment) MAKES NO SENSE out of the context of ‘fielding’, the accommodative spatial-relational backpressure that is SITUATIONAL.  


we are not talking only of evolutionary biology theory here, we are speaking of a general mental modeling precept that applies at all levels from micro to macro.  one can assess what gould is saying on the basis of one’s own experience.  all that is required is to ask whether, in the actualizing of one’s assertive potentials, does the space or habitat we are situated in have any bearing on the degree to which we can actualize our assertive potentials?


if your answer is YES, as it must be since we have all experienced ‘oppressive’ situations where the particular hostspace that we are situated in DIS-ACCOMMODATES IN A HIGHLY RESISTIVE FASHION the outwelling actualization of our assertive potentials, and other situations where the hostspace we are situated in ACCOMMODATES IN A HIGHLY RECEPTIVE FASHION the outwelling actualization of our assertive potentials.


the ‘accounting system’ of dawkins et al, orients solely to ‘assertive accomplishment’ as if the situational influence can be bundled into the quality of ‘fitness’ that is internal to the organism.   this is a device that allows the ‘theory of evolution’ to be specified entirely in terms of ‘what things do’; i.e. we have taken away the two-sided mutual influencing of (a) the assertive agent as he tries to actualize his assertive potentials and (b) the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace he is situated in, ... and artificially converted it to one-sided terms of ‘what things do’ (assertive accomplishment), qualifying the different assertive accomplishments of entities which seem to have the same assertive potentials, on the basis of their FITNESS.   but the other way to look at it is that our assertive achievements are inductively shaped by the accommodating backpressure of the hostspace we are situationally included in.


this is where there is a fundamental split in the way we think about the world; and it concerns the way we think about ‘space’ and ‘time’; i.e. if motion is relative, we cannot separate, other than conceptually in our mental modelings, the actualizing of assertive potentials and the accommodative backpressure of the space we are situated in.   the reality here is that of the hurricane in the atmosphere; i.e. (a) the asserting agent and (b) the accommodating hostspace are really just one spatial-relational flow-field (evolutionary dynamic) and it is by convention and for the purpose of simplification that we objectify a form within the flow and personify and label it (e.g. ‘hurricane katrina’) whereupon we can speak of ‘it’ as if it is an ‘independent entity’, an ‘assertive agent in its own right’ that is ‘locked in a struggle’ with ‘its environment’.  


we see ourselves, individual humans in this ‘split out way’.    or at least those of us acculturated in the western mindset do.   native american traditionalists see man as ‘included in the land’; i.e. they see the land as the continuous flow akin to that of atmospheric space and the man as an emergent ‘form’ within that continuous flow.


there is not only ‘nothing wrong’ with this view, in the sense that there is nothing there that conflicts with our experience or even with our (modern) science (relativity and quantum theory).  it not only DOES NOT conflict with modern science, it conforms far more coherently with science than does any theory that depends upon the ‘independence’ of ‘material objects’.   as poincaré says, ‘objects’ are something that we impose on our rational mental models that are not impose on nature.


but let’s take another look at Piaget’s powerful influence on education.  “Piaget was a psychologist with a fundamentally biological orientation. He was an epistemologist who regarded empirical studies of infants, children, and adolescents as an essential source of information about the nature of knowledge.”  He believed that ‘knowledge was ‘biological’ in nature.


Vygotsky (1896 – 1934) was a former philosopher/literary critic turned psychologist who wanted to understand the nature of aesthetics and concept formation.  he did not place such severe constraints as a biologist tends to, starting from ‘the biological organism’ (‘the hurricane katrina’) and studying it as an ‘independent entity’ whose behaviour and capabilities must be fully explained in terms of its ‘internals’ (if it is ‘independent’ then what it does must be sourced from within it).


to get an idea of how literary critics think (which one can easily see as implicit in vygotsky’s psychological works) the following except regarding the ideas of russian phlosopher/literary critic mikhail bakhtin (1895 – 1975) whose ideas on the ‘inter-individual’ nature of language were very close to those of vygotsky; i.e. the assertive utterance and the accommodating quality of the collective understanding are inextricably bound together; i.e. just as gould believed it makes no sense to think in terms of an ‘assertive accomplishment’ in its own right, vygotsky and bakhtin believed that it makes no sense to think in terms of an assertive utterance in its own right;


“ To Bakhtin, an 'utterance' (any expression produced in a living, concrete , and unrepeatable set of circumstances) is always directed towards somebody.  An utterance is inconceivable without a speaker and a listener.  As Bakhtin puts it; 'Discourse (as all signs generally) is inter-individual.  All that is said, expressed, is outside of the "soul" of the speaker and does not belong to him only.  But discourse cannot be attributed to the speaker alone.  The author (the speaker) may have inalienable rights upon the discourse, but so does the listener, as do those whose voices resonate in the words found by the author (since there are no words that do not belong to someone).  Discourse is a three-role drama (it is not a duet but a trio)."


here again, we have this same geometrical consideration.  it seems to crop up everywhere and concerns the relationship between ‘subject’ and ‘object’; i.e. it is as fundamental as fundamental can be in our mental modeling.   the question is this;


are the subject (e.g. ‘hurricane’) and the object (atmospheric hostspace-flow) REALLY independent of one another , ... or are we ‘making it up’?


both bakhtin and vygotsky imply that the ‘field’ of understanding that is continuously evolving (they use that word) is greater than the individual assertive action and/or assertive utterance, which means that we shall never come to an understanding of the dynamics of a collective by trying to understand the dynamics of an individual, ... whether we are speaking of ‘behaviour’ or ‘utterance’; i.e. neither assertive behaviour nor assertive utterance can be seen to possess meaning in their own independent right, ... the meaning of assertive behaviour and assertive utterance are instead mutually shaped by the accommodating quality of the hostspace that the asserting is situationally included in.   in gould’s terms, there is no meaning in ‘hitting’ out of the context of ‘fielding’.


the word ‘field’ is significance since all of this leads to the suggestion that ‘field’ is the ‘mother dynamic’ from which we mentally extract the reduced notions of ‘subject’ and ‘object’.   e.g. ‘the atmospheric field-flow is the source of features/forms which have ‘apparent’ local centers and apparent ‘local center sourced independent behaviour’ but in the case of the hurricane it is clear that such local centers and locally sourced independent assertive behaviour ARE ILLUSIONS that we impose on our visual perception based mental models.    IN REALITY, such object-centers are nonlocally inferred and a-centric, as is the apparent assertive behaviour. 


now, if it doesn’t make sense to you to think of ‘your self’ as being nonlocally inferred and your assertive behaviour being ‘a-centric’ rather than coming from your ‘soulful’ ‘inner-purpose’, it may be useful to review yourself as one of the people in the cart on the way to the guillotine.   you have the choice to ‘forget about’ being inextricably bound up in the hostspace flow, and focusing on ‘what you all are doing’.  if the ride is long enough, you might put on a stage production of ‘showboat’ within the cart, an activity that would ‘preoccupy’ the mind and ‘occlude’ any awareness of being bound up in the hostspace flow. 


similarly, one can imagine individuals in the cart being so pre-occupied with the awareness of being bound up in a flow that is taking them to the point of extinguishment of their lives, that they cannot possibly ignore this and participate in a stage production of ‘showboat’ even if everyone else is ‘doing it’.


yet, is it not an ‘opiate’ of a sort, to go into this ‘sub-reality’ oriented to ‘what we do’ that ignores the hostspace flow we are included in?  is it not a ‘denial of death’ in the manner that ernest becker’s Denial of Death speaks of it?


if we open up our awareness to being included in the hostspace flow, as in the native tradition of cultivating man’s relationship with the land/hostspace and one another (the equivalent of bakhtin’s ‘trio’) then the absoluteness of the split between ‘subject’ and ‘object’ dissolves and we find that while the actualizing of our assertive potentials is simultaneously mutually shaped by the accommodative quality of the space we are situationally included in, we have, through our collective dynamic (the way we behave relative to one another) influence over the accommodative quality of the common space we are situationally included in.


instead of being locked in a struggle with the hostspace, WE ARE THE HOSTSPACE (the inhabitant is the habitat, as the gouldian evolutionary biologists say).  ‘we are the hostspace’ together with every other ‘brother form’ that participates in the common space of nature.


we do not have to ‘play’ solely on the individual-assertive side of things, we also, together with others, have a handle on the spatial-relational accommodative side of things and given this REAL WORLD geometry, we can shape the actualizing of our assertive potentials FROM THE OUTSIDE IN, ‘INDUCTIVELY/SITUATIONALLY’, and not just ‘from the inside-outwards’ as in the assumption of ‘independent individual behaviour’ a la dawkins, piaget et al.


as already mentioned with the aid of the ‘hurricane’ example, the inside-outward sourcing of behaviour and the outside-inward situational (spatial-relational) inductive shaping/sourcing of behaviour are a dynamical one-ness and it is a matter of our convenience, the convience of ‘simplification’ that has us impose the euclidian space and time convention (consistent with visual perception) so as to ‘split out’ the included flow-feature and make it over into an ‘independent object’.   this is the same psychological process as engaged in by the men in the cart on the way to the guillotine who ‘occlude’ their awareness of being bound up in the hostspace flow (their inclusion in an evolutionary spatial-relational dyamic) by re-focusing on ‘themselves’ as ‘things that do stuff’, or, to expand that slightly, as ‘independently existing local objects that source independent local behaviour that push out from their self-centers driven by ‘inner purpose’ (that must come from their inner biological workings).  


the ‘epicycles’ to keep this over-simplified absolutist view ‘hanging together’, in addition to ‘inner-purpose’ lurking somewhere in our internal biological matter include ‘feedback’ and ‘adaptation’.  these two concepts provide an ‘at-a-distance’ re-connect between the ‘assertive agent’ who is now ‘split out of its inclusion the hostspace flow-field’, and the ‘environment’ which is now ‘everything else but the independent assertive agent’.   in this way, we can give our mental model based on absolute independence of the asserting entity a simplistic means of ‘staying in touch’ with the hostspace without having to be ‘included in it’.   this is where the epicycle of ‘sequential time’ is born; i.e. ‘time’ is not needed in the case where we envisage space as a continuously transforming flow-field as in relativity.  time is needed when we split out ‘objects’ from the field and describe THEIR behaviour (in terms that see them as ‘independent’ of the hostspace field-flow).   if we were doing this in the case of the hurricane, we would say; ‘first katrina builds pressure and pushes out, then the ‘surrounding air’ pushes back, and where it pushes back least determines the direction that katrina will move in.  the notion of temporal sequence is thus an artifact of our mental splitting apart of ‘the hurricane’ (the asserting agent) and ‘the environment’ everything else but the asserting agent.  this object-i-fictioning allows us to retain the logic of the excluded middle in our conceptualization of the dynamics of our hostspace.


to summarize today’s blog, ... at the bottom of many disagreements in how we perceive and manage things is a common geometry.   it is the geometry of relationship of ‘subject’ and ‘object’ and whether we can really split apart an individual entity from the hostspace it is operating in.   as the imagery of the people in the cart shows, they can occlude the reality of their being inextricably bound up in the hostspace flow-dynamic if they re-focus on themselves as independent locally centered objects with independent locally centered sourcing of behaviour.  this ‘reconstruction of reality’ in terms of ‘what independent things do’ can be very entertaining and even mesmerizing, ... but in pre-occupying us with ‘making things happen’, we lose our awareness of our participation in cultivating the accommodative quality of our common hostspace; i.e. our participation in the evolutionary dynamic.


if one listens to gould and to vygotsky, one concludes that it is not meaningful to conceive of ourselves as capable of ‘independent assertive accomplishments’ (that which we put in our ‘resumés’) since the accommodative quality of our situational inclusion within the shared, common hostspace is a simultaneous co-contributor in the actual actualization of our assertive potentials (this awkward word structure comes from having to use separate concepts for ‘the assertive agent’ and ‘the space that it is in’, when it is an included flow-feature of that space; i.e. where there is no ‘real’ separation between the assertive flow-feature and its environment other than that which our visual perception ‘talks us into’).


if one listens to dawkins and to piaget, one concludes not only that it is perfectly meaningful to conceive of ourselves as capable of ‘independent assertive accomplishments’ but to reward and respect and empower ourselves on that basis (as our western culture is wont to do).


but if we are mesmerized by this visual re-construction of what is going on in the world as being, as dawkins and piaget say, traceable back to the biological internals of independent assertive agents (ignoring the inductive behaviour-shaping influence of our situational inclusion in a common hostspace dynamic), then what will become of the quality of our hostspace, this wonder-full mother-world that some, like the aboriginals (and buddhists, taoists etc.), say that we are included in?   if all we respect, reward and empower is what we see as the ‘independent’ assertive accomplishments of individuals, where does man’s relationship with the land come into it? 


the fact is, that the men in the cart, by occluding their awareness of inclusion within the hostspace flow, wrest themselves (merely illusionally, to be sure) from their relationship with the land/hostspace and see themselves as included in a new reality entirely of their own making based on ‘what they do’ (i.e. on a one-sided inside-outward source of authorship).   this is the familiar ‘patriarchal’ model where asserting is all there is and accommodating (the feminine quality) is no longer needed.


our most popular evolutionary theory (dawkinsian) with its ideas of ‘the most fit’ and its ‘occlusion’ of the over-riding behaviour-shaping influence of the feminine-accommodating quality of the hostspace we are situationally included in, and our most popular educational theory (structured learning) and its ‘occlusion’ of the over-riding understanding-shaping influence of the feminine-accommodating quality of the hostspace we are situationally included in, are the cornerstones of our patriarchal culture with is objectification of space into ‘sovereign properties’ with central autocratic control hierarchies that alienate man from his relationship with the land and one another.





Weblog: March 27, 2006


yesterday’s blog spoke about the problem that even if we RATIONALLY uncover incompetent foundations in our western cultural ways, it is not simply ‘rational understanding’ that maintains the status quo but our emotional capture within our spatial-relational situation; i.e.


“...whether or not we come up with a ‘rational explanation’ ... of what ‘is going wrong’ in our society, our behaviours are ‘emotionally’, ‘situationally’ shaped, and if the boss continues to ask us to trade out our freedom for subservience to his autocratic control hierarchy in exchange for money to live and feed our families by, and if the sovereign nation-state continues to ask us to trade out our natural freedom for subservience to its autocratic control hierarchy in exchange for the ‘privilege’ of being able to reside within that region that powerful military-backed people have ‘brought into existence’ by drawing some imaginary line border, then we could be ‘stuck’ in this status quo for a long while, a status quo that forcibly imposes top-down rational models that alienate man from his attunement-based situational relationship with his habitat and with his habitat-attuned brothers”..


to some, the notion of recscinding our central-control manner of organization (i.e. subordinating it to our relationship with the land) may be unthinkable.  but is it certainly not unthinkable for those peoples whose traditions never ‘bought into’ such absolutism and still do not (First Nations, the country people of Chiapas (Zapatistas) etc.).   in fact, the continuing political movement behind quebec pulling out of canada raises the question of where we should put those important imaginary lines that determine?! the ‘independence’ of a nation-state, or whether we should abandon this abstract notion of ‘independence’ and accept the notion of ‘community’ as a attuned harmonious spatial relational dynamic between man and his habit, and think instead in terms ‘networks’ of communities, rather than independent ‘sovereign nation-states’.   after all, that was the way it was before europeans came up with the idea of ‘objectifying chunks of the land’ by designating imaginary line boundaries to describe them.   certainly there were traditions of land residency and land usage that were upheld by agreement if not by wars, but there was no notion of the ‘independence’ of particular ‘sovereign properties’ designated by imaginary line borders, ... a practice that erodes the awareness that we live within a common hostspace, a natural habitat that pays no attention whatsoever to our imposing of imaginary line boundaries.  


the honey bee, as he builds the hexagonal cells to keep his larvae safe, sets out to build a little sphere, but as he does so together with his brothers, he realizes that the outside of his space is the inside of his brother’s space and thus instead of  everyone building their own spheres and having double walls between the local spaces, they share the building of the cell wall, reducing the materials by one half and eliminating the waste space between the packed spheres, ... ending up with a hexagonal cell structure that is mathematically and practically the most efficient possible use of space and materials.


there is nothing in this world that is truly ‘independent’ so we can expect practical problems any time we make ‘independence’ foundational to a social practice such as organization/governance.


our feelings inform of our inextricable inclusion in spatial-relationships and it is only our visual perception that informs of things that are purportedly ‘independent’ and stand alone like an island.


but wait a minute, the island appears to stand alone and to be independent, but it is really an independent entity?  when the water level drops, the island gets bigger, when the water level rises, the island gets smaller, ... whoops, too high a tide and the island disappears.   when the water level drops really low, the island is no longer an island but is connected to the ‘mainland’ and so is part of a ‘peninsula’.  and if the water drops ‘all the way’ so that the ocean deeps are now exposed land, then we no longer have the concept of ‘islands’ and ‘continents’ which depended upon the intersection of water surface with the lithological landscape. 


‘political tides’ rise and fall too, and borders expand and contract, nation-states emerge and submerge, but all the while we agree they exist (they only exist by our agreement) and have a name, ‘krakistan’ or whatever, we speak about ‘those krakistanis’ and ‘the krakistan economy and its rising GDP’ and ‘krakistan’ being the ‘cause’ of global unrest by its harbouring of terrorists etc. etc.


‘independence’ is a visual concept.    we use visual concepts in the rational modeling in our mind..


our ‘feeling experience’ of being spatial-relationally included within a shared hostspace knows nothing of ‘independence’.  we are inextricably bound up in the flow of an evolutionary dynamic (this cannot be ‘pictured’; i.e. we cannot ‘photograph’ an inclusional spatial-relationship).   the sailor in a brisk wind who is tacking back and forth up the shipping channel can see what good speed he is making by his wake from his bow and stern, ... but from INFERENCE as he takes repetitive sightings of a headland or marker on the shore, he can see that he is actually being taken backwards down the channel by a strong tidal current.  he is included in a flow, and his spatial-relational inclusion cannot be photographed or directly pictured, it can only be inferred..


but like the men in the cart on the way to the guillotine, we can ‘prove our independence and free will’ and get up and sing a song and dance a jig of our very own choosing, and concentrate our ‘worldview’ on ‘what we do’ as ‘independent object-entities with ‘free-will’ whose behaviour pushes off from our self-centers driven by our inner purpose, ... but all of this ritual and incantation is not going to change the REALITY that we are inextricably bound up in a spatial-relational flow THAT OUR LOCAL CENTER-BASED BEHAVIOURS ARE RELATIVE TO, rather than our behaviours being ‘ABSOLUTE’ or ‘in-their-own-right’.    


of course, the men in the cart, like western man, are free to ‘believe in’ their visual perception based on ‘independent human-objects’ that we purport ‘exist absolutely’ and have behaviours that emanate from their self-centers driven by ‘their inner purpose’ and that radically-limited ‘story’ will hang together within itself, and we can even develop and validate newton’s laws on that basis (local independent objects capable of local independent object behaviours), but all of that is independent-object-based abstraction that we impose on our mental modeling minds that is not imposed on nature, .... and the flow goes on and we are all inextricably bound up in it, and it over-rides our simplistic visual-perception based object-i-fictions.


the problem is this; we are putting visual perception and the object-pictures it delivers to us, in an unnatural precedence over our felt-experience that informs us of our spatial-relational inclusion in an evolutionary dynamic.   the first nations tribespeople go with their felt experience that informs them of their spatial-relational inclusion in the habitat (which includes themselves) and when instructions come from a central authority that has empowered itself by imposing some imaginary line boundaries that purportedly creates an ‘independently existing sovereign state’ whose behaviour, since it is ‘independent’ must come from its self-center, driven by the ‘inner purpose of the sovereign state’,  then one cannot blame the aboriginal for (a) wondering if the white man really believes that such centralized power as derives from drawing imaginary line boundaries is ‘legitimate power’, and (b) sticking with his relationship with his habitat rather than accepting the judgement of the central authority based on rational means-justifies-good-ends plans to seel the local land off to a logging company for clear-cutting.


the most important things in life are beyond being picturable, ... the feeling of being ‘held in embrace’ by a loving mother or loving other, of being held in embrace by one’s habitat, by one’s community.  these are not picturable experiences but they are felt experience and they are far more ‘real’ than imaginary borders, independent objects/properties and the ‘right to power’ claimed by a central authority that has drawn an imaginary line based picture on the continuous landscape, and called it a ‘sovereign nation-state’.


is love more important?  love is like a resonance we are included in, and it is therefore ‘spatial’ and we can bask inclusively within it, as in our non-picturable ‘acoustic space’.


this difference in the capability of sensory faculties to bring us understanding of the hostspace/habitat we are included in was much discussed by marshall macluhan.  in his interview with Bruce Powers entitled 'Angels to Robots: From Euclidian Space to Einsteinian Space' (in 'The Global Village'), macluhan observes that the euclidian view is "not a complete way to visualize the totality of the world ... because it cannot deal with issues of 'resonance' "  vis;

Bruce Powers: We are constantly suppressing the awareness that the material universe is comprised of resonances; that no straight lines exist.

Marshall McLuhan: Exactly. Because the Euclidian construct is controllable. The 'center' of acoustic space is everywhere and, therefore, seemingly chaotic.

in a synopsis of McLuhans work on the difference between visual space and acoustic space (by Anthony Hempell, see http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/mcluhan/credits.html  ), visual symbol/object based perception (visual space) and felt spatial-relational experience (acoustic space) are summarized respectively as follows;

Visual and Acoustic Space

The Mind and Eye The Physiology of Visual Space

Western history has been dominated by the perception of the world as a linear thought everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. McLuhan hypothesizes that this linearity is a side effect of the phonetic alphabet, which compresses the range of human speech and thought into a symbolic system of 26 characters. The result is a world view dominated by linear logic and the symbolic abstraction of meaning.

The alphabet and writing strongly biases our communication towards the world of visual space. Our discourse about our environment is constricted into ideas of lines, planes and grids. The universe is perceived as having a beginning, and at some point an end; time is constructed as a line. These models are not necessarily "truth," but abstractions based on our perceptive tools which are built to heighten our awareness of visual space. McLuhan states that it may be partly due to the physiology of the human eye (which perceives lines and perspective in great detail) that we are prone towards the visual.

The Lost Dimension Acoustic Space

In contrast with the linear biases of visual space, acoustic space is analogous to the natural environment. Acoustic space surrounds us; it approaches from 360 degrees. It is a simultaneous process of "centers everywhere and margins nowhere." Acoustic space was dominant in pre-literate societies, where orality and myth were the medium between humans and the environment "for hundreds of thousands of years, mankind lived without a straight line in nature."

Writing and publishing are the main technologies that have focused Western society on the visual; however, McLuhan claims the counteraction of two "acoustic" technologies (cash money and the compass), have kept us with some balance. Acoustic technologies focus on the intangible (cash as a metaphor for value/wealth; a means of increasing the "velocity" of the economy over barter) and the global (compass reconstructs the world as a navigable sphere).

Table 2 Attributes of Visual and Acoustic Space

* * *

Visual Space:

Left hemisphere of the brain

Linear, sequential; based on the line, plane, grid, perspective.

Heightens response of the eye.

Linear conceptualization, [universal sequential time], causality.

* * *

* * *

Acoustic Space

Right hemisphere of the brain

Gyroscopic, 360 degrees, reflective, reverberant, simultaneous.

Heightens response of the ear (balance)

Oral culture, myth, time as a cycle.

* * *

to summarize today’s blog, we live in a world which we can understand on the basis of visual perception (of ‘objects’[visual symbols] and ‘what they do’) and on the basis of our felt experience of inclusion in spatial relationships.   our euro-american western culture has developed a propensity for putting visual perception based on abstract visual symbols, into an unnatural precedence over our felt experience of spatial-relational attunement to our local habitat and to one another.   our behaviours are guided by both at the same time, by the rational acceptance of a central authority of an imaginary-line based ‘sovereign nation-state’ AND AT THE SAME TIME by our attuned spatial-relational inclusion within a common hostspace that includes the social collective.


conflict inevitably arises between the two.  when the imaginary borders were drawn around the US and Canada to give rise to notional ‘central authorities’ in washington and ottawa, the instructions that issued forth down through the autocratic control hierarchy governance organizations imposed european-christian ethics on the indigenous peoples whose allegiance was to the land, the sacred hostspace in which they were included that embodied the traditions of their ancestors.   their resistance led to their suppression by force.


today, the western powers continue to use the now euro-american notion of the ‘sovereign democratic state’ in iraq and afghanistan, installing ‘puppet’ central control authorities (‘puppet’ since they could not sustain themselves without protective backup from the outside ‘protecting powers’) which ‘clashes’ with the tribespeople who find themselves re-defined SYMBOLICALLY as ‘iraqis’ and ‘afghanis’ by the ‘fact’ that their local habitat and place of residence happens to fall within the imaginary line borders of the abstract ‘sovereign nation states’ of ‘iraq’ and ‘afghanistan’.


the modern euro-american sense of ‘justice’ and ‘ethics’ are thus infused through the ‘puppet’ central authority, creating a ‘backpressure’ between the central authority and the local peoples of the region who are still ‘coming from’ their evolved relationship with the land and one another.  this conflict between visual space based central authority (the central authority that derives from abstractly ‘objectifying’ the land) and the felt-experience based attunement to the natural habitat tends to induce insurgency against the puppet central authority.


while western nations used their own internal strife and dynamical balance-seeking experience to evolve equal rights for women and for different religious factions, they are now imposing these values (along with property-ownership and free-market economics), from the outside, onto other peoples (through protective agreements with their central authorities) whose practices are SEEN as ‘medieval’ and ‘barbaric’.    individual who are included in evolve spatial relationships with the land and with one another are thus ‘caught between a rock and a hard place’ with respect to evolving their practice, and also as regards the question of which deserves precedence, the visual space-based central authority of the symbolic sovereign state, or the acoustic space-based a-centric spatial relationship with the land.   within the western nations themselves, this question of precedence continues to be a ‘live one’ as indicated by movements to ‘pull out of’ the central authority based scheme and to renew the relationship with the land and one another which is being destroyed by the mono-culturalist values-imposing of central authority.


it may require a bloodbath of epic proportions for western powers, operating from ‘noblesse oblige’, to impose their own current values on the ‘medieval and barbaric laggards’ of the world through the installation of ‘western style democratic sovereign nation-states’ headed up by ‘friendly-to-the-west’ locals who no longer need to work with their brothers in evolving the local traditions since they have the backing of powerful others to impose western style justice (protection of individual independence and ownership of independent property) and ethics, along with free-market global economics that also operates on the basis of independent object-entities (corporations) with autocratic hierarchies and rewards the most powerful win/lose competitors almost regardless of the ‘collateral damage’ done to our shared hostspace.


in short, the visual space paradigm of the west is having us believe that we can take control of our own evolution using centrally imposed rationally structured plans backed by force, over-riding man’s spontaneous relationship with the land and one another which brings us back to ‘education’ and the different views of piaget (structured learning) and vygotsky (situational learning) discussed in yesterday’s blog.


which way should society evolve?  by imposed nonspontaneous structural learning? ... or by spontaneous situational learning?   in first nations terms; by ‘hawk learning’ or by ‘eagle learning’ (see paula undewood’s definitions of these in A Native American Worldview at www.goodshare.org/ecoethic.htm )


it is not hard to see piaget’s educational theory at work in the global politics of the western powers.




Weblog: March 26, 2006


Yesterday, a friend reminded me that; “it takes a long time to stop the forward momentum of deeply held belief systems...even when they no longer serve but to maintain the status quo”.


that’s the funny thing about working on what i work on, and reach out to share via this website and other activiities; i.e. i acknowledge that our sense of inclusion in the world is through FEELING EXPERIENCE, while our rational view of a world ‘out there’ is through the DETACHED OBJECTIVITY of visually perceiving voyeurs who stare with the cold judgement of the crow into the living evolutionary dynamic that ‘is us’.   how then can i expect that, because i, or someone else, can convincingly establish, by rational argument, that our current western worldview is built on an incompetent foundation of local objects with self-center-based behaviour, that that ‘clears everything up’ and we can simply shift our behaviour over to the more competent ‘inclusional’ foundation wherein our relationship to our hostspace is more like the relationship between the hurricane and the atmosphere.


the fact is, there are many aboriginals and buddhists and taoists and hindu vedics in the world who already embrace the notion that we are ‘included in nature’ and that is what we all believed at one time (i.e. we are all ‘indigenous peoples’ of the world, some of us have just ‘forgotten’ that dirty business, just as parmenides, the father of binary thinking in the west, tried to forget the dirty business of his own birth which he found ‘disgusting’).


the writings on this website are in western scientific terms and deal with how we construct our western worldview and the role of western analytical science in this, in particular, which has become so fond of imposing the convention of absolute euclidian space and time framing on everything, we have come to confuse the simplified imagery it delivers, for ‘reality’.   do we REALLY believe that nation-states ‘REALLY EXIST’ and have center-based behaviours?   if so, then as the old saying goes, ... ‘i have a really good deal on a bridge for you’


in fact, early on in working on ‘inclusonality’, it became apparent to me that FEELING EXPERIENCE is what delivers our basic understanding of the world we are included in, rather than SEEING.   as marshall macluhan expounded, ‘seeing’ or ‘visual space’ corresponds to ‘the object-ive viewpoint’ while ‘acoustic space’ corresponds  to the included felt-experience.  our ability to sense incident wave energy on our body (i.e. to sense our inclusion in a wave-field) is feeling-based.   we have an awareness of our body as an inertial element within an accelerational (gravitational) field-flow.   that is, we are equipped with ‘inertial guidance’ which allows us, like rocket ships that are so equipped, to measure our movements RELATIVE to the ‘rest of the universe’ (that’s what inertial guidance systems do).  funny thing is, this sense is so invisible to us (taken for granted) that we do not even include it in the list of  ‘our five senses’ (vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell).


if you put on a blindfold and get on the back of a motorcycle, you will be able to FEEL the accelerations and to mentally integrate them in your mind (the first integral gives relative velocity (relative speed and direction) and the second integration gives distance.  if you are taken, still blindfolded, to a debriefing room, you can take a pencil and paper and draw out the trajectory of your journey.  if you have a couple of calibration points (the bumpiness of a railroad crossing you know well) you can further calibrate your inertial guidance based explorations.  in any case, your felt experience of acceleration gives the sense of inclusion in space and your motion relative to it.   you would have this feeling based capability even in a watery medium (in the back of a mini-sub, the underwater equivalent of a motorcycle).   in this case, however, the map you drew in your de-briefing, showing you snaking forward, would be over-ridden by the fact that you were moving forward into the medium while the medium was a tidal current that was taking you ‘backwards’ all the while.


this brings out the point that ‘forward’ and ‘backward’, our everday terms for describing VISION-based motion are ‘absolute motion’ terms that imply a fixed point location. our ability to DIRECTLY SENSE  ACCELERATION informs us when the acceleration is zero there is no such thing as ‘stasis’ or ‘motionlessness’ available to our felt sensing of inclusion within an accelerational or gravitational field (e.g. the astronaut in a weightless, zero-gravity condition, may be in motion at a very high speed, depending upon what ‘fixed point’ we want to use to reference his motion to; e.g. ‘the center of the earth’ or ‘the edge of the expanding universe’ etc.


this brings us to the point that ‘visual perception of motion is in terms of ‘absolute motion’ and is thus ‘subjective’ since it depends upon a subjective choice of reference frame, usually ‘moi’.   this was a long-standing problem in physics that ‘relativity theory’ overcame.   that is, while one observer says the velocity and hence the kinetic energy (one half the mass times the square of the velocity) of the baseball bat he is holding still in his hands is zero, the pedestrian on the street who is struck by the bat that extends out the window of the speeding car in which the man who is holding it is riding, sees the velocity of the bat and its kinetic energy as very large.


‘visual perception’ is subjective since it is ‘absolute’ and depends upon the choice of absolute frame.


‘feeling experience’ (of the inertial guidance type) is relative and is of the form where one is an included inertial element within an accelerational universe.  it is purely spatial-relational and free of dependency on absolute (euclidian) space-frames.


these are two ways of understanding our inclusion in the world, ‘seeing’ is absolutist/judgement based while ‘feeling’ is relative spatial-relationship based.


our western culture has made ‘seeing’ (visual space in macluhan’s terms) foundational to our representing of the world (setting aside the ‘feeling’ based representation), while the aboriginal tradition has made ‘feeling’ (acoustic space in macluhan’s terms) foundational to our representing of the world with visual perception in a supporting role..


where the western culture maintains that ‘seeing/judging is believing’, the aboriginal and eastern (buddhist, taoist) culture maintains that ‘feeling/relating is believing’.


we are now experiencing rising conflict between those who would hold ‘seeing/judging’ or ‘feeling/relating’ as deserving ‘precedence’ over the other.


wherever we are, we are included in spatial relationships, access to the forest for building materials, to streams or ocean for fish to eat, to the plains for game and to one another for the diversity of skills that sustain community.    this, our ‘human-hostspace’ (human-habitat) spatial relationship which includes our relationship with one another is something we can ‘attune to’ and sustain harmony with.  when multiple participants attune and sustain harmony via the human-earth relationship, we have ‘community’ in the natural and aboriginal sense of ‘community’.


western man, meanwhile, by declaring the objectification of regions of space by the specification of imaginary line-borders and designating the objectified space as a ‘nation-state’ capable of ‘its own independent behaviour’, creates the need for a ‘central governing authority’ that will be responsible for the ‘independent nation-state behaviour’ that is mentally modeled as pushing out from the center of the nation-state driven by an inner (national) purpose.   


in spite of this all being based onthe  purely imaginary (non-physical reality), western man treats ‘sovereign property’ aka ‘the nation-state’ as if it were real.   the central governing authority is by autocratic control hierarchy (the fact that the ‘autocrats’ are democratically elected does not change the fact that the organizing scheme is ‘autocratic control hierarchy’ since the cascading down of instructions starts at the top of the control hierarchy, making it an ‘independent’ or ‘autocratic’ control hierarchy).


the potential for conflict coming from the meeting of the imaginary rational model and the real relationships with the land and with one another is evident.


the instructions cascading down through the autocratic control hierarchy are based on rational models (models which are ignorant of our inclusional spatial relationships with our habitat and one another).   thus the centralized governing authority alienates man from his relationship with the earth (hostspace, habitat) and from his brothers who are likewise participating in this attuned, harmony-sustaining network of spatial-relationships.   the central control policies of government and business may lead to clear-cutting of forests, overfishing of waters and disrupting of attunement of man to the habitat and to his diversely skilled brothers; i.e. it may impose rational policies at the expense of local habitat-based spatial-relational attuning and harmony-sustaining.


herein manifests the debate between the russian developmental psychologist lev vygotsky (who advocated SITUATION-INDUCED learning based on one’s inclusion in spatial-relationships) and the swiss developmental psychologist jean piaget (who advocated ‘structured learning’ based on our internal biological abilities to CONSTRUCT our ‘knowing’ as in his ‘genetic epistemology’);


Jean Piaget says;  — “I think that all structures are constructed and that the fundamental feature is the course of this construction: Nothing is given at the start, except some limiting points on which all the rest is based. The structures are neither given in advance in the human mind nor in the external world, as we perceive or organize it.” — Jean Piaget

 * * *

Lev Vygotsky says; — "Piaget comes to the conclusion that the child's thought is devoid of objectivity, critical approach, understanding of relations, and stability --- in a word, those characteristics essential for mastering historical material. Consequently, on the one hand, spontaneous concepts are shown to be of no value in rendering systematic knowledge. Piaget 'resolves' this contradiction by suggesting a principle of antagonism between development and learning. It seems that when he says that nothing is more important for effective teaching than a thorough knowledge of the spontaneous thought of children, he means that the child's thought must be known as any enemy must be known in order to be fought successfully.

We shall counter these erroneous premises with the premise that the development of nonspontaneous concepts must possess all the traits peculiar to the child's thought at each developmental level because these concepts are not simply acquired by rote but evolve with the aid of strenuous mental activity on the part of the child himself. We believe that the two processes --- the development of spontaneous and nonspontaneous concepts --- are related and constantly influence each other. They are parts of a single process: The development of concept formation, which is affected by varying external and internal conditions but is essentially a unitary process, not a conflict of antagonistic, mutual exclusive forms of thinking." — Lev Vygotsky

vygotsky is implying that our spontaneous concepts that form out of our felt situational (inclusion in spatial-relationships) experience and our nonspontaneous (structured) concepts constitute a dynamical one-ness in the manner our felt experience of inertial inclusion (in an accelerative field) and our visual perception of material structure constitutes a (holo-) dynamical one-ness.  vygotsky suggests that our developing of one in context with the other is evident early on, as in this example;


“When we observe the child in action, it becomes obvious that it is not only the word ‘mama’ that means, say, ‘Mama, put me in the chair, ‘ but the child’s whole behaviour at that moment  (his reaching out toward the chair, trying to hold on to it etc.).  Here the ‘affective-conative’ directedness towards an object (to use Meumann’s terms) is as yet inseparable from the ‘intentional tendency’ of speech.  The two are still a homogeneous whole, and the only correct translation of mama, or of any other early words, is the pointing gesture [i.e. the spatial-relational transformation induced appeal attaches to the word and even after we socialize to the point that the word seems to have value in its own right, this ‘inductive halo’ is still enveloping it.].  


in our modern western society, the ideas of piaget now largely shape our educational system and thus the default is (abstract logic-based) ‘structured learning’ that is given precedence so as to ‘drive out’ any interference from (spatial-relationship-inclusion-based) ‘situational learning’.   such an education prepares the child for an adulthood in which he can ‘rise up the ladder’ of autocratic control hierarchies and impose clever rational models on a populace that has traded out its natural freedom for subservience to a ‘central authority’ in exchange for ‘the privilege of residence’ or the ‘privilege of employment’ and thus has agreed to comply with top-down imposed schemes which alienate him from his unique/authentic situational attunement with his habitat and with his brothers who participate in sustaining local man-habitat harmony.


the ‘identity’ or ‘value’ of the westernized person thus shifts to ‘what they do’ (their ‘assertive achievements regardless of how they may do injury to spatial-relational harmonies) as a purportedly INDEPENDENT individual, rather than the person’s value being grounded in attunement to the spatial-relational situations in which they are included.   the western ‘leader’ in government and in business is rewarded for imposing rational plans that may well serve to alienate those that are responsible for carrying them out, from attunement with their spatial-relational situation in the shared hostspace/habitat.    this splitting apart of ‘authority’ and ‘responsibility’ is characteristic of western thinking with its assumption of abstract ‘authority’ of one over other;


“We see this in corporations, civil institutions as well as [western] governments – the upshot is that those ‘in control’ of the game rules become largely concerned with their position, status and rewards, and in keeping ‘power’ centered in themselves, since there is no real accountability in the system.  Those exercising authority over the policy decisions, are not responsible for their implementation or execution.  Accordingly, the ‘top’ has the ‘bottom’ to blame if nothing happens or corruption and other pathological ‘products’ of this model emerge, and the ‘bottom’ can blame the top, because they are ‘only doing their duty’ as prescribed, and not responsible for the system, since they have no authority to change anything and are not allowed to make effective or efficient decisions about how to do what they do.  Within governance, this is in effect, a circle of ‘lawlessness’ and impunity.  It is also a recipe for corruption, gridlock, polarization and unaccountability.”  --- Martine Dodds-Taljaard, The Challenge of Governance in an Interdependent World.   --- (Note: Martine presented her paper jointly with mine, Indigenous Wisdom and its Lessons for the Systems Sciences, in a panel presentation at the world congress of systems sciences in toronto in 2000. both papers capture the same ‘inclusional’ findings in different terms; i.e. by martine in terms of governance, and by myself in terms of community as ‘complex system’ .


to summarize today’s blog then, ... whether or not we come up with a ‘rational explanation’, as has been attempted herein, of what ‘is going wrong’ in our society, our behaviours are ‘emotionally’, ‘situationally’ shaped, and if the boss continues to ask us to trade out our freedom for subservience to his autocratic control hierarchy in exchange for money to live and feed our families by, and if the sovereign nation-state continues to ask us to trade out our natural freedom for subservience to its autocratic control hierarchy in exchange for the ‘privilege’ of being able to reside within that region that powerful military-backed people have ‘brought into existence’ by drawing some imaginary line border, then we could be ‘stuck’ in this status quo for a long while, a status quo that forcibly imposes top-down rational models that alienate man from his attunement-based situational relationship with his habitat and with his habitat-attuned brothers..


children who are rewarded for their gifts of abstract reasoning within a structured, not-situational, educational system (i.e. out of the context of situational meaning) will be prone, later in life, to forcing the application of abstract models simply because they are a means that justifies a purported ‘good end’, and out of the context that those having responsibility for operationalizing the model may be forced to alienate themselves from their situational attunement to/sustaining of harmony with their habitat and one another.





Weblog: March 25, 2006


are we ‘controlled’ by intellectuals, ... those people that get ‘good marks’ (are rated high relative to our current paradigm of understanding) and who ‘rise into positions of power’?  and are we currently undergoing some kind of ‘anti-intellectual’ revolution?   (some intellectuals are suggesting that our western culture is suffering from ‘sophiaphobia’, ‘fear of wisdom’ since their audience seems to be dwindling, but cynics might say that we are rejecting western intellectualism).


what exactly are ‘intellectuals’?   Native elders (male and female) were key influencers in the native culture based on their ‘wisdom’ but that doesn’t fly in our modern western society.  we may appreciate our equivalent of ‘elders’ locally, but they are not elected or appointed to positions of power either within corporations or political governance systems.


native writers (e.g. taiaiake alfred Peace, Power and Righteousness: an indigenous manifesto:) note the fundamental difference in the nature of personal power of leadership in the indigenous peoples society and in western euro-american society.   while the power of the indigenous leader is drawn directly from the people, the power of the western euro-american leader is drawn from ‘position’.


those of us who have experienced ‘big promotions’ and ‘big demotions’ experience how differently one is treated depending upon whether one is ‘on his way up’ or ‘on his way down’ in the position hierarchy.  ‘on the way up’, people who yesterday would have nothing to do with us, are now tugging at the forelock and promising us their unending fidelity and commitment.  this is not uncommonly traded out for mockery and contempt at the news that we are ‘on the way down’.


understandably, many people resent having to be subservient to someone in a ‘higher position’ just because they occupy that higher position and thus ‘their word is thy command’ (however stupid and uninformed it may be).


there is a ubiquitous foundational ‘geometry’ that characterizes this euro-american approach to power-based organizing and it is very simple, so simple that it has become invisible to us westerners because we grow up with it being imbued and embodied in almost everything we do, yet it is entirely unlike the organizing approach of the indigenous peoples culture.


here it is;




as you can see, this is a general way of  LOOKING AT THE WORLD , breaking it up into objects and ascribing to them their own self-centered existence and their own self-centered behaviour, but it is certainly not the only way of UNDERSTANDING  THE WORLD since our experience informs us that the world is a continuously evolving hostspace that everything is inextricably bound up in and continuously being recycled in.


only if we are ‘literalists’ would we expect our LOOKING AT THE WORLD to deliver to us an UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD.   as henri poincaré notes, ‘looking at the world’ delivers to us imagery such as ‘the earth rotates’, ... but here we are again dealing with highly-simplified notion that we are imposing, of ‘independent objects’ with their own ‘self-centered behaviours’.    our own scientific inquiry shows that the earth is inextricably bound up in the gravitational field-flow, as are we, any observer (an astronaut on the moon or etc.) that can actually observe ‘the earth rotating’.  if we want to believe ‘relativity theory’ which has been confirmed by its explanations of phenomena that were not available with the pre-relativity ‘absolute matter’ and ‘absolute motion’ based theory, then we have to acknowledge the we, the observer, and the earth we are observing are local concentrations of energy in the gravitational energy-field (which is a dynamical one-ness, and our practice of breaking objects out of it corresponds to our practice of breaking out ‘a hurricane’ from the dynamical oneness of the atmospheric space dynamic; i.e. features that are innately nonlocal and a-centric become, by our imposing of idealizations on them, local and self-centered.)   as einstein and infeld say, in ‘The Evolution of Physics’;

"We cannot build physics on the basis of the matter-concept alone.  But the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined.  Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics?  What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space.  We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong.  In this way a new philosophical background could be created.  Its final aim would be the explanation of all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere.  A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone.  There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and matter, field being the only reality.  This new view is suggested by the great achievements of field physics, by our success in expressing the laws of electricity, magnetism, gravitation in the form of structure laws, and finally by the equivalence of mass and energy."

‘centralized management’ is an organizational approach that ‘follows’ from our objectifying of the included features in nature.  the human organism persists by sustaining dynamical balance with the hostspace it is situationally included in.  it is a ‘balancing act’ that is below the level of our conscious awareness and goes on as we sleep and even if we are in a coma.    this ‘balancing’ cannot be sustained if the ambient flow we are situationally included in becomes too violent, too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry etc., ... so we have to ‘forget about a lot of interdependency with our hostspace’ in order to conceive of ourselves as ‘independent’ and having behaviour that pushes out from the center of ourselves driven by our notional ‘inner purpose’.


could it be that this notion of ‘independent existence’ and ‘independent behaviour’ of ‘objects’ is just our ‘contrivance’?


how could it be otherwise?  we should have to deny a lot of our own scientific findings (relativity and quantum theory) in order to insist on the ‘independence’ of animate and inanimate self-centered objects.


there is a clue to how we westerners deceive ourselves in the metaphor of the people in the cart being taken to the guillotine.  this is a metaphor for being inextricably bound up in a ‘flow’ that takes precedence over our notion of local self-centered behaviour (our individual ‘free-will’).  what we ‘see’ when we ‘zoom in’ is the people in the cart exercising their free will and behaviours that push out from their self-centers driven by their individual, independent inner-purpose.   as we look at them and ‘what they do’, we tend to ignore or set aside, for the moment, their inclusion within an over-riding hostspace flow.   in this metaphor, the rectangular cart, its floor and sides, provides a ‘reference frame’ that separates the people out from the hostspace flow they are included in.   we, the observer, impose such reference frames all the time, in order to split out ‘the objects of our observation and ‘what they do’’ from the hostspace flow or ‘evolutionary dynamic’.  the cart, in this case, just makes this apparent.


in the case of poincaré’s ‘does the earth rotate; --- no, it does not rotate’, since this would require an ‘absolute space’ that it was rotating relative to and an absolute self-center-based objecthood and a self-center-sourced behaviour for the earth.   as poincaré says, it is convenient for us to impose this CONVENTION of an absolute euclidian space-frame on our mental modeling of nature, but such convention-imposing, which is for no other reason than the convenience of simplification, is NOT IMPOSED ON NATURE.


so, the men in the cart on the way to the guillotine can easily ‘prove’ their free-will and independent (self-center-based) existence and behaviour to themselves WITHIN THE LOCAL SPACE-FRAME and the observer can easily be comfortable with their independent (self-center-based) existence and behaviour WITHIN THE LOCAL SPACE-FRAME, but such independent self-centeredness is merely being imposed on our mental modeling and is in no way being imposed on nature; i.e. they remain inextricably included within the larger spatial-relational flow-dynamic of the community (the revolutionary dynamic) which in turn is inclusionally nesting within the spatial-relational evolutionary flow-dynamic (‘nature’).


the aboriginal traditionalists have no problem in recognizing that this imposing of an absolute euclidian space frame (which allows for the concept of closed form independent objects) is no more than an imposed convention; e.g;



What are borders? What is the Canada United States border? To the Kanien'keh?:ka (People of the White Flint) the boundary line that divides the upper half of North America between Canada and the US is a fictitious demarcation that slices throughout traditional unceded territory. The territory in question-Kanien'ke (The Land of the White Flint)-was in existence long before Europeans traveled to this beautiful land. In the eyes of the Kanien'keh?:ka the boundary that separates Canada and the US is merely a method devised by European settlers to settle their arguments over what they stole from the Indigenous nations of Turtle Island. The Kanien'keh?:ka see the bickering of these Europeans as the bickering of thieves fighting over the spoils of their crime. As Indigenous people we make no distinction between the US and Canada, there is no difference between our lands on either side of the imaginary line created by Europeans for Europeans. (  http://www.ainfos.ca/04/apr/ainfos00409.html  )


however, to the euro-american acculturated individual, it is very difficult to ‘let go’ of their acculturated beliefs in absolute space and accept that their ‘nation’ (property-object-based rather than people-based) is simply an ‘imaginary entity’ that is born to serve the convenience of simplification as with the ‘centralized governance’ that goes with it.  the same being the case for the human individual, the simplification being that he/she is self-centered in object-existence and is endowed with self-center sourced authoring of behaviour worked through the physical central governance of ‘the brain’ and the imaginary central governance of ‘inner purpose’ emanating from the ‘ego-self’.


all of this is a ‘neat way’ of MENTALLY extracting innately interdependent dynamical entities from their inclusion within the hostspace flow (the ‘evolutionary dynamic’) and endowing them with self-center-based independence of existence and behaviour, ... but the representation of the world that we ‘re-construct’ from these ‘independent objects’ depends solely on our ‘belief’ in these idealized ‘objects’ and the idealized ‘absolute euclidian space’ that makes them possible.   they are like the CanadaUnited States border, .. it doesn’t really exist (it is imaginary) unless we all ‘believe in it’ and we use physical force to ‘make believers of ourselves (though the aboriginal peoples don’t buy into this self-delusion based on the absolutizing/idealizing notion of objectified-land termed ‘property’).  without faith in the imaginary boundaries, there are no grounds for believing in the independent existence of the nation-state, nor for believing in the independent (self-center-driven) behaviour of nation-state, and without this faith in the imaginary and idealized, ‘the US does such-and-such’ is exposed as a falsehood of the same type as ‘the earth rotates’.


for many, this ‘independent self-center-based objects’ with its center-sourced behaviour (centralized goverance by autocratic control hierarchy’ is an over-simplified idealization that is the source of much conflict as these object-entities, believing in their own independence and ‘goodness of behaviour’ inevitably must come to grips with the fact that they are INTERDEPENDENT by their inclusion within a common hostspace dynamic and their INDEPENDENCE is pure illusion.  


aboriginal tribes-people, both on a local community level and on a transcommunity level used their relationship with the common hostspace to organize, rather than central authority by an autocratic control hierarchy.  this approach had some similarity with modern peer-to-peer networking as has been enabled by the internet, and a revival of the aboriginal peer-to-peer organizing ethic is re-emerging by way of internet communications; e.g. the ‘zapatista’ movement in chiapas which continues to network on a global basis as the following excerpt from John Holloway and Eloína Peláez’s  Zapatista! Reinventing Revolution in Mexico;   

“Properly understood, the working relationship that has developed between the indigenous and peasant struggles in what most people think of as "primitive" or "backward" Chiapas and the "modern, high-tech" world of computer communications systems is not as surprising as many seem to think. Well before the uprising, Chiapas and its people were already connected to the rest of the world and had developed forms of grassroots organization which made such symbiosis an extension of pre-existing forms. ... Being at the bottom of the national and international wage and income hierarchy does not make the people of Chiapas either primitive or backward, only oppressed and exploited. Being part of that hierarchy --no matter which part-- means that their work and their struggles can only be understood properly within larger contexts, as the Zapatistas have so properly insisted.

Moreover, as part of their struggles to resist exploitation and oppression and to develop their own ways of life and community structures, they have developed their own forms of self-organization which turned out to be complementary to the computer systems with which they would link up. In efforts that have been renewed throughout their history, long before the beginnings of Zapatista organizing, they have drawn on old communal customs and invented new ones as alternatives to co-optation by the Mexican party-state, e.g., the conversion of local leaders into caciques working for the long governing Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI). Within the dynamics of such dramatic changes as hydroelectric development and jungle colonization, the workers of Chiapas have also organized sectorially in ways independent of particular communities. As the debt crisis of the 1980s and 1990s with its vicious state policies of austerity has deepened, such local and sectoral efforts have reached out to each other and developed networks of communication and mutual aid. This "networking" spread not only within Chiapas but linked to wider national and international efforts, especially those of campesinos and the indigenous. The Zapatistas must, therefore, be seen as one visible moment of a more general struggle which was already deeply involved in networking before the uprising in January 1994.

On the other side of the symbiosis, the cyberspace world of computer communication networks was itself already the terrain of manifold struggles and thus open to appropriation by those whose own forms of organization were pre-disposed to building strength through linkages with others”

meanwhile, today’s blog is neither about supporting or resisting transnationally networked forms of ‘revolution’ or ‘resistance’ to the advancing ‘centralized control’ political orientation of the western powers, a call for centralized control that has intensified with the transnational nature of resistive ‘insurgency’, ... a kind of call to arms aimed at removing the imaginary line based nation-objects (‘western democracy objects’) that are being used in the manner that crony colonial powers set up protectorates with friendly puppet leaders, as discussed elsewhere in this blog.

no, this blog is aimed at bringing-to-greater-awareness the philosophical assumptions that underly such rising conflict in the modern world; i.e. the artificiality of objectifying nature and having ourselves believe in the ‘independent self-centeredness’ of object-existence and object-behaviour and how, by believing too literally in this imaginary representation of the world and the world dynamic, we are getting ourselves cross-wise with the reality of our natural experience wherein there are no such things as ‘independent objects’ and all natural entities are inclusional features of the dynamical one-ness of space (the gravitational field-flow).

for my own part, having lived in canada, libya, britain, the US and canada, .. i believe in the ‘peoples’ of these regions and were the notion of political borders never invented, i am sure that the goodwill and balance-seeking of these peoples would nevertheless prevail (borders change all the time, as in the dissolution of the USSR) at which point tribal associations seem to re-emerge (unfortunately often in a conflict-ridden political boundary-seeking way).  and, on the other hand, the notion of canada as an independent object that exists even if quebec splits off, and alberta and b.c. split off etc. seems absurd to me.  i am definitely not into flag-waving and anthem-singing as being respectful of an ‘object’ known as canada the continues to persist in its existence by virtue of its political definition, even as various peoples pull out of it.   the land is the people (the people are included in the land) as the aboriginals maintain, and the land (Nature) is ‘God’ (i refer to ‘god’ in the sense of the sourcing authorship as in the native tradition, the ‘great mystery’ or ‘immanent-in-nature-creative-essence’) and thus we are ‘una gente in Dios’ as columbus purportedly wrote back (in his poor italian-spanish) to his backers in spain (and which purportedly gave rise to the term, in combination with allusions to ‘the Indes’, ‘indians’).

are we independent self-centered objects which require central governing authority by autocratic control hierarchies?   or are we inclusions in the evolutionary field-flow dynamic?   is god ‘outside of nature’ or does ‘Nature = God’ as Proclus maintained, making us and everything into ‘una gente in Dios’?.




Weblog: March 23, 2006     (The URL for this particular March 23rd  entry is www.goodshare.org/blog.htm#james )



An excerpt from my yesterday’s blog was posted on michel’s P2P website (http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=137 ) and a response from ‘james’ alludes, supportively, to the ‘accommodative backpressure’ of the common hostspace in which we seek to actualize our assertive potentials;


“It [the discussion on inclusionality vis a vis P2P] reminded me of when i work with people to listen and try to ’stop’ from always rushing afte goals. I think i somehow do integrate this principle in my life…a good reminder to integrate this point into theoretical structures as well..”


whether we are driving within a busy traffic flow or pursuing work objectives within a busy industry, we run into this question of whether we should just ‘bull our way through’ or whether we should ‘give way’ to others.   our intuition suggests to us that ‘harmony’ versus ‘’conflict’ are tied up in our collective manner of resolving this question.   one way to resolve it is by a ‘hierarchy of rights-of-way’ where the lower classes must give way to the upper classes.  but this promotes peer-to-peer conflict since the right-of-way is unresolved in the case where multiple peers each demand the other ‘give way’.


in general, a multiplicity of individuals operating within a common space is faced with this question and the influence of ‘how we deal with this ‘bull-through-or-give-way’ question on the overall ‘flow-dynamic’ becomes complex since we are speaking of multiple participants moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence.   this non-resolvability of this problem, encountered by kepler, then newton, then poincaré in regard to solar system dynamics, is called ‘the three-body problem.  that is, THERE IS NO ANSWER in terms of ‘what an individual should do’ in order to avoid conflict.


why do you think this is?


it is because the notion of ‘individual behaviour’ vanishes when one is operating within a condition of simultaneous mutual influence, as experienced by the INCLUDED experient (the individual driver in the traffic flow, the individual planet in the solar system).


individual behaviour is something that is declared by the ‘excluded observer’.   poincaré brings this out by showing that it is not true that ‘the earth rotates’ (it is a meaningless statement). if is true, then it implies that the earth is rotating relative to something else, but what is that ‘something else’?   if we say ‘space’ then we are imposing the notion of ‘absolute space’, a pervasive rigid emptiness that is mutually exclusive from the matter of the earth.   but it is not scientific to impose such an absolute convention because we can never prove that space is absolute; i.e. there is no experiment we can propose that could confirm that ‘space is absolute’.   furthermore, relativity suggests that the matter of the earth is a local concentration of energy within the energy-field (i.e. ‘space’ can be seen as an energy flow-field in which matter is local concentrations of energy, ... ‘undulations’ in the wavey substance of space in quantum theory).


thus, we cannot attribute to the earth ‘its own behaviour’.  what we know is that it moves relative to the sun and other planets, the moons and asteroids etc.  thus the ‘reference frame’ is no longer ‘absolute space’ but the overall ‘traffic-flow’ dynamic.  


this is what comes up in the ‘three-body problem’.  imagine you are one of four aerobatics pilots making the figure of an ‘inverting triangular pyramid’.  three of you are making a ‘shrinking triangle’ by flying in a horizontal plane towards a common virtual ‘collision point’.  the fourth pilot is climbing vertically so as to ‘thread the needle’ (penetrate the shrinking triangle just before it shrinks to a point, inverts and beings enlarging again).   you are all of course going to avoid collision by a hair to thrill and excite the crowd watching the airshow from the ground below.


if you should ‘crash’, how will it be determined ‘which pilot caused the crash’?


there is no explicit solution to this question since you are each letting your behaviour be driven by the form of the collective dynamic you are co-creating.  you are participating in a purely spatial-relational dynamic which has no absolute reference frame and thus allows no such concept as ‘individual behaviour’.   if one pilot gooses it or shifts his relative positioning due to a gust of wind, everyone else must put  their movements in the service of sustaining the evolving geometric form that is, at the same time, the reference frame for their individual movements.


in order to allocate ‘causal fault’, one would first need to establish ‘individual behaviour’ so as to assess whose behaviour was ‘better’ and whose ‘worse’, but in order to establish individual behaviour one needs an absolute space frame (as in poincaré’s example pointing out the falsehood of the statement ‘the earth rotates’) and that is NOT available in a system of purely relative ‘spatial relationships’. 


perhaps it may appear as if one pilot was ‘out of step with the rest’ but then the job of all of the pilots was to sustain the purely relative geometric form and ‘the majority has no monopoly what is right’.  in fact, any subcollective, by entering into an accord with one another and forcing the odd man out to make up the difference,  invokes a synthetically absolute ‘correctness reference’ based on majority accord which then becomes the very source of conflict.


the basic point here is that we can either accept that we as a dynamical collective moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence ARE the reference frame that we as individuals are moving/behaving relative to, or we can suppose that THERE EXISTS an absolute reference frame (absolute euclidian space) that allows us to describe the movement/behaviour of the individual in his own INDEPENDENT right.   this makes each individual’s movement/behaviour ABSOLUTE rather than relative to (and thus inseparable from) the dynamic of the collective.


this ‘absolute motion’ (implying an absolute reference space/frame) is what is implied when we say that ‘it was pilot number 3 who was ‘moving too slow’ or was too far the north etc. that caused the collision’. 


how did we ‘get’ this absolute reference frame?  


it is ‘reverse-engineered’ from the ‘assumed correct’ behaviours of the majority.   i.e. the assumption of  ‘correct individual behaviour’ implies ‘independent individual behaviour’ (rather than relative behaviour) which implies in turn, absolute reference space.


now, when we ‘plot’ the notional ‘individual behaviour’ of the ‘odd man out’ relative to this implied ‘absolute space’, we can say things like, ... ‘look, he was already behind on his turn here and he took it too wide, then when he approached the shrinking triangle, he came in too late for safely passing through it, when it had become too small for him to get through, thus he endangered everyone’s lives. 


the fact is, the task of everyone involved was to ‘sustain harmonious collective flow’ while co-creatively forming an inverting pyramid in which all four points are relative to one another and moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence.   in such an undertaking there is no such thing as ‘individual movement/behaviour nor is there any notion that ‘the shrinking triangle’ can be ‘correctly executed’ while the ‘threading the needle’ is ‘botched’ (the outside observer can ‘take the pyramid apart’ but not the participants who are its simultaneous mutually influencing four vertices).


meanwhile, the outside observer would tend to say just that, and to allow  accord amongst a subcollective to establish the ‘norm’ for ‘correctness’, at which point the ‘absolute reference space’ is imposed and we can then talk about ‘individual behaviours’ in terms of their ‘correctness’ or ‘erroneousness’.


but what good is it if we use the majority to define an absolute reference for behaviour and on this basis speak about the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of individual behaviour, when what we would really like is to sustain spatial-relational harmony of the entire collective.   all we have done is opened the door for crony majorities to determine ‘correct behaviour’; i.e. to artificially impose absolutized individual behaviour.


this is what western man does, but what does nature do?   as kepler noted in Harmonices Mundi  (Harmonies of the World) in 1619;

"Nun aber tragen zur Vervollkommnung der Welt mehr die Gesamtharmonien aller Planeten bei als die einzelnen Harmonien bei je zwei und die Paare von Harmonien bei je zwei benachbarten Planeten. Denn die Harmonie ist gewissermaßen ein Band der Vereinigung. Es liegt aber eine weitergehende Vereinigung vor, wenn alle Planeten miteinander eine Harmonie bilden, als wenn immer je zwei für sich in doppelter Weise harmonieren. Im Widerstreit dieser Harmonien mußte daher von den beiden Harmoniereihen, die Planetenpaare miteinander bilden, die eine oder andere nachgeben, damit die Gesamtharmonien aller bestehen konnte."

"Now, the 'harmony-of-the-whole of all the planets contributes more to the perfection of the world than the single harmonies by twos and the pairs of harmonies by the twos of neighbouring planets. For harmony is, so to speak, a volume of unity. A deeper unity yet is presented, when all the planets form a harmony with each another, as when just two at a time harmonize in a bivalent manner. In the interference of these harmonies deriving from the dual harmonic line-ups, which the pairs of planets form with each another, the one or the other giving way,  so that the [spatial-relational] harmony-of-the- whole can prevail."

the point here is this; movement/behaviour in nature is inherently RELATIVE and SPATIAL-RELATIONAL and there aren’t really any absolute reference frames and therefore there is no such thing as ‘individual behaviour’ in-its-own-independent-right’.   the individual behaves relative to the collective dynamic (spatial relationships) in which he is included.  the traffic flow he is included in, which involves a multiplicity of participants moving under one another’s simultaneous influence IS A MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE REFERENCE FRAME (continuously evolving, to be sure) for his behaviour.   in order to even have something called ‘individual behaviour’ to judge as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we have to first declare an absolute reference frame, and there is no ‘natural way’ to do this.  we can only reverse-engineer it by anchoring it to the behavioural pattern of some sub-collective (such as the pilots forming the shrinking triangle) and insisting that the behaviours of ‘the other individuals’ should be in conformance with the former.  that is, the very notion of individual behaviour, which requires an absolute reference frame, depends on our allowing the behavioural pattern of a subcollective to define an absolute reference frame.


the three aerobatic pilots whose actions were consistent within themselves may walk away from a crash inquiry feeling that ‘they were right’ and that ‘the fourth pilot was wrong’ which means that they set themselves up as the absolute reference frame that allows for the concept of individual behaviour.  but their mission was for each to ‘nachgeben’, to let their own behaviours ‘give way’ in order to sustain the harmony of the whole team, and insofar as they were unable, as a team, to do this, the fault lies with the team and cannot be attributed to any individual behaviour since ‘individual behaviour’ is not a meaningful concept without an absolute reference space-frame.


my sense is that james’ observation is dealing with the intuitive need to relax our notion that ‘our individual behaviour is correct’ in an absolute sense, opening ourselves up to ‘nachgeben’ to our fellows, so that the harmony-of-the-whole can prevail (over and above the ‘correctness’ of behaviour of any individual or any subcollective).


 “It [the discussion on inclusionality vis a vis P2P] reminded me of when i work with people to listen and try to ’stop’ from always rushing afte goals. I think i somehow do integrate this principle in my life…a good reminder to integrate this point into theoretical structures as well..”


in order to integrate this ‘nachgeben’ principle into our theoretic structures, we have to revisit the shift in thinking as to the nature of dynamics that took place between kepler and newton (newton imposed absolute space and time in order to develop absolute laws of motion for individual object behaviour) and to the observation by poincaré that we cannot realistically say; ‘the earth rotates’.  poincaré’s first mention of this point in Science and Hypothesis caused so much confused argument and misunderstanding that he had to go back and ‘re-explain’ what he meant in a full section in The Value of Science (section VII The Rotation of the Earth).


the control hierarchy organizational method which demands subservience of its lesser participants to its greater participants is a means of setting up an absolute reference frame that enables us to speak of ‘individual behaviour’ and whether it is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ in the sense of whether it is conformant to the instructions of the absolute reference frame (constituted by the absolute central authority).

the peer-to-peer organizational method does not necessarily escape from absolute reference frames and judgement of individual behaviour since, as in the example of the aerobatics team, this absolutist condition can be established by peer-to-peer subcollectives who themselves embrace the ethic of absolute ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ rather than ‘nachgeben’ in support of sustaining overall harmony.  in order to avoid crony subcollective imposed absolutism and sustain overall harmony, individuals and subcollectives (teams, any type of peer-to-peer organization) must employ the art of ‘nachgeben’, the one or the other giving way,  so that the [spatial-relational] harmony-of-the- whole can prevail."





Weblog: March 22, 2006          (The URL for this particular March 22 entry is www.goodshare.org/blog.htm#p2p )


today, like every day, when i wake up in the morning i am aware of being included in a hostspace that can be sunny and warm, or, as it is today, cloudy and windy.   like a frog in water that is slowly coming to a boil, i am inextricably bound up in the space i inhabit and as goes my hostspace, so go i.


how is it then, that like the man in the cart on the way to the guillotine, i can turn the tables, declare my free will and INDEPENDENCE and demonstrate it by getting up and singing a song and dancing a jig of my choice? 


how is it that italy under mussolini, and later britain, france and the US could invent some imaginary boundaries and impose them on a huge piece of north africa, converting the geographical region of ‘libya’ into the INDEPENDENT sovereign nation-state ‘protectorate’ of ‘libya’ and installing a puppet constitutional monarch, king idris, as its central authority?   the central authority, backed by his protectors, having centralized control of all these lands inside the imaginary-line boundaries that were administered, immediately before the declaration, by a diversity of local tribes peoples whose relationships with the land and with one another had evolved over many generations, whose chiefs have thus, in one fell swoop, been made subservient to the idealized notion of ‘property’, ... ‘sovereign owned property’.


the concept of ‘property’, the idealization that something exists in its own independent right, and one of its many offspring, the ‘sovereign nation state’, is pure ‘idealization’ invented-in-the-west.  it has been used by the european colonizing powers to ‘declare the existence of canada’.   once the imaginary-line-bounded block of land is declared to  have an ‘independent existence’ and to ‘have a sovereign owner’ then the way is opened for installing a central authority, an autocratic control hierarchy, that will ‘govern’ the land.


without the imaginary line borders and without the notion of property, we were ‘free men’ in a natural sense.  with our imposing of these idealizations, ‘freedom’ is redefined as a PRIVILEGE granted to those inhabiting the area within the imaginary lines who agree to subservience to the central governing authority.   such a ploy made slaves of hundreds of thousands if not millions of native tribes-people who had been cultivating peer-to-peer relationships with the land and with one another over many thousands of years.   they are still smarting from their unnatural enslavement by western colonial imposing of ‘imaginary borders’ and the idealized notion of ‘property’, a concept foreign to them which they had no word for even.  they are still smarting, and rightfully so!



What are borders? What is the Canada United States border? To the Kanien'keh?:ka (People of the White Flint) the boundary line that divides the upper half of North America between Canada and the US is a fictitious demarcation that slices throughout traditional unceded territory. The territory in question-Kanien'ke (The Land of the White Flint)-was in existence long before Europeans traveled to this beautiful land. In the eyes of the Kanien'keh?:ka the boundary that separates Canada and the US is merely a method devised by European settlers to settle their arguments over what they stole from the Indigenous nations of Turtle Island. The Kanien'keh?:ka see the bickering of these Europeans as the bickering of thieves fighting over the spoils of their crime. As Indigenous people we make no distinction between the US and Canada, there is no difference between our lands on either side of the imaginary line created by Europeans for Europeans. (  http://www.ainfos.ca/04/apr/ainfos00409.html  )


the concept of the independent human being follows exactly the same pattern and biologists and philosophers are set against one another today, in arguing over the idealization of the individual human as an ‘independent piece of property’ ‘governed by a central administration’, ‘the brain’ (which makes everything happen) and ‘the ego-self’ (which sits in the seat of central authority and which decides ‘what is to happen’).


such an over-simplified piece of idealization of the ‘human object’ (an ‘object-i-fiction’), together with ‘the independent sovereign-owned property called the nation-state’, is foundational to western culture and civilization.


so that’s how the man in the cart on the way to the guillotine can refocus, mutually exclude himself from the habitat-flow (evolutionary dynamic) he is included in, and assign more importance to his idealized ‘free will’ (independence) and his notion that his behaviour pushes out from the center of his ‘self’ driven by his central governance system, his ‘brain’ and his ‘ego-self’.   


all of this ‘miraculously’ (superstitiously) extricates him from his inextricable inclusion in the hostspace he is situationally included in.  like the frog that is in water being slowly heated towards the boil, ... or like the man in the cart being taken to the guillotine, the individual can consistently demonstrate ‘his INDEPENDENCE’,  that he can move in this direction or that, whenever he chooses to exercise his ‘free will’ to do so.


that’s how strong this ‘idealization’ of ‘independence’ is in our western culture.   it is so strong that it takes out of attunement with the natural space-based reality we are included in and has us reconstruct reality in terms of independent local objects (geometric closed form entities that possess centers) and ‘what they do’.


such an idealized view of the world fails to acknowledge that the human individual and the frog, rather than being ‘independent’ are continuously seeking dynamical-equilibrium with the hostspace dynamic they are included in.   when that inhabitant-habitat dynamical equilibrium can no longer be sustained, the individual cannot hold together as an individual and is recycled within nature (nature includes everything and wastes/excludes nothing).


so, really, ... how truthful is it for us to render our vision of the world in the idealized terms of ‘independent’ objects with centers that ‘do stuff’?


should we NOT give precedence to our felt experience of INCLUSION in the world hostspace, as comes from our acoustic sensory faculties and our inertial guidance/balancing faculties which orient us in a purely relative spatial relational sense, or should we give precedence to our visual perception that EXCLUDES us from the common, shared space we inhabit as it is informing us of the behaviour of ‘INDEPENDENT OBJECTS/PROPERTIES’ ‘OUT THERE’?


once we invent some imaginary lines to ‘objectify’ a region and make a ‘property’ out of it, as in the case of ‘the sovereign nation-state’ we can, the next moment, say; ‘The US did this’ and, ‘the US did that’ etc., and not even blink an eye as to superficiality of such an idealization.   and of course, we are not going to listen to those savages we made slaves out of, by our imaginary line inventing tactic, who insist on telling us;


As Indigenous people we make no distinction between the US and Canada, there is no difference between our lands on either side of the imaginary line created by Europeans for Europeans.”


and anyways, what would our exalted western medicine and psychiatrists do without the model of our body as a ‘sovereign property’ that is centrally governed?   if we did away with that, we would have to concede the illness was a falling out of inhabitant-habitat dynamical balance, rather than focusing on the secondary symptoms of such unbalancing in the interior of the centrally managed ‘independent’ property known as the ‘human being’.


 * * *


thus, our western acceptance of ‘central control hierarchy’ which is bound up in the western idealization of ‘property’ and the idealized, visual-perception-reinforced notion of the world dynamic being made up of ‘independent’ objects whose movement is center-based and, in the case of humans, driven by ‘inner-purpose’ as if inhabitant-habitat spatial balancing has now’t to do with it, is the background or ‘reference-framing’ for a topic that i am enthusiastic about and shall get into herewith;


the day before yesterday was michel bauwen’s birthday.  michel’s internet based P2P (peer-to-peer) activity is quite amazing.   he has, through his P2P News (“an emanation of the Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives”), brought together the ideas of a multitude of thinkers who are committed to bringing about a change in society that moves us away from the suppression/oppression of control-hierarchy towards ‘peer-to-peer’ relationships that facilitate spontaneous collaborative connectivity.  see, for example http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/


[michel bauwens is a Belgian internet consultant who, after twenty years as entrepreneur and corporate manager, became disenchanted with the corporate central control hierarchy organizing model and is currently investigating social alternatives under the umbrella of the Foundation of Peer to Peer Alternatives. He is an author and editor of works on the anthropology of digital society, and currently a university instructor in Chiang Mai, Thailand and editor of P2P News, a monitor of P2P developments.]


these goodshare webpages resonate with similar intention to that which are embodied in the collected works and dialogue which michel continues to bring together under the ‘P2P banner’ but there is, as yet, a fundamental difference between most of the thinking reflected in P2P News and the P2P Foundation  blog, and the writings here on www.goodshare.org .


what is missing in most of the writings on P2P in michel’s websites is ‘space’, and it is missing in the same manner discussed above in the ‘prologue’ to this (today’s) blog.  The working definition of P2P is a spaceless definition rendered in terms of ‘what things do’, i.e.;

“Peer to peer is specifically the relational dynamic that arises in distributed networks. ... It is a specific form of relational dynamic, is based on the assumed equipotency of its participants , organized through the free cooperation of equals in view of the performance of a common task, for the creation of a common good, with forms of decision-making and autonomy that are widely distributed throughout the network.   ... Cooperation must be free, not forced, ... It exists to produce something. It enables the widest possible participation. ... Whereas participants in hierarchical systems are subject to the panoptism of the select few who control the vast majority, in P2P systems, participants have access to holoptism, the ability for any participant to see the whole.”

what the writers are NOT talking about (generally speaking) is the cooperation of the ‘wildgeese’ and ‘exceptionally performing teams’ which, rather than emanating from the assertive actions of discrete participants, involves the manner in which the dynamical inhabitant-habitat balance is achieved (through attunement and sustaining harmony).   that is, when one acknowledges that the dynamics of the inhabitant and the habitat dynamic are relative (rather than seeing the inhabitants as INDEPENDENT pieces of property whose actions push out from their self-centers driven by their ‘inner-purpose’) the way is opened for achieving the condition of ‘resonance’ in the inhabitant-habitat’ codynamic.

this is the cooperation of the wildgeese as they fly in their inverted ‘V’ formation and it involves their relationship with the space they are included in which coordinates their relationship with one another.  cooperation which is pure logical cooperation amongst a multitude of ‘independent’ participant objects is ‘idealization’ that does not mesh with natural reality. it is the type of cooperation that could be engaged with by a group of people in the cart on the way to the guillotine.   it attracts our eye but it is a highly incomplete representation of ‘what is really going on’.  

both the control hierarchy organizational model and the ‘peer-to-peer’ model defined above are based on the highly unlikely (impossible, in fact) scenario where the organization operates in empty (euclidian) space.  in reality, a diverse multitude of cooperative ventures are operating within a common hostspace.   when ten cooperative ventures have to share a common space, they ‘interfere’ with one another; i.e. they move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence.    this ‘interference’ is spatial-relational and it sets up an accommodative backpressure that counters the actualizing of assertive potentials of the cooperative team/network (and/or the control hierarchy).   what the cooperative team/network is actually achieving is mutually shaped by the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace it is operating in.

‘holoptism’ is not an option in the ‘real world’ wherein a diverse multiplicity of cooperative ventures are underway within a common, shared hostspace.  a local ‘group activity’ within an ecosystem does not have a ‘holoptic view’ of the entire ecosystem (which, for example, have been shown to put sockeye salmon in interdependence with pacific coast rain forests via the connecting services of grizzly bears).  the individual teams in nature let the actualizing of their assertive potentials be shaped by the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace dynamic they are included in, moving into a resonant condition which they then sustain in a standing wave ‘holding pattern’ (since resonances lowers the energy requirement)..

my aim is not to ‘put down’ the P2P initiative but rather to support it (by broadening it, so that it acknowledges the hostspace dynamic in which all ‘realworld’ (as opposed to rationally modeled) P2P initiatives must transpire within.)

in a nutshell, the thrust of the current thinking articulated in P2P News and the P2P Foundation blog is rational/causal (employing the logic of mutual exclusion) while the thrust of P2P in goodshare.org (and in ‘inclusionality’) is intuitive/inclusional (employing the logic of mutual inclusion).


(1.) in its simplest-because-idealized form, peer-to-peer cooperation is where multiple independent participants cooperate, without a management hierarchy, to bring about the achievement of an explicitly expressed common objective (a ‘common good’, ‘to produce something’.) .


(2.) a more complex and realistic form of peer-to-peer cooperation is where multiple participants working towards diverse objectives do so within a common operating space.  (reminder: the simple definition of peer-to-peer cooperation in (1.)  makes no mention of ‘space’ or ‘habitat’ and assumes that all that matters is what ‘inhabitants do’.).  the ethic in friendly (cooperative) crowd/traffic dynamics ongoing within a common operating space (habitat) is where the ‘inhabitants’ subordinate their private agendas and put their (spatial-relational) movements in the service of sustaining a harmonious flow dynamic within the common operating space.  in other words, the inhabitants attune to the dynamic of the common, shared hostspace (which as complex systems science informs us is beyond deduction from the dynamics of the individual inhabitants) and flex their internally source behaviours so as to sustain harmony in the inhabitant-habitat codynamic. 


the more complex form of peer-to-peer (2.) includes the simple form of peer-to-peer (1.) as a (mathematically) degenerate case in the same way that the euclidian space of classical dynamics is included as a mathematically degenerate case in the more complex (non-euclidian) spherical space of relativity.   another way of saying this is that the ‘suprasystem dynamic’ in which multiple teams in a common operating hostspace (‘habitat’) move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence is what the individual team’s members ‘push off from’ and thus the motion is not absolute but relative to the hostspace dynamic (the inhabitant’s dynamics are relative to the habitat dynamic).   


one can ‘check this out’ in a simple thought experiment.   imagine that you were on a team that was trying ‘to produce something’.  would there be any difference if you were the only team you ever encountered during your working operations, versus finding yourself working within a common, shared space where there were 100 teams of which yours was just one, all of the teams working for their own particular ‘common good’ and ‘produced somethings’?


how then, can we realistically speak of, and compare, different forms of organization practiced by idealized ‘independent’ agents, without speaking of the common space they must operate within?   and if we do take into account the ‘interference’ effects of operating within a common shared space, we must then acknowledge that the behaviour of the individual participants is not INDEPENDENT but is relative to the hostspace dynamic in which they are situationally included.    the inhabitant dynamic is relative to the habit dynamic, as we know well from participating in crowd dynamic and traffic-flow dynamics.


.so, while i am strongly inclined towards the intent behind michel bauwens enterprise and am hoping for the growth this enterprise, i am disappointed by the intellectualizing that accompanies it since it is predominantly in the western tradition of idealization based on independent objects (1.) which fails to account for the over-riding role of the dynamical habitat and the inhabitant-habitat interference effects which can range from highly resonant to highly dissonant.    the intellectualizing that is most common on michel’s P2P website would focus on peer-to-peer cooperation amongst the inhabitants, as if they were ‘independent’ entities, without acknowledging the connection between such cooperation and the accommodating quality of the habitat they depend upon for their persisting existence, a connection that, if ignored, can undercut the inhabitant-habitat dynamical balance necessary for the persisting existence of the inhabitants.


the typical writers featured on the P2P website, because they ignore the over-riding role of space (habitat), bypass the whole question of the conflict between ‘idealization’ as in ‘objectification’ (1.) (which our western culture puts into precedence) which represents dynamics in terms of ‘what independent things do’, ... and, ... ‘inclusionality’ as in ‘spatial-relationships’ (2.) (which the native american and eastern cultures put into precedence).  in the following example,  HISTORY IS RE-WRITTEN from the premise that ‘we used to be a ‘control culture’ but we are now, thanks to science and the internet etc. are coming to our senses and becoming a ‘connecting culture’.    note how this type of writing ignores the ‘human-earth’ relationship, most fundamental in our aboriginal traditions, and instead confines its reasoning to what goes on in the mind of the individual;


“Control Culture was a warrior culture--competitive, belligerent, macho.  And a culture based on war tends to be authoritarian.  Slaves and serfs have to be kept in line, and fighting men--trained to be competitive and quarrelsome--have to be controlled.  So rigid hierarchies with rigid rules of behavior became the norm.  And because war was viewed as the most noble masculine profession, parents raised their boys to be 'from Mars'--that is, stoic, rigid, and aggressive, while women were expected to specialize in cooperation, intimacy, and nurturance.  And since women weren't doing soldierly things they wound up at the bottom of the social hierarchy.  Even the lowest serf was expected to dominate his wife.  We've been steeped for so long in this cultural system that many people assume its customs and norms are locked in our DNA.  They think Control Culture is just "human nature".  . . . 


Connecting Culture reverses all the themes of Control Culture, seeking to tear down the artificial walls it has built.  Whereas Control Culture viewed the universe as a gigantic, clockwork machine controlled from above, Connecting Culture sees it as a self-generating organism.  The Connector world-view is consistent with the revolutions in science brought about by Darwinian theory and quantum physics.  Its growing power is one reason the evolution-creationism debate is so heated. The spread of democracy, the Women's Movement, the global economy, the ecology movement, the Internet, New Age philosophies, Chaos Theory, organic farming, the growth of international institutions and international law, the sudden interest in understanding other cultures and in communicating with other species, the interest in telling old stories from new viewpoints--these things are all part of Connecting Culture.  Connecting Culture is about integrating diversity.  Control Culture was about eliminating it.”


this ‘control culture –to- connecting culture’ is all ‘head-stuff’ (rational idealization) which assumes that we can come to an understanding of what is going on by conceiving of people as ‘independent individuals’ whose behaviour pushes out from their center-of-self driven by their notional ‘inner purpose’, a model that has no need to consider their relationship with their hostspace/habitat.   this model says nothing about the human-earth relationship that induces cooperative behaviour.  meanwhile, this cooperation-inducing reverence for the ‘habitat’ (man’s relationship with the land and through the land, with one another) continues to be remembered in ritual celebrations such as during the vernal equinox;


The Spring Equinox [Gwyl Canol GwenWynol or Eostre ] defines the season where Spring reaches it's apex, halfway through its journey from Candlemas to Beltane.   Night and day are in perfect balance, with the powers of light on the ascendancy.   The god of light now wins a victory over his twin, the god of darkness.  In the Welsh Mabinogion, this is the day on which the restored Llew takes his vengeance on Goronwy by piercing him with the sunlight spear.  For Llew was restored/reborn at the Winter Solstice and is now well/old enough to vanquish his rival/twin and mate with his lover/mother.  And the great Mother Goddess, who has returned to her Virgin aspect at Candlemas, welcomes the young sun god's embraces and conceives a child. The child will be born nine months from now, at the next Winter Solstice. And so the cycle closes at last to begin anew.”


to be realistic, we therefore need to delve more deeply into such notions as ‘the control culture’.  in the traditions of our aboriginal cultures, the land (habitat) is sacred and we are all INCLUDED in it (we inhabit the habitat)., thus there is no notion of ‘property’ that can be carved out by the specification of imaginary boundary lines and ‘owned’; i.e. BECOME A ‘POSSESSION’.  and if we cannot ‘possess’ our habitat and idealize it as ‘property’ then there can be no wars based on ‘possession of property’.  as the native peoples of north america continue to remind us;


“In the eyes of the Kanien'keh?:ka the boundary that separates Canada and the US is merely a method devised by European settlers to settle their arguments over what they stole from the Indigenous nations of Turtle Island. The Kanien'keh?:ka see the bickering of these Europeans as the bickering of thieves fighting over the spoils of their crime. As Indigenous people we make no distinction between the US and Canada, there is no difference between our lands on either side of the imaginary line created by Europeans for Europeans.”


so any ‘re-write’ of history in terms of a shift from a ‘control culture’ to a ‘connecting culture’ that ignores the cultural split between the western european tradition of objectification of everything; ‘man’ as an independent object and ‘property’ as an independent object is closing its net and proceeding to haul it in though the fish has eluded it.


a moment’s reflection shows that the invention of property, by idealized objectification through the imposing of imaginary line boundaries, and thus ‘sovereign owned property’ as in ‘the nation state’ was used as a means of control and continues to be used as a means of control.  the sovereign ownership implies central authority over the object land and everything that happens to fall within its imaginary line boundaries.   all peoples residing within the imaginary line borders are no longer free but instead are re-issued with a synthetic freedom granted as a privilege that can be removed, by the central authority, if the resident of the newly existing out-of-the-blue, bounded-by-imaginary-lines piece of ‘property’ acquiesces to being subservient to the central authority and whatever instructions it gives out.


peer-to-peer cooperation has always been a natural part of our dynamic.  without it, no control hierarchy could ever work since operating within a common shared space wherein a diversity of initiatives are simultaneously influencing each other does not lend itself to management by instructions issued by a central authority that is not privy to local spatial-relational circumstances.  the local participants are always using their attunement to their spatial-relational circumstances (as we do when driving ‘friendly’ or peer-to-peer cooperatively within a heavy traffic-flow space) and they put this peer-to-peer cooperation into precedence over the instructions coming to them from the central authority, else there would be all kinds of conflict and collision.  just imagine if they worked blindly ‘to-rule’ on the basis of their marching orders coming from the top/center, like totally obedient robots; i.e. the central hierarchy could never work, not a common shared space where are hundred such central hierarchies are all orienting to different ‘common goods’ and ‘production objectives’ at the same time.  the central control  hierarchy is an idealization we impose on our mental models that is not imposed on nature and reality.  the notion that ‘the corporation achieves such-and-such’ is as phony as the notion that ‘the US achieves such-and-such’. they are idealizations based on object-i-fiction which feigns to extract the ‘inhabitant’ from out his inextricable inclusion within the dynamical habitat and re-animate him as if he is independent and as if his behaviour pushes out from the center-of-self driven by his notional ‘inner-purpose’.


we do not literally have to ‘leave behind’ our ‘control culture’ ways and move on to embrace ‘connecting culture’ ways, ... we need to acknowledge that we have allowed idealizations and object-i-fictions to rule our mental modelings in denial of the natural reality in which we live.   we have used these idealizations to alienate us from our relationship with the land and with one another, ... making ourselves over into independent automatons whose peer-to-peer cooperation is no longer based on the common hostspace/habitat we are all included together in; i.e. we have become an inhabitant collective whose relationships are seen as purely amongst one another, as if we were no longer included in, and dependent on, a common hostspace/habitat.


it is true that the internet is fostering a revival of our awareness of our own peer-to-peer cooperative capacities.  we have always had them and have used them, but we have falsely given the central authority ‘credit’ for what we have been co-achieving with them (the boss takes credit for the performance of his organization, but his downward transmitted instructions did not include having an employee go out over the internet and finding a way to solve an impending disaster and saving  his company’s ass.   the citizen of sovereign-owned property termed a nation-state may give credit to his ‘nation’ (property-nation rather than people-nation) and its central authority for everything good that happens to him, ... but in that same land, before the imaginary lines were drawn on a legal document and before the invention of ‘property’, peoples lived and cooperated in a peer-to-peer fashion and the freedom they enjoyed and the access to beauty and resources of the land knew no dependency on a ‘nation state’ nor on a ‘central authority’.   did all this ‘peer-to-peer’ mode of organization ‘vanish’ the moment the legal document was signed declaring the existence of the sovereign property based ‘nation-state’ with its central governing authority?


the internet is reviving our awareness that peer-to-peer cooperation is nature’s way and since we are included in nature, it is our natural way as well.   what we are looking at, with the help of the internet is a ‘re-awakening’, a coming back to our natural sense of reality after being lost in a synthetic world of idealizations and object-i-fictions.   it is not a shift in ‘the way we do things around here’ as implied in the ‘control-culture – to – connecting culture’ shift, it is a shift in our awareness of who we are and how we relate to our common living space and to one another.


so, i would like to toast michel bauwen’s work on peer-to-peer cooperation on his birthday (march 20th) and to toast as well, the spirit of the vernal equinox (march 20th) which also speaks of peer-to-peer cooperation though with habitat-induced rather than self-center-driven origins, to their ‘coming together’ in the coming season/s.  





Weblog:  March 20, 2006


current experience in iraq and afghanistan recalls the idealization of the ‘sovereign nation-state’ where a block of land is carved out of the landscape by the designation of imaginary bounding lines and a puppet central authority installed that nulls out the evolved man-living-space relationships of local communities (tribes peoples) built up over generations.   this alienation of the relationship of man with the living hostspace he inhabits is a general ‘pattern’ that says much about how we use our sensory faculties and the psychologiical ‘twists’ that characterize the western mindset.


for example, unlike aboriginals, we let our faculty of vision take precedence over our acoustic and balancing (inertial orientation) faculties with the result that we CONSTRUCT realities such as ‘the earth rotates’ (poincaré) which objectifies and excluded the earth from the gravitational field dynamic in which it is included, and which is the source not only of the coordinated (sustained harmonious) movement of the sun and planets but which sources the apparent matter (local concentrations of energy) within that field.   so, instead of putting into precedence our inclusion in the gravitational field flow, we objectify the material flow within the field in the manner we objectify a hurricane in the atmospheric dynamic, converting motion that is innately nonlocal and a-centric into motion that is re-constructed and based on idealized ‘objects’ as if the motion is authored from the self-center of the idealize object (e.g. ‘hurricane katrina’).   once we start speaking about ‘katrina’ doing this or that, our mental model locks into the notion that the ‘independent object’ (we have made it independent artificially by objectifying and naming it) is the author of the behaivour.


this same model we apply to the territory of our own body.   we objectify it by imposing the notion of  imaginary boundary lines coincident with the surface of our skin (even though material and energy flow is continuously ‘ignoring’ this imaginary boundary.   then we install a puppet central authority  called ‘the ego’ which tries to nullify all of our naturally evolved body – living-space relationships and run the ‘sovereign property person-state’ with disregard for the natural precedence of the spatial-relationships in which the individual is uniquely situationally included.


aboriginal psychology assumes that man is included in the living space dynamic and thus avoids the imagining of an absolute independent existence managed by ‘the ego’, which writes its resumés as if it is the sole author of its own behaviour (rather than behaving RELATIVE to the flowspace in which it is included).


the western ego is our puppet central authority and is based on the illusion of ‘independence’ that comes when we make us some imaginary boundaries (euclidian lines and geometric surfaces) to give ourselves a closed form and take ourselves (psychologically) out of our natural state of inclusion in the spatial-relationships of the evolutionary dynamic.





Weblog:  March 19, 2006


i woke up thinking about how crazy it sounds for stephen harper and george bush to say; ‘we will not cut and run’ (as causalities mount in afghanistan and/or iraq), we will keep to our principles and commitments’.


just what are ‘principles’ and ‘committments’ anyhow and who is the ‘we’ that is keeping to them?   ‘we’ install a government and commit to protect it until it is established and has trained an army and police force that can forcibly maintain it.  we call this ‘the establishing of a western style democracy’.  are we not really committing to ourselves?


and our ‘principles’ are always these space-ignoring principles about ‘what we do’ as if the ‘we’ we are referring to is exclusive of the ‘what’ that we ‘do stuff to’.  for example, we invented this notion of a sovereign nation-state.  for those of ‘us’ that have enough power, we can draw some imaginary lines across the continuous landscape and say, .. inside of these bounding lines is the sovereign nation-state of afghanistan (or ‘the US’ or ‘Canada’), and if we have enough power, we can ‘make believers’ out of anyone who tries to pooh-pooh our imaginary state, because imaginary is all that it is or ‘idealization’ if one prefers.   the dynamics that go on in the world are not differentiated by these imaginary lines so that we cannot say that is a behaviour that is authored by those that are inside these imaginary lines that is distinguishable from the dynamics authored by those outside the lines.   the dynamic that wraps around the surface of the earth is interconnected and interdependent. it is ‘spatial-relational’, nonlocal and a-centric rather than ‘thing-based’, local object-center driven.    to opt for the latter is illusion of the type used by the man in the cart on the way to the guillotine who demonstrates his free-will and his local behaviour which he claims pushes out from his self-center driven by his ‘inner-purpose’  (as if the flow he is caught up in is relevant’).   his scientific proof is to get up and sing a song and dance a jig of his choosing to prove that he indeed has free-will, that his behaviour is locally sourced and that it comes from the center of himself and is authored by his internal purpose.   sounds good, but that is not ‘the big story’.   the big story is that he is inextricably included in a spatial-relational flow, an ‘evolutionary dynamic’ that is taking him somewhere and his local movements are RELATIVE TO THE FLOW HE IS INCLUDED IN.   thus to understand what is going on, one must see his movements NOT AS ABSOLUTE and originating with him, but as subordinate to the flow since they are necessarily pushing of from their situational inclusion within the flow.


so, ‘principles’ in terms of ‘what we do’ or ‘doing what it is deemed good to do’ are part of this illusion where we break out ‘objects’ from the flow and re-construct their dynamics as if they were ‘absolute’ and pushing out from the interior of their object-selves.   the reality is, there is no such thing as ‘afghanistan’ or ‘iraq’, the political states.  they are imaginary entities that we rhetorically promote.  all we need is a pencil and a map and a puppet government to draw some lines, declare the existence of a ‘sovereign nation-state’ and have the puppet government present itself as the central authority over the ‘sovereign nation-state’.


oops, i forgot one thing.   one needs a large and powerful military to ‘make believers’ out of all those who mock the purported existence of this imaginary nation-state, ... and the one’s who may mock the loudest and strongest are those tribal peoples who inhabit the region now bounded (in the mind) by those imaginary lines and who will have none of it.  as mentioned earlier, tactics like dropping the chiefs who rebel against it from airplanes into the middle of their villages (mussolini in libya) is one way to encourage the others into believing in the existence of the sovereign nation state and its powers of central authority.


our democratic principles, then, include our ethic of supporting our fellow sovereign nation-states, as britain and france and other colonial powers did in the case of the imposing of ‘libya’ as a political entity over top of the region of libya and its previously free tribal peoples, nullifying their freedom and replacing it with forced subservience to a central authority headed up by a puppet constitutional monarchy (king idris) who, reciprocated for the services given him by his ‘protectors’ by allowing them to establish military bases on the land (the more convenient for putting down rebellion from his angry tribal peers) and opening up the land’s trade and natural resources to easy access to the ‘protecting’ colonial powers.


‘we must keep to our principles and commitments’, ... yes, indeed, ... how noble of us,.... it brings tears to my eyes and strains of ‘rule britannia’ to my ears.   oh we as such gooood guys!






Weblog: March 18, 2006


[Error Log: this website was ‘down’ from March 4th till March 15th due to migration problems at the ISP (August.com).  Most incoming emails were lost (never seen or received) during this period.]






this past couple of weeks has been filled with a lot of writing (and calls to the ISP to get the website and email problems sorted out).


the ‘biggest’ item that has been under discussion in this interval is the ongoing public debate on Canadian involvement in Afghanistan which has shifted from ‘peace-keeping’ to an aggressive ‘smoke ‘em out’ role in Kandahar.  as the causualties begin to mount, the prime minister, stephen harper, is using the same ‘we will not cut and run’ rhetoric that has been used by US president george bush.   the troops have also killed their first innocent afghani because ‘he came unacceptably close’ to an army convoy and was hit in the chest by a ‘warning shot’, and died.


what those who support this ‘we keep our commitments’ logic fail to acknowledge is that a ‘commitment’ is an idealization since it does not change even though the circumstances of the reality in which it is ‘being kept’ are continuously changing.   if a ‘foreign body’ such as a thorn or an organ (transplant) is imposed into some ‘hostspace’ unaccustomed to its presence, the hostspace may ‘reject’ the intrusion and inflammation and ‘pustulence’ may be induced all around it that seeks to eject or dissolve it.


foreign troops can have that kind of effect on the locals they have ostensibly come to assist.


what our western thought and language does not acknowledge is that we are included in the world ‘out there’ that we objectify with word-labels which makes it appear as if these object-entities are ‘independent’ things that exist in their own right and have a behaviour that is purely ‘theirs’ which pushes out from their self-center driven by their ‘inner-purpose’.  


the reality of the matter is that when foreign troops arrive in ‘afghanistan’ THEY ARE INCLUDED IN AFGHANISTAN, … in other words, … IT IS NO LONGER ‘THE SAME’ AFGHANISTAN but is a new entity that includes the transplant.   thus the commitment to afghanistan that prompted the sending of canadian troops CHANGES IN MEANING when the troops get there since ‘afghanistan’ now includes the canadian troops and we can no longer speak of ‘canadian trooops’ and ‘afghanistan’ as if they were two mutually exclusive things as was done in formulating the commitment.


i am not ‘playing games’ with my word usage here.  i am in fact underscoring how our everyday communication are already based on ‘playing language games’ (Wittgenstein).  afghanistan as a political unit or ‘sovereign property’ is just a word, a mental idealization, which does not exist in reality since the imaginary lines that specify its borders do not exist in reality.  afghanistan is also the name for a geographical region but there are no explicit borders to the geographical landscape (there are inferred boundaries to ‘islands’ but the land surface keeps going, it is just that it is not visible beneath the water that is filling in the valleys.


thus, afghanistan-the-political-unit does not change when the canadian troops are included within it, but the physical reality does indeed change upon the infusion of canadian troops, and thus the ‘reality’ of the dynamical hostspace that is afghanistan DOES change upon the infusing of foreign troops, and if the commitment is to ‘help sustain peace’ in afghanistan, we have to be talking about dynamical reality that is ‘afghanistan’ rather than the political unit which does not really exist, other than as an ‘idealization’ in our minds.


what is ‘letting us down’ here and confusing our thinking is ‘vision’, the images we see do not inform us on issues of ‘inclusion’.   for example, we say that ‘beauty is transient’, since if we watch a flow sprout up, blossom and die, it certainly appears so, and if we watch a young girl grow up into a fine-looking women and later become wrinkled, toothless, once-firm and formful breasts now sagging and flat, then we say that ‘beauty is transient’.    but who is this observer that is watching this and what is happening to him during this observation?   is it not true that he is included in this aging? i.e. that everything is included in this aging?   everything is included in something that is continually renewing which is continuously manifesting beauty.    beauty is therefore timeless (beyond time).


therefore, how can we say that ‘beauty is transient’? 


we say so by excluding the observed ‘object’ from the continuing beautiful world she is included in.    she is more than this physical form that emerges, blossoms, withers and is recycled.  she is included in spatial relationships with the evolutionary dynamic and contributing to the continuing rebirth of beauty.  she cannot be separated from it.


in fact, ‘she’ never was an object in her own right, she was always a flow-form within the spatial-relational evolutionary dynamic, and it is only our visual perception and tactility, which are incapable, in themselves, of sensing ‘inclusion’ that have had us ‘split her out’ from the evolutionary dynamic we are all included in.   this splitting out of objects and seeing them as independent objects that come and go in time says something about the observer.  the observer, in this visual perceiving excludes himself from the aging (from the spatial-relational transformation that he too is inextricably bound up in) in order to leave himself with the impression that it is the object ‘out there’ that is the author of their own action (‘aging’).


as poincaré made clear, to say that ‘the earth rotates’ does not fit the data of our experience.   it is the same ‘illusion’ as ‘the woman ages’; i.e. the observer is INCLUSIONALLY bound up in the same spatial-relational transformation as he is looking out at.  if the observer-astronaut on the moon ‘sees’ (and video records)  ‘the earth rotating’, such imagery ignores the fact that all of the planets ‘behind his back’ and asteroids and moons are bound up in this (simultaneous mutually influencing) dynamic which in no way can be accredited to ‘the earth’, so to say that ‘the earth rotates’ is a radically distorted representation of reality which removes the observer from the spatial-relational dynamic he is included in.   the same applies to the statement ‘the woman ages’.  she is not the author of her aging, she is included in the evolutionary dynamic as we all are, as everything is.   it is only ‘idealization’ to ‘objectify’ the hurricane from out the atmospheric space dynamic and personify it as an object whose development, behaviour and aging emanate from within (are local object-center based).


our visual perception articulated in terms of ‘what things do’ is an idealized ‘object-i-fiction’.   afghanistan is a geographical space in which things happen (in a spatial-relational way), but afghanistan is not a ‘thing’ that can author ‘its own’ behaviour.   imposing the absolutist idealization of ‘property’ that is purported to exist in its own right (sovereign property, in the case of nation-states) is what has us speaking of ‘afghanistan as if it were capable of authoring its own behaviour.


when foreign troops enter the geographical region of afghanistan, this region is transformed.


when foreign troops enter the geographical region of afghanistan, the political entity ‘afghanistan’ is not transformed since it is an idealization that does not exist in reality; i.e. is separate from and does not include the foreign troops even when the foreign troops are included the region of afghanistan.


yet the presence of foreign troops may induce a halo of inflammation around the foreign troops which seeks to remove their presence.   the foreign troops seen as a surgical knife to cut out putrefaction in the manner of snipping off diseased branches from an infected tree, may instead be the equivalent of a ‘dirty knife’ that induces its own putrefaction, increasing its cutting requirements as it cuts.


for the head of the nation that has supplied the foreign troops to say that he will persist in his commitment is like the surgeon saying he will persist in operations to remove putrefaction after he learns that his instruments for removing putrefaction are introducing putrefaction.   this is an attitude that opens up the exposure where ‘operation is successful, patient dies’.








Weblog: March 1, 2006


White men are always counting.  Everything, but mostly money.   And time.  Eh, well!    (native american source)



to say that ‘canadian history is a load of tripe’; that nationalism at the olympic games is ridiculous, that e. fuller torrey’s viral cause theory of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is bogus and that something is wrong with Christian ethics that relativity- based ethics can fix, as in yesterday’s blog, … is to make claims that may themselves seem ‘like a load of tripe’ since there are many who would vouch for the veracity of history, and the integrity of the games, viral theory and Christian ethics.


all of these items; history, the games, viral theory and ethics can be perceived in two ways.  looking at them in one of these ways makes them look ‘like a load of tripe’ and looking at them in the other way makes them look fully legitimate.


what are these ‘two ways of perceiving?’


the typical canadian history book skims over the pre-1497 millenia and moves quickly on to focus on the european colonizer and what they did, ‘they’ now being defined as ‘canadians’ and ‘their accomplishments’ largely defining ‘who they were’.  


when we describe history in terms of ‘who did what’ (the Newtonian ‘what things do’ representation of reality) we occlude from our sense of what’s going on, SPACE.  the fact is that canadian history is relative to the history of the world and ‘the world’ is ‘a place’; i.e. it is a ‘hostspace’ that transforms in the continuing present.   to focus on the achievements of an idealized political entity is like the focus on which country wins more medals in the olympic games.   only athletes win medals in real life.   prior to 1991 the soviet union ‘won’ a lot of medals and after 1991 it didn’t win any, but the 15 republics that it decomposed into were now winning medals though they had won none before.


since political entities such as ‘canada’ are not ‘real’ but are idealized metaphors described on a political-legal document somewhere, we have to be careful about what we mean when we attribute accomplishment to them, historical or otherwise; i.e. they don’t REALLY have a history because they don’t REALLY exist.  world (natural) history IS REAL just like the olympic games are real but not so these ‘idealized entities’ that we credit with having accomplished certain tangible results.


we can see how this problem develops in the case of ‘canadian history’ if we zoom out to a view of the whole earth so that we can see what goes on in that region called ‘canada’ in a more natural perspective.   now we can see that the world dynamic (hostspace dynamic or suprasystem dynamic) is the ‘real thing’ and that everything is interdependent with canada’s sustaining of ties to England while the american colonies go to war against England contributing to the continuously emerging outcomes.  


as the systems sciences note, one cannot realistically talk about ‘what a system does’ except in the terms of what it does RELATIVE TO the suprasystem it is included in.    thus Canada (the system) does not have a historical dynamic in-its-own-independent-right, but only RELATIVE to the world (suprasystem) historical dynamic.  while the system (Canada) can be analytically broken down into parts and the historical dynamic presented in terms of ‘what things do’, such an approach ignores that what goes on in Canada is RELATIVE to the world hostspace dynamic in which it is included.


yet we do this ignoring of the hostspace we are included in all the time and go with the simple ‘newtonian’ representation of ‘what things do’.


this is our western culture’s way of thinking, and it corresponds to the imposing of Euclidian space --- an idealized absolute containing space which provides a passive theatre of operation for the things that populate it.


picture the man in the cart on the way to the guillotine.  he is inextricably included in the ‘flow’ of the times, but we can imagine him ‘manifesting his free will’ as he gets up and dances a jig of his choice.  imagine there are several men in the cart and imagine we mentally construct a little box for them so that we can concentrate just on them and what they do, pushing off from the center of their selves driven by their inner purpose.   as we focus on ‘what they do’ we lose track of the fact that they are all inextricably included in a flow-dynamic, the ‘suprasystem dynamic’ which is taking them somewhere they don’t really want to go.  the reality is that their local actions, rather than being absolute and pushing out from the self-center as we picture them within the box, are RELATIVE to the hostspace flow-dynamic in which they are included.


our visual-mental focus may be able to extract canada from the world flow-dynamic, break it down into people-parts and re-construct it from the activities of the parts to get a canada-centric history of canada, … and likewise for the US, Britain, France, Germany etc., … so that we have a whole collection of national histories which portray these idealized entities called ‘nation-states’ as causal agents, but THEY ARE NOT REAL AND THEY ARE NOT CAUSAL AGENTS.


what is ‘real’ is the continuing world hostspace dynamic that we are inextricably included in and the rest of the stuff, the ‘what things do’ representation of reality, is ‘in our heads’.


of course ‘what is in our heads’ influences our behaviour and our behaviour influences the REAL world hostspace dynamic, but that doesn’t prove that the representation of reality in our heads is anything like the reality of the world hostspace dynamic.  that is the ‘complaint’ about the western worldview, that it does not ‘reconcile’ with the hostspace dynamic we are included in.  how could it when we invent an idealized causal agent, the ‘nation-state’ and attribute to it the powers of assertive accomplishment in its own independent right?  that is, we notionally break it out of the world hostspace dynamic, decompose it into people-assertive-agent parts and reconstruct it on the basis of what these parts do, out of the context of them being inextricably bound up in the hostspace dynamic?   there is only world dynamic until we notionally break it up into idealized cookie cutter nation-states and re-construct what is going on in the world in local nation-centric terms.


when one looks at the world dynamic overall, and in this context the multiplicity of dynamical nation-states in europe, one can see that the activities within the nation-state seem to persist within that nation-state space.   is this ‘stasis’ of the nation-state (staying put where it is) due to newton’s law that says that a body will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force?   or are we instead looking at a ‘standing wave’ situation where the dynamics everywhere are pushing off one another and mutually balancing one another everywhere with this mutual balancing wrapping all around the world and keeping nations in place in a kind of ‘standing wave’ fashion.    this is the point of contention in hermes trismegistus; e.g.


  • A point equilibrated on all sides remains at rest, for the very reason that it is endowed with motion.


this is consistent with ‘the relativity of motion’ and if we want to look at the dynamics of nations in this way, then it becomes impossible REALISTICALLY  to isolate the dynamics of the nation from the world dynamics in which case it becomes impossible to REALISTICALLY write ‘a history of a nation state’ in terms of ‘what a nation-state ‘does’ or ‘has achieved’.  it is the same problem as with the notion of a nation ‘achieving’ in the olympic games; i.e. it is PURE IDEALIZATION.


to mistake ‘idealization’ for ‘reality’ is the source of dysfunction our westernized world is currently suffering from.   what the men in the cart do is ‘idealization’ since we have ‘idealized’ their activity and artificially lifted it out of is innate inclusion in the suprasystem dynamic (the evolutionary flow-dynamic), yet this visual space oriented (Euclidian space oriented) view is our western ‘standard’ view which we confuse with ‘reality’.


henri poincaré was the ‘deep thinker’ on relativity and when he showed in science and hypothesis the problem of visual perception in regard to ‘the earth rotates’, that such a view demands that space is absolute, which is an unnatural idealization, … many people did not get it and he had to explain it further, along with people’s misconceptions, in a later book, the value of science.   the point is that the source of the earth’s rotation is not ‘the earth’, the earth moves relative to the suprasystem space (solar system space) in which it is included.  the observer who is simply looking at the earth is himself inextricably bound up in the spatial relational flow-dynamic that the earth is, … and so it is too with any observer who focuses in on the men in the cart and ‘what they do’; i.e. both they and he, the observer, are bound up within the dynamic of the suprasystem space (revolutionary france, the evolutionary world dynamic etc.).


the same principles that apply to ‘the history of canada’ apply to; the games, viral theory and ethics; i.e. we, the observers, are included in a common hostspace dynamic.  when we visualize things in terms of ‘what things do’, we err since motion is relative and we, the observers, are included in the hostspace dynamic together with what we are looking at.   everything is relative.  hermes trismegistus was right and newton was wrong.  Newton had left out of his model of ‘dynamics’ inner-outer balancing  (mutual convergence and mutual divergence) as the foundational explanation for a collective  ‘holding constant their spatial-relational configuration’, replacing it with the idealist notion of ‘stasis’, motionless objects in empty space.   but newton knew he was wrong (that he’d oversimplified things) and overtly said so in the author’s preface to his ‘Principia…’;


"I wish we could derive the rest of the phaenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from physical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they all may depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy." 


newton’s substitution of absolute stasis for the ‘base case’ or ‘initial conditions’ enables us to think of the world in terms of ‘moving parts’; i.e. ‘machinery’ where the hermetics (and aboriginals, Buddhists, Gnostics etc.) saw the world space as a living evolutionary dynamic in which everything was included.  it is in this idealized mechanical sense that we perceive the men in the cart exercising their free will and pushing off from the center of their self driven by their inner purpose.   this idealized perspective (our western ‘standard’) ignores the reality that all such motion is relative to the suprasystem flow-dynamic in which it is included.


so, pick any subject involving dynamics, medicine, psychiatry, you name it, … and it is possible to see how we scientific-minded westerners are imposing idealized mechanization on it (portraying ‘the system’ as a stand-alone machine).


e. fuller torrey is committed to showing that schizophrenia and bipolar condition have a viral cause.  his book ‘the invisible plague’ is well received by many in his discipline.  in essence, he is writing a ‘history of the schizophrenic’ in the same manner as the ‘history of the nation’, … idealizing the schizophrenic as an independent system and ignoring the fact that its dynamic is RELATIVE to the suprasystem it is included in.   torrey will have difficulty explaining why the incidence of schizophrenia amongst blacks is five times higher in the U.K. than it is amongst the same races of blacks in their own countries. but when it comes to viruses, one can dream up all kinds of stuff such as the weather conditions effect the spread of the virus, and diet may also be a factor. 


the alternative is of course to understand the dynamics of the schizophrenic relative to the suprasystem he is included in; thus the actualizing of his behavioural potentials and the accommodating (receptive or resistive) backpressure of the suprasystem space he is included in MUTUALLY SHAPE the behaviour that is actually actualized.  this is where eastern medicine and psychology is, but western medicine and psychology seeks an internal cause.   the western model concedes that the environmental conditions can ‘put stress’ on the individual but in the context that this external stress brings on ‘internal breakdown’ in weaker systems and it is the ‘internal breakdown’ that one must resolve.  one of the most common ways that western psychiatry deals with this is to administer drugs that lower the individual’s sensitivity to his environment.  torrey theorizes instead that these drugs have the effect of killing off (temporarily) the virus (yet-to-be-found) that is ‘causing the problem’.


relativity says, meanwhile, that we cannot attribute internal (biophysical, biochemical) behaviour solely to the internals of any system (e.g. the internals of the human individual) but must take into account, as relativity would have us do if we are an astronaut looking at ‘the earth rotating’, that both we, the observer, and the system we are visually perceiving, are included in a common hostspace dynamic that we cannot get outside of.


the OBJECTIFICATION of the system of the men in the cart or of the nation-state dynamic is what BLOWS AWAY THE REALITY of both the observer’s and the observed system’s inclusion within a common suprasystem space flow-dynamic.  this ‘objectification’ is achieve by mentally modeling the system dynamic as if it were going on within a fixed (idealized) euclidian space box in which case all we need to take into account is the actions of the object-entities inside the box..  all of our inquiry into the behaviour of the system is thus confined to the internal workings of the system.  


if the earth’s rotation developed ‘a wobble’, this Newtonian/Euclidian view of dynamics would be interpreted in terms that ‘some external event ‘destabilized’ the earth’s dynamic.   but in understanding this in terms of relativity, one cannot say that ‘the earth has a dynamic’ since its motion is relative to the hostspace dynamic (the collective of sun and planets, moons asteroids etc. etc.) in which it is included.  in which case, it can only be the hostspace dynamic that has changed.  our sense that ‘the earth has a dynamic of its own’ is an idealization that we impose on our mental modeling of dynamics that is not imposed on nature.


this principle (relativity) applies generally, thus we cannot say that any ‘thing’, human individual or other, ‘has its own behaviour’.  it’s behaviour is always relative to the hostspace dynamic in which it is situationally included; i.e. the system dynamic is relative the suprasystem dynamic in which it is included.


to cite Stephen jay gould again; ‘there can be no assessment (counting up) of hitting out of the context of fielding’.


imagine how you feel when your are in a hostspace that disaccommodates your every attempt to actualize your assertive potentials.   the Newtonian observer will look upon this as ‘stasis’ since Newtonian physics is lacking any inner-outer convergence-divergence balancing means.  is relativity, which does include balancing more meaningful?  i.e. is the following a more apt description of your situation?;


  •  A point equilibrated on all sides remains at rest, for the very reason that it is endowed with motion.


now imagine that you feel so stifled and suffocated that you lash out in an illegal way.   since the Newtonian model sees your motion as ‘absolute’, ignores your inclusion in the hostspace dynamic and sees you as pushing out from the center of yourself driven by your inner purpose,  those using this model have not choice but to attribute your criminal action to ‘criminal inner purpose’.


imagine there is a trend to rising incidence of criminal actions.  the Newtonian model can only interpret this in terms of a trend to ‘rising incidence of criminal purpose’.  the role of the suprasystem in disaccommodating and stifling the actualizing of assertive potentials of the included system, which is accounted for in relativity goes entirely unaccounted for in the Newtonian view.


thus, in our standard western visual perception based mental model (Newtonian), there is no encouragement to address the disaccommodating quality of the hostspace dynamic but there is an obvious encouragement to crack down on those who have a tendency to ‘criminal inner purpose’.


so, what has been presented  here is a description of  how; history, the games, viral theory and ethics can be understood in either a ‘newtonian’ or ‘relativity’ based manner. 


obviously, reading this blog is not going to change anyone’s mind.  we live in a social hostspace dynamic which implicitly demands that we view the world in Newtonian terms.  if we say, in our Canadian history class, that Canadian history is a load of tripe, we will not pass go and will not get to collect our $200.   if we go to the Olympic games and cheer some other nation’s athletes more than our own, we will be looked down on for our lack of patriotism.  if we tell our doctor that viral theory is crap, we will be forced to go to naturopaths who have been kept barefoot in the closet by the powerful western medical establishment.


how about ‘ethics’?


the ethics of relativity would have us attune to the hostspace dynamic in which we are included and serve the sustaining of balance within it.   the ethics of Newton see our behaviour as ‘absolute’, pushing out from the center of our self driven by our inner purpose and therefore seeing the quality of behaviour as fully deriving from ourselves, making us fully responsible for our ‘good works’ or our ‘bad works’.


as in the above example of criminal actions in response to hostspace disaccommodation which in the ethics of relativity argue for a restoring of accommodative balance, a Newtonian foundation underpinning Christian ethics allows no other course but to orient to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour since the accommodative quality of the hostspace, which can disproportionately accommodate certain groups (e.g. nations) and disaccommodate certain others is ignored.


hence the split between those arguing for zero tolerance for crime (more police to get safer streets) and those arguing for rebalancing the social system to re-integrate the disaccommodated.


few people who debate these issues; history, the games, viral theory, and ethics are interested in probing the philosophical foundations in terms of how we perceive reality (space, motion).  the arguments are carried out more in terms of citing examples to support one’s position which can go nowhere without a shared understanding of physical context.   during a trend to rising crime, those who lobby for more police on the streets to protect the innocent can claim that ‘this only makes sense’ as it does in a limited context; i.e. cutting out a cancerous growth is useful but it may be more of action to address the symptom and fail to deal with the deeper origins, or possibly aggravate the condition further.


the more general problem is that the more we come from our idealized inner purpose, the less we attune to the hostspace dynamic which includes us; i.e. our belief in ‘phantom cause’ whether in the ‘idealized’ terms of ‘nation’, ‘virus’, ‘nation-competitor’ or ‘doer of good works’ encourages us to think of ourselves and others (other things) as ‘independent agents’ and thus encourages us to act independently in an interdependent world, a delusional worldview that is the source of rising dissonance.






Weblog: February 28, 2006


there is a very robust and coherent pattern in the relationships amongst the words that issue forth from me and ‘decorate’, in the form of explicit content, the two dimensional space of this weblog.  it is a pattern that is beyond my grasp but not beyond my awareness.  it ‘images’ in the manner that the 3D hologram images as one opens oneself up to it, as one observes the explicit markings on the two dimensional magazine page.


we understand more than we think we do. 


the comprehension of explicit ‘content’ does not teach understanding.  in fact, to become mesmerized by content is the affliction of our western culture.


am i not making sense?


would you like me to ‘spit it out’ in terms of explicit content?


that would contradict the very proposition that i am reflecting on; i.e. what i am sharing with myself or anyone who would care to participate in this reflection.


let me try ‘narrative’ that extends the topics of the popularity of the da vinci code and the quasi-fanatic nationalism of the Olympic games in a spider-web-like (relational) manner so that the phantom form that emerges in the shape of the web will be the message rather than any linear combination of the threads of content.


my children live in different places as we all do if we relate ‘place’ to ‘space’ since our personal situation within the evolving nature-space of the continuing present is unique.  


there is also the ‘idealized’ space of abstract definitions; i.e. ‘political place’ in categories of ‘nation’, ‘state or province’, city etc.


both definitions of place vie for influence on how my children behave, and the same is true for me.


i have made my choice as to which takes precedence and they will have to make theirs as we all must.


i believe that ‘balancing’ is innate in me and in all of nature, and that it is spatial-relationship oriented.


thus what i believe to be ‘foundational’ and to deserve ‘precedence’ in guiding my behaviour is very much in the manner of what i quoted yesterday from La Clef des Grands Mysteres by eliphas levi  (the pseudonym for Alphonse Louis Constant (1810 – 1875) a French occultist who "believed in the existence of a universal `secret doctrine' of magic throughout history, everywhere in the world.");



but no, i am not versed in the occult, have never been a member of a secret society and my understanding comes more from physics (relativity and quantum theory) as reconciled with life experience.  my point in mentioning these ideas on equilibrium being ‘foundational’ is in connection with the ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ that haloes the popularity of, and animosity to, the da vinci code, and the need to avoid ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ just because the ideas happen to be uttered by ‘occultists’, whoever they are.


i am talking about ‘the relativity baby’ because ‘relativity’ leads to the notion that nature is balance-seeking rather than coming from absolutes and ideals, and this induces one to put the sustaining of balance within the ‘place-as-space one lives in’ ahead of living one’s life in conformance to the place-as-abstract-ideal, as in ‘nation’ or ‘state’ where the ideal behaviours for that place are centrally prescribed in a legal document that comes with the certificate of permission to reside in that place, … something that nature never asked us for.


‘who i am’ is shaped by my sustaining of balance with the place-as-space i am situationally included in.


 my father developed very differently from his brothers because of the different space he had to sustain balance within (Canada, rather than England) and my mother and her parents developed very differently from their relatives because of the different space they had to sustain balance within (Canada rather than Italy).


one could still perceive the phantom presence of ‘the Englishman’ in my father and of ‘the Italian’ in my mother, but by what strange logic do we attempt to describe the individual in terms of his internal ingredients, the proportion of this or that in him or her?   is that not same thing as letting our behaviour be shaped by the idealized ‘political-space’ we are in rather than the ‘nature-space’ we are in?   after all ‘English’ and ‘Italian’ are simply idealized categories that we have invented for the convenience of binning things, they are not ‘real’ physical things.


ah, you say, … but what about their ‘genes’?


what’s with this evolutionary theory that portrays ‘genes’as a linear combination of other genes? (inducing some critics, noticing that there is no explanation of the origin of ‘genes’ in this ‘genetic determinist evolutionary theory’  to quip “DNA did not create life, life created DNA”.


why should ‘genes’ be anything more than a record of the history of balancing undertaken by the transgenerational organismic collective?  it has been noted by kaufman and other researchers in ‘the sciences of complexity’ that the structure of the organization is also the record of the embodied know-how’.


our bodies are continuously seeking balance with the space we are included in, even at levels below our conscious awareness (as in our sleep and in comas).  the present day world as experienced by our subaware physiological processes is a fairly homogeneous and slowly changing place or space and thus we can expect the know-how of those sub-aware balancing acts embodied in our DNA structures to be far more slowly changing than know-how of our aware balancing acts embodied in the structure of our personas.


in this case, our ‘genes’ as manifest in the structure of our DNA would equate to our transgenerational persona deriving from our ongoing balancing act with the space we are included in.   we can then regard ourselves as inclusionally nesting enfoldment of the embodied record of our nested levels of know-how, from the fast-moving intra-generational social hostspace balancing dynamics to the far more slowly moving (relatively) transgenerational nature-hostspace balancing dynamics.


that ‘everything is relative’ is a viable and consistent principle on which a belief system can be based (such belief systems DO exist and ‘relativity’ argues for their being more consistent with the world of our natural experience than idealism based ABSOLUTIST belief systems of western civilization.).


i make no secret of the fact that my own belief system is relativity and spatial-relational balancing based (i.e. ‘beyond good-and-evil’), and it has this basis in common with aboriginal and other naturalist belief systems as well as with foundational aspects of the occultism of eliphas levi, aka ‘alphonse louis constant’ (i have no need to buy into ‘the whole occultist package’).


our reductionist belief in ‘genes’ as atomic units that determine the ontogeny of the individual phenotype is pure ‘idealism’ that stands in stark contrast to the ‘relativity’ that characterizes our experience of living in nature.   but the theory of ‘genes’ is not without its heretical critics even within the discipline of biology.


if we invert the coin and look it from the other side, we may ask ourselves why it is that the world is split between peoples that put ‘idealism’ as in ‘reductionism’ into precedence in their belief systems and others put ‘relativity’ (attunement to and sustaining balance/harmony with the natural hostspace dynamic one is included in) in precedence in theirs.  


a related but simpler question, perhaps more suited to the limited space of this today’s blog entry, is; ‘how might those with idealist belief systems respond to the erosion of their belief supporting structures by the encroachment of ‘relativity’ based ideas?’


this brings us back to the (often venomous) attack on the da vinci code and the revived nationalist fanaticism associated with the Olympic games.


what does it have to do with me, an observer in the stands, if someone wearing a red maple-leaf down there on the playing field wins a race?  why should i jump up and yell and shout and go beserk over a red maple-leaf on someone’s gym strip?  is this ‘idealism’ not bringing out a bizarre social behaviour here?  what if the same person appears in the next games with a stars-and-stripes on their gym strip.  shall i then sit quietly as they cross the finish line leaving all those maple-leafed runners behind in the dust?


can i truly tell myself and others that i am at the games because ‘i appreciate competitive athletics’, …’i am inspired by the spirit of the competitor’,… ‘i respect commitment to self-discipline and arduous training regimes’, and so on and so forth.   how can i say this if i am dispirited by loss since  it is not really ‘loss’ but ‘someone else winning’.   the difference between ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ is therefore ‘idealism’; i.e. it is based on a political definition of ‘who i am’ relative to ‘who is winning’ and if my nation merges with another nation i will then be jumping up and cheering where yesterday i was staying glumly seated, and when the athlete moves to another nation (by marriage, emigration etc.) since i am identifying her by the symbols on her gym strip i will be staying glumly seated where yesterday i was jumping up and cheering.


who am i?


i (in the idealism sense) seem to know who i am and therefore ‘how to respond to the space i am in’ by the logo on my tee-shirt or by the passport in my inside pocket and the similar ‘markings’ on others.  this is where the precedence is in ‘idealism’.  i do not need to know about ‘the spirit, self-discipline and commitment’ of the athlete-person within the marked clothing’, if my ‘markings’ and their ‘markings’ match, this is sufficient information for me to launch an appropriate behavioural response which can range from ecstasy, elation and exuberance to shock, depression and introverted silence; in other words from that which is ‘light’ to that which is ‘dark’.   no wonder joseph campbell suggested that man should have been called ‘homo symbolicus’ rather than ‘homo sapiens’.


as a collective, we seem to be torn between whether to put ‘idealism’ or ‘naturalism’ into the foundational primacy that defines ‘who we are’ and therefore ‘how we behave’; i.e. do we, as in ‘naturalism’ give ourselves up on a first priority basis to ‘relativity’, to the sustaining of balance with the hostspace dynamic in which we are included, in the manner of the aboriginal tradition?    or do we, as in ‘idealism’ seek to define ourselves ‘in-our-own-standalone-right’ as ‘independent entities’ whose behaviour pushes off from the notional (idealized) center-of-our-self driven by our ‘inner purpose’ a kind of internal knowledge archive that is developed through our ‘acculturation’ which may include religion which asks us to first ‘believe’ so that we may ‘understand’ and/or science which asks us first to ‘understand’ so that we may ‘believe’ (both of these idealist systems, western religion and western science, can bootstrap our notional ‘inner-purpose’).


idealism is rational knowledge-based even if it is ‘primed’ by the priests’ interpretation of sacred scriptures etc.   based on the wisdom of the priests, we bootstrap and cultivate notional (idealized) entities such as ‘conscience’ and ‘inner purpose’ and then put these at the helm of our behaviour responses, accessing them in a ‘SIDA’ response cycle (sense, interpret, decide, act), an approach very different from the naturalist approach which is ‘sense-act’ guided by our spatial-relational balance-sustaining intuition.


since the idealist approach, whether bootstrapped from religion or science is ‘what things do’ based, we are required to first identify ‘the things’ that we are ‘surrounded by’ (i.e. one is ‘included in space’ in the naturalist approach but ‘surrounded by things’ in the idealist approach).   this is where the logo-emblazoned tee-shirts come in. 


the idealist attending a nude Olympic games would be confused while the naturalist would be right at home (anyone for a naked Olympic games?)


this may in fact be why idealist-fundamentalists eschew nakedness.  imagine if we could strip down a bit further than the clothing layer so as to remove the skin pigment as well!  in fact, why stop there, why not keep stripping down until we get to the core ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ of the individual that transcends the physical aspect including race and gender?   in this case, we would no longer have to go through the SIDA cycle and deal with ‘what things are’ and ‘what things do’ but could attune through the pure ‘relative’ or relational aspect.  now we would see the crowds in the stand rising together irrespective of how the logos on their tee-shirts match or do not match with the logos on the tee-shirts of those on the playing field.


at this point we would be in the realm of john lennon’s ‘imagine’ where there are no countries, no heaven above nor hell below since these are the ‘absolutist’ trappings of ‘idealism’.


my father, who knew only too well the experience of friends and family in england and from canada that helped one another sustain balance and navigate WWII, was always irritated when his american friends would insist that ‘America won the war’ which was, bizarrely, a common utterance by Americans in the immediate postwar period.   later on, in the world of corporate business, i experienced similar irritation when management would attempt to selectively identify and reward ‘whoever was most responsible for’ a ‘particular result’, as if ‘assertive accomplishment’ pushed off from initial conditions of stasis and could be reduced to a linear combination of causal agencies large and small, rather than emerging from dynamical balancing act, allowing us to ignore ‘small causes’ as insignificant contributors to the outcome.


such ‘linear idealism’ excludes the ‘harmony-sustaining’ role of ‘spirit’ and runs counter to our life experience, as even science has conceded;

"A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say that that effect is due to chance. If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. But even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately.  If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the later [i.e. the 'butterfly effect']. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon [i.e. 'deterministic chaos' aka ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions.’]."   --- Henri Poincaré Science and Method (1908)

did the invisible spark of spirit, fanned by a Churchill speech or by a local act of courage contribute significantly or insignificantly to the resolution of the war?  and do we see the restoring of peace as ‘the absence of conflict’ or the restoring of balance in the dynamic of our shared hostspace.

hermes trismegistus and i agree that;

  • A point equilibrated on all sides remains at rest, for the very reason that it is endowed with motion.

not that i am a member of the secret ‘hermetic’ society, but that i have correlated the implications of relativity and quantum behaviour (physics) with my own natural experience and found this to make sense.  it is icing on the cake to hear erwin schroedinger, the father of quantum wave dynamics refer to the essence of a material particle as pure resonant energy, energy in inner-outer balance.   thus a material object cannot, in any consistency with nature and our experiencing of it, be idealized as ‘existing in its own right’ in an empty containing space (another absolutist idealization upon which the independence of material objects dependently rests).

do i believe in history?   or do i, like dan brown, author of the da vinci code, believe that history is fiction written by ‘the winners’.

one has to distinguish here between ‘natural history’ and ‘political history’.  with respect to the former, i live on an island in the salish sea and it’s (natural) history is meaningfully recorded in terms of people and place (place including all inhabitants the four and two legged, the rooted and the winged etc.).  in that history, this small island was used primarily as a staging ground for fishing activity and the salish sea takes its name from the tribes/peoples by the same name that inhabited, for thousands of years, this region of the coast and its offshore islands.   is ‘salish’ a ‘political’ designation?   one thing for sure is that it is grounded in ‘place-as-natural-space’ since the idealist concept of ‘property’ was unimaginable to the native population and there was not a word for it in their languages.  thus there were no ‘political divisions’ based on idealized imaginary line boundaries designating which logo to put on one’s loincloth or who to steal horses from and who not to.   in the pre-euro-colonial days, the tribal distinctions evolved through spatial-relational balancing rather than by the imposing of idealist categorization.  such a ‘natural’ history is included within any history of this region upon which we have superimposed idealized political divisions.

as far as ‘political history’ goes, such as ‘the history of canada’ (Canada as an idealized region bounded by imaginary lines, a notable line being the 49th parallel of longitude which was established by political process), it is a load of tripe written ego-centrically by johnny-come-lately european colonizers who, like the Americans who ‘won the war’ and the ‘assertive achiever that was ‘primarily’ responsible for the business success’, portrays the development of the country as being ‘caused’ by the intelligent, industrious and courageous assertive acts of the colonizers and ignores the inclusion of man in an accommodating, resource-rich hostspace.

maybe the 40 million people who have read the da vinci code are ‘ready’ to bite that bullet and accept that history (of the political variety) is fiction, … that this great and noble civilization that we have founded our own identity on is self-deception told in the thunder-like booming voice of the GREAT HISTORIAN IN THE SKY and that instead of the world today being the result of causal agents; kings, emperors, nations, … it is the continuous outwelling of a global balancing act wherein a multiplicity of players move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, … the ‘history’ representation being a neat way to impose simplification on dynamics that are essentially relative.  was saddam hussein the powerful authority figure that history says he was, who made a lot of (nasty) things happen in a causal sense, or was he a shrewd rider/orchestrator of a regional balance-seeking dynamic?   our idealist political history portrays figures like saddam hussein and george bush and the nations they represent as ‘causal agents’.  but are they instead the riders of the nodal eyes of the hurricanes that populate an equilibrium-seeking hostspace dynamic?

if saddam is the powerful causal agent, then his removal, portrayed by the same idealist theory, restores peace in the Newtonian sense of stasis; i.e. is it not true as Newton’s idealized first law of motion says, that objects remain at rest unless a force is imposed on them?   or is it ‘more true’ that, as hermes trismegistus and erwin schroedinger say; A point equilibrated on all sides remains at rest, for the very reason that it is endowed with motion i.e. that what we call ‘causal’ is instead like the hurricane, nonlocally inferred equilibrium-seeking dynamics.

so what about dan brown’s ‘secret societies’ which he seems to really believe are the hidden causal force that lie beneath the fictional façade of our political history? and what about the critique of brown’s statement;

 “In the past, knowledge was something that was handed down by authority figures; now we seek and discover for ourselves.” in the context that john jalsevac puts it;  “And that, sadly, is an accurate depiction of the predominant mindset of the Western World. It is the core belief that lies behind books like The da vinci code, and it is what makes them so attractive. There is no truth. We are all gods.” ?

jalsevac seems to miss the point that this ‘relative’ belief system that ‘we are all gods’ is the belief system of aboriginals, buddhists, taoists and vedics.  it is only by jalsevac’s CHRISTIAN ETHICS, which do not recognize ‘sustaining harmony and balance’ as an ethic.  the Christian ethic is instead an ‘idealist ethic’ based on the causal model in terms of ‘what things do’; i.e. on the mutual exclusive context of EITHER ‘doing good’ OR to ‘doing bad’, a representation that ‘the sustaining of harmony and balance’ transcends. (sustaining harmony and balance is a ‘fault-tolerant’ ethic which spontaneously re-integrates the have-nots and the disaccommodated whose difficult living conditions tend to induce conflict that alienates them from the ‘haves’ and the ‘accommodated’ community members.).

so the ‘secret societies’ play the role of ‘phantom cause’ (the proverbial disease-causing virus that we are unable to see, yet) to make the idealist causal model continue to ‘hang together’ in spite of its fundamental incompleteness and over-simplification.

the dissenters of the theory that ‘HIV is a virus that is the sole cause of AIDS’, which include several nobel laureates struggle with the same problem that ‘health’ is not seen in terms of ‘sustaining balance’ but instead in terms of a positive causal condition (all parts working correctly) and thus ‘disease’ can only be seen in causal terms (attack by a causal pathogen, or a broken or defective causal subagency etc.).   western medicine is constantly seeking ‘phantom cause’ to make the reductionist science model ‘hang together’.  psychiatry is also a case in point where the currently esteemed theories of e.fuller torrey (‘the invisible plague’) would have it that not only does mental illness have biological cause (rather than being ‘dynamical imbalance’) that it’s ongoing plague like growth (from 1 case per 1000 to 5 cases per thousand) must be presumed to be due to a viral causal agent;

“Torrey hasn't totally ignored genetic research. "There's no question that genes play a role," Torrey says. "I just don't believe the genetic aspect is that strong.[claimed by another psychiatrist to be responsible for 40 – 50 % of ‘mental illness’] " Genes are involved in all infectious diseases, Torrey explains, which is why even though most people of his generation were exposed to the polio virus, not everyone got sick. The major problem with a purely genetic theory of schizophrenia, he says, is that viruses are known to attach themselves to genes and to get transmitted that way.”

so, the idealist ‘causal model’ only gives us room for theories about illness that one can ‘drill down into’ to find the ‘source cause’, reductionist style, and scientists like e. fuller torrey are having any ‘reductionist nightmares’ that they don’t even have the ‘fish in the net’ because they take the ‘causal model’ to be ‘all she wrote’.

as long we are stuck with the over-simplistic idealized reductionist scientific model of ‘causality’, we are obliged to explain everything in terms of ‘cause’, ‘health’ and ‘illness’, in which case, ‘balance’ (as in inner-outer spatial-relational dynamical equilibrium) is not an option, neither in understanding physical health and illness, mental health and illness nor community health and illness (benevolence/criminality).

dan brown’s ‘secret societies’ therefore, like e. fuller torrey’s not-yet-found-viral-cause of schizophrenia, fill the need of ‘phantom cause’ that persistently emerges from our western idealism (to keep it ‘hanging together’) and has us continue in our eschewing of the ‘relativity’ of gnosticism, hermetic secret society and modern physics, a spatial-relationship based understanding by which we perceive the space of nature as ‘gods-everywhere space’ or in non-euclidian geometry terms, ‘centers-everywhere space’.

we do indeed appear to be tossing the baby out with the dark bath waters in which we have bathed it.





Weblog: February 27, 2006


two items in the news today invited some ‘connective reflection’ vis a vis ‘inclusionality’; (a) [the lawsuit against] the phenomenally successful ‘da vinci code’ which has sold over 40 million copies in 44 languages, and (b) news coverage of bringing home the Olympic flag from Turin to Vancouver (where the 2010 Olympic winter games will be held).


there is a certain meeting of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ in both of these events that can fascinate.  not being a fan of ‘the Olympics’ (although i appreciate sports competitions, particularly without the nationalism, and did watch some of the Turin coverage), i am loathe to answer the call by the local organizers to everyone around here to support the 2010 winter olympics and make it ‘the greatest event in the history of canada’.  what’s with all this superlative hype that smacks of some kind of supremacy?   the newscaster, in speaking of the Canadian men’s hockey team (favourites) which failed to win a medal, used the phrase ‘came home in disgrace’ as they showed film footage of the team arriving back in Canada without a soul at the airport other than family there to greet them (in contrast to other returning athletes.   the players even looked depressed and ashamed of themselves.  what is going on here?


there is a lot rolled up into the Olympic games, politics in particular and if one is amongst the fanatics, you are either with them or against them.  as Seneca said about the Roman gladiator spectacles,


 “Either you will be corrupted by the multitude, or, if you show disgust, be hated by them.  So stay away”


those interested in the ethics of sports debate whether the Nietzschean ethic where to win is everything, is appropriate, or whether the ethic should be oriented to humanistic goals; i.e. to appreciating the journey rather than the destination.   the ‘citius, altius, fortius’ motto of the Olympic games (faster, higher, stronger) seems to leave the spirit of friendship, unity and fair play hanging in the balance.  apparently, Canadian hockey fans were not much interested in ‘the journey’ part of it.


i guess my complaint is the ‘herd mentality’.  shhh, … did i say that too loud?  somehow, i seem to come out on the side of Hunter S. Thompson who bemoans how we tend to be ‘celebrity-worshipping flag-suckers’. 


anyhow, instead of looking at the ethics of the participants, we can look at the ethics of the crowd.  it was recognized a long time ago that the crowd is always a winner, being almost always able to associate with the winners rather than the losers.  this is made all the more easy if one’s nation sends a large contingent of athletes to the games. 


next there is this ‘malleability’ that wells up in the crowds attending sports spectacles, which recalls what those versed in the ‘mysteries of magic’ have had to say;

“Madmen and idiots are more sensitive to magnetism than people of sound minds; it should be easy to understand the reason of that: very little is required to turn completely the head of a drunken man, and one more easily acquires a disease when all the organs are predisposed to submit to its impressions, and manifest its disorders.

Fluidic maladies have their fatal crises. Every abnormal tension of the nervous apparatus ends in the contrary tension, according to the necessary laws of equilibrium. An exaggerated love changes to aversion, and every exalted hate comes very near to love; the reaction happens suddenly with the flame and violence of the thunderbolt. Ignorance then laments it or exclaims against it; science resigns itself, and remains silent.”

the ‘fascism of crowds’ subject has also been explored by Thomas Mann in Mario and the Magician (1929); i.e. we know that if we give ourselves up to the ecstasy of exalting something then the ecstasy can build to a powerful intensity that we become one with (and thus inherit the power of the multitude).  we are kind of like a ‘superconductive’ fluid at this point;


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


thus, in the crowd dynamic at the sports spectacle we can use the exaltation of one of our guys/gals winning to co-create a powerful field of ecstasy in the super-conductive one-ness of which we can bask, … spicing up our normally more mundane daily experience.  of course by giving ourselves up in this way, we become enormously malleable to whomever wants to manipulate us while we are in this mode, hence Mario and the Magician as Thomas Mann’s warning of rising fascism in Europe. 


having participated in crowds attending sports spectacles, i have tasted the pleasures too and make no declaration herein of any commitment to abstinence.  my problem is with associating the ‘nationalist’ overprint wherein it becomes important for ‘our nation’ to vanquish ‘your nation’.   i have no desire to bask in an ecstasy of national supremacist origins.


ok, back to ‘the da vinci code’ and its fabulous popularity.   there is a certain ‘darkness’ in it as might emerge when a woman watching a video of several men taking turns having sex with the same girl comes to the realization that it is she who is the girl in the video, that she has been date-raped and never knew what had gone on.  she is, of course, not responsible for anything that happened.


there is a certain sense of liberation from responsibility for what you have done and will do in your life if the society you live in is a deliberate sham, a giant con that secret societies which have infiltrated our authoritative structures have conspired to keep you captive in and do with you what they will. 


a critic of ‘the da vinci code’ writes;


However idiotic Brown’s attempts to popularize a ‘new’ version of history might be, his book and the popular response to it is a useful gauge for the present state of our culture. With all the focus on the ‘conspiracy’ of the suppressing of the ‘sacred feminine’ by the Catholic Church, etc., many readers have no doubt missed what is perhaps the most fundamental passage of the whole book. It occurs when Teabing (the royal historian) jubilantly declares, “Now, however, we are entering the Age of Aquarius—the water bearer—whose ideals claim that man will learn the truth and be able to think for himself. The ideological shift is enormous, and it is occurring right now.”

Just to make sure that nothing has been misunderstood, the idea was put even more clearly by Brown in a Washington Post Interview: “In the past, knowledge was something that was handed down by authority figures; now we seek and discover for ourselves.” And that, sadly, is an accurate depiction of the predominant mindset of the Western World. It is the core belief that lies behind books like The da vinci code, and it is what makes them so attractive. There is no truth. We are all gods.”  --- john jalsevac http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/050114a.html


dan brown says that ‘history was written by the winners’ so that ‘where we are coming from’ starts to get very blurry when one begins to think that we are not in touch with what is REALLY happening to us, that we live within a kind of ‘theatre’ wherein the true reality is that enjoyed by the secret stage managers and producers and what we are participating in is just a ‘set up’ wherein we are being ‘used’ by those ‘in-the-know’. (dan brown’s general theme is on secret organizations, the illuminati, the masons, layers of US intelligence units etc.).


apart from the fundamentalist religious sector, the general public seems to have been ‘losing faith’ in both religion (that asks you to believe in order to understand) and science (that asks you to understand in order to believe).  what many seem to miss, apparently dan brown as well, is that both religion and science are forms of ‘idealism’ so it is not just a question of ‘which will win’ or whether they will meld, as brown seems to imply in an interview;


 Q: Your novel raises the question of whether technology will save us or destroy us. Which do you believe?

A: I believe science will save us...although I tend to be an optimist. Obviously, science has wonderful potential to control disease, create new fuel supplies, engineer efficient food sources, and even allow us to migrate to new worlds. The problem, of course, is that every technology is a double-edged sword. The rocket engine that carries the space shuttle can also carry warheads. The medical breakthroughs that can eradicate disease--genetic research, for example-if misused, can bring about the end of the human race. The question is not whether or not science will expand to meet man's growing needs, but whether man's philosophy will mature fast enough that we can truly comprehend our new power and the responsibility that comes with it.


Q: The characters in Angels & Demons battle with some tough moral issues... primarily regarding the battle between science or religion? Which do you think will ultimately win the war?

A: That's a difficult question because in many ways I see science and religion as the same thing. Both are manifestations of man's quest to understand the divine. Religion savors the questions while science savors the quest for answers. Science and religion seem to be two different languages attempting to tell the same story, and yet the battle between them has been raging for centuries and continues today. The war in our schools over whether to teach Creationism or Darwinism is a perfect example. We live in an exciting era, though, because for the first time in human history, the line between science and religion is starting to blur. Particle physicists exploring the subatomic level are suddenly witnessing an interconnectivity of all things and having religious experiences...Buddhist monks are reading physics books and learning about experiments that confirm what they have believed in their hearts for centuries and have been unable to quantify.


what is being missed here is that ‘idealism’ is founded on ‘the absolute existence of things’ and ‘what things do’.  western religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) is based on a ‘causal model’ (a ‘what things do’ view of reality) where God is the ultimate causal agent.  western science has also been based on a ‘causal model’ (a ‘what things do’ view of reality) and both suggest models of individual behaviour, the former guided by absolute laws recorded in sacred scriptures and interpreted by priests, and the latter guided by absolute laws developed by the high priests of science which predict the results of behaviours.  the social dynamics management in both of these realms orients to the construction of a desired future in terms of ‘how things behave’.  


there is nothing in a model of ‘how things behave’ that speaks to the quality of the hostspace and dan brown misses the point, in his response to the first question where he speaks about maturing philosophy, and our being able to use science ‘in a good way’ and also ‘in a bad way’, … that our problem lies in our ignoring the fact that we are included in shared living space, and that when we speak about ‘what things do’, we should instead be talking about how we are transforming the spatial-relational dynamic we are included in (i.e. our shared living space dynamic).


so western religion and western science and blends thereof are not the only horses in the race.  the other ‘candidates’ waiting in the sidelines are eastern and aboriginal naturalism wherein one is grounded by sustaining harmony with the hostspace dynamic that one is included in.  sustaining harmony subsumes the idealism whereby ‘good’ seeks to eliminate ‘evil’.and where we can get polarized idealists, each intent on eliminating the other without concern for the space both are included in,, … a space that is sacred and ‘all there is’ to the naturalist. 


in the ‘magical’ camp of the ancient naturalists, we have the notion that ‘universal matter is equilibrium seeking’, which has much in common with modern physics (not yet assimilated into the western scientific mindset); 


Regularity and variety in movement result from the different combinations of equilibrium.


A point equilibrated on all sides remains at rest, for the very reason that it is endowed with motion.


Fluid consists of rapidly moving matter, always stirred by the variation of the balancing forces.


A solid is the same matter in slow movement, or at apparent rest because it is more or less solidly balanced.


this notion of ‘balancing’ is in the yin/yang of the east, in the native traditions of the four directions of the medicine wheel and represents an alternative to the idealism of western religion and western science.  it is implicit in relativity and quantum theory (the basic stuff that matter is made of is ‘resonance’ in quantum wave dynamics).   in the naturalist view, there is no ultimate God that is causing things to happen.  Instead, God is immanent in the evolving space of the continuing present we refer to as Nature or ‘the Tao, so that john jalsevac could be correct in his assumption as to the reason for the popularity of the da vinci code; i.e. a rejection of our own history as we begin to see how contrived it is.  rather than this rejection implying a ‘relativism’ where ‘anything goes’ as jalsevac assumes, it could signal a return to ‘balancing’ as the ‘beyond good and evil’ behavioural ethic. 


the intensity of the advocates of the Olympic games, on the other hand, seems to connote an attempt to preserve and revitalize idealism in the form of a perfectionism outside of war (e.g. the citius, altius, fortius motto of the games).  for those of us who are fans of the aesthetics and synergy of ‘balancing’ that goes on in team sports such as hockey, there was no surprise in seeing the Canadian men’s team falter and come back without a medal since they were a team of stars thrown together at the last minute.  the spectacular US gold medal winning hockey team in the 1980 Olympics (defeating a powerhouse Russian team) was spectacular because it came out of the opposite end of the spectrum, from pure teamwork and spirited play (they had ‘become family’ during the year-and-a-half that Herb Brooks had nurtured them and the “four months playing a grinding schedule of exhibition games across Europe and North America” prior to the Olympics.


what we seem to be seeing then, is a social shift away from idealism towards an acceptance of ‘relativity’, as evidenced by the popularity of the da vinci code, (the point need not be that the Catholic church and the Opus Dei are ‘the bad guys’, … the point could be more general, that history is largely fiction) at the same time as a regrouping of idealism in the form of nationalism and athletic perfectionism wherein supremacy reigns; i.e. where the absolute attainment of the destination eclipses the harmonious aesthetics of the journey, …. in the collective mind of the crowd, at least.





Weblog: 2’nd Entry for February 26, 2006?


my last entry perhaps should have been dated ‘February 25th’ since it is definitely the 26th today and this is my first weblog entry for the day.  since i often write after midnight, it is difficult to keep track of the dates relative to statements like ‘i woke up this morning’.


today has brought insights from reflecting on, and responding to Michel Bauwen’s comments on his p2p foundation blog ( blog.p2pfoundation.com ).   what i am realizing is that many of the concepts we take for granted, like ‘memory’ (in the sense of an internal informational archive), are intellectual contrivances invented to make our visual perception based understanding of reality ‘come out right’.   in my blog of February 24th (below), i wrote about the difference between two ‘views’ of reality, one a visual perception based ‘worldVIEW’ and the other a felt experience based ‘worldSENSE’ (sense of inclusion in a spatial-relational flow that transforms in the continuing present; i.e. ‘the Tao’).   in my response to michel, i wrote of how the scientific thinker and the judge must extract their understanding of the woman getting of the ferry and embracing her lover FROM THE VISUAL RECORD of these goings on.  hence we have to explain the woman’s behaviour as if she is pushing off from the center of herself driven by her inner purpose.  what we cannot explain in terms of biophysics and biochemistry, we explain in terms of her ‘memory’ that informs her ‘inner purpose’.


‘memory’ (in the sense of an internal information archive) is thus an intellectual contrivance to make this reductionist view ‘hang together’ and ensure that within the visual record, there is a way to explain EVERYTHING in terms of ‘what things do’.


if the world is instead understood to be space that is evolving in the continuing present, there is no need to pack ‘memories of the past’ into some imaginary archive in the individual (if you have read books on research into memory such as Daniel Schacter’s Searching for Memory, you will see how elusive the location of the purported archive actually is).   there is no ‘temporal past’ when we understand the world in terms of ‘the evolving space of the continuing present’, only a continuously metamorphing space with us being bound up in this metamorphosis.  ‘we still are who we were’ and ‘the world still is what it was’.  thus when the woman gets off the ferry and runs to, and embraces her lover, she is not driven by her inner purpose informed by her memory (as a robotic version of her might be made to do), she is experiencing the deepened and enriched space which is continually infusing her with nonlocal influences from the remote EVOLUTIONARY past (as opposed to temporal past).


if there is no ‘temporal past’, there is no need for ‘memory’ in the context of an archive of ‘temporally past events’.  


complex systems studies have already informed us that the structure of the organization is an embodied record of acquired know-how so there are clues here as to how we might attune to the experience-deepened space in a sentient-somatic-experiencing manner, rather than intellectually (in the manner that a computer access its memory archive).


before get on that track that might lead to a re-inventing of Rupert sheldrake’s ‘morphic fields, there’s another way to look at this, that follows alan rayner’s ‘inclusionality’ discussion in terms of how the riverflow and the riverbanks mutually shape one another.


what’s that got to do with insisting that an understanding of ‘what things do’ must come from within the visual record of the things doing what they do?


when we gaze into the visual record, our analytical mind strives to ‘drill down’ ever deeper into the ever smaller detail in search of the ultimate understanding of the authoring source of the behaviour; i.e. we drill down into the woman’s organs, into her biophysics and biochemistry, we drill down into her brain and into her neural structures in search of the authoring source of ‘what she does’.   in this process we set up a logical ‘branching’ that goes from the highest order visual aspects of the system to the lowest order detail that is seen as ‘causing’ the higher order behaviour.   but what if the understanding we are looking for is not to be found there?  what if we do not ‘have the fish in the net’?  this has been called ‘the reductionist nightmare’ by ian stewart and jack cohen in The Collapse of Chaos  [this problem is also implied by Henri Poincaré in asking ‘does the earth rotate?’  to answer ‘yes’ implies the existence of absolute space relative to which it rotates.  the visual record of the behaviour of the earth obtained by an astronaut would not contain the information needed to understand the earth’s behaviour.  for than, one would have to acknowledge that the observing astronaut and the earth were bound up in a spatial-relational flow that was beyond ‘knowing’ through visually perceiving the behaviour of things within it, such as the earth’s behaviour.]  


it the uppermost element in the following graphic represents some behaviour on the part of the woman, then we can use the causal model and look back in time to identify the sequence of causal actions (e.g. biophysical, biochemical, neural) that were responsible for that visible behaviour.




what our reductionist model ignores here is the influence of the ‘contextual space’ the woman is included in.   and, consistent with the reductionist ‘cybernetic’ model of the human organism, some of these ‘causal contribution’ branches would represent ‘access to information stored in the ‘memory’ archive’, … the problem is, we haven’t been able to ‘find’ where and how memory is stored, exactly and even if large portions of the brain are destroyed, it is still possible to almost fully ‘recover one’s memory’.    nor can we explain where ‘inner-purpose’ comes from (how was it ‘programmed in’?)


but it is only this reductionist model that insists that we have to explain what is going on on the ferry dock in terms of the visual record of this dynamic (assuming that one can drill down and in to inquire into the causal sequence as deeply as we need to).   our real-life felt experience says that we are at the same time included in a continuously evolving flowspace that embodies nonlocal influence from the remote (spatial-relational) past.   this spatial ‘context’ in which we are included and ‘which we are made of’ does not show up in our reductionist drill down inquiry.  thus the ‘reductionist nightmare’ that after we get all the tools and the multi-specialist knowledge to drill down in as much detail as we like, … we will bottom out without ever uncovering an understanding of the source of the behaviour.  (we are included in, and made out of the understanding).


the following comments by cohen are relevant to this discussion on ‘worldVIEW’ versus ‘worldSENSE’;






Concluding Keynote Speech

The Human Mind as an Emergent Phenomenon:
The Complicit Coevolution of Intelligence and Extelligence

By Dr Jack Cohen


A reductionist's nightmare

Our alternative to Neo-Darwinism emphasises the way a system is shaped by the circumstances in which it operates, or in which it has come into being. This contextualism contrasts with the reductionist conventional scientific viewpoint that explains a system's function by breaking it down into its fine-grained components and showing how they fit together. Contextualism will not replace reductionism, which has been very successful in its own sphere; but there are many other spheres where a contextualist viewpoint is needed.

The reductionist's view starts with nature as a whole at the top, then you discover what nature is like by mapping into lower levels of detail. 

Consider a problem like insulin-secreting cells. If I go to someone who knows about cells secreting things, she could say :'I can tell you certain things about your particular problem, but you should also talk to some chemists as chemistry underlies all this.' I could then find I need to talk to not just one chemist, but at least three specialising in different aspects of cell secretion. Then the chemists may tell me they can only go a certain distance in explaining the basis of cell secretion because a lot of physics is also involved. That means I have to talk to four or five different physicists who understand their particular segments of the whole picture. This process multiplies into a reductionist's nightmare because you need more and more specialists the further you go into understanding something.

Explanations do not simplify on the way down into detail, although they do simplify on the way up through emergence. My particular 'nightmare' example came from addressing a relatively small, simple problem about insulin and cells. Just think how much worse it becomes when looking at bigger questions, like how the universe began. That is why Ian [Stewart] and I argue that reductionism is contrary to experience

 * * *


in geologic processes as well, as in alan rayner’s example of riverflow and river banks, there is not only the reductive branching that reveals the ‘collection’ geometry (‘where did ‘what we are looking at’ come from’?) induced by the accommodating pull of the valley (collection basin), but there is also a ‘distributive’ branching geometry (‘what shapes the space and the accommodating valleys’).   that is, we can see that incipient riverflows are carving out hunks of the highs (left) on the upper valley flanks AT THE SAME TIME as they are filling in the ocean basin and valley lows (right).  in effect, the sculpted landscape is the source of the sculpting of the landscape.






this kind of thing confounds our western-thinking (reductionist) minds.  for example, the drivers in a freeway flow and/or the pedestrians in a crowdflow dynamic, like the riverflow implied by these pictures, are the source of the CONTEXTUALIZING landscape that is shaping the REDUCTIVE branching pattern of the assertive flow.   if we want to understand a particular behaviour captured in a visual record, such as a ‘collision’, we would reductively work our way back from the collision along the abstracted time-based trajectories of the cars to find out the causal source of the collision (by ‘reversing the video-footage).   but that would only ‘work’ (be meaningful) if the landscape, which is inductively channelling the assertive behaviours of the drivers in the manner that the catchbasin inductively channels the river flow, were independent of the assertive action of the river flow WHICH IT IS NOT.  that is, plotting the trajectory of a car implies ‘absolute motion’ of the car; motion relative to a fixed frame which suggest that we can speak in terms of ‘the car moving’.  but, in fact, in the actual situation wherein a multiplicity of cars move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, the notion of an individual car authoring its own movement has no meaning.  in a crowd dynamic (as in traffic flow), the landscape that is inductively shaping the assertive behaviours is the assertive behaviours that are inductively shaping the assertive behaviours.   we tend to say that ‘we move through the traffic flow’, … but the real-life truth of the matter is that ‘we are the flow’; at the same time we are both the landscape whose form is inductively shaping the driving behaviour and we are driving behaviour that is shaping the form of the landscape.   we whitewash over this by scapegoating the individual/s who are ‘holding the smoking gun’.


there was really no good reason to propose that the woman getting of the ferry ‘has an internal  memory archive’ and that it informs her ‘inner purpose’, other than to keep the ‘idealist’ Euclidian space based reductionist ‘worldVIEW’ hanging together.  the alternative is to accept what relativity is trying to tell us; i.e. that we are included energy concentrations (fieldflowforms) within a transforming gravitational field.  this in turn agrees with the ‘naturalism’ of eastern and native american/aboriginal ‘worldSENSE’ wherein we are included in nature (i.e. included in ‘the Tao’) and therefore that those behaviours WE (the observers) see on the part of ‘things out there in front of us’ (such ‘the earth rotating’ and the woman off the ferry embracing her lover) are not explainable within the visual record we capture of this behaviour (e.g. the video showing the earth rotating), but are inductively shaped by the space that we and the objects of our visual perspective are included in, including ourselves since we inclusions in gravitational fieldflowspace.


to recap;


  1. our western worldVIEW  seeks to extract understanding from the visual record, using a reductive approach wherein we drill-down into the assumed ‘causal machinery’ of what we are looking at.  because we frame this in absolute Euclidian space, we occlude our felt-experience-based worldSENSE, the non-euclidian alternative wherein space itself (gravitational fieldflow) embodies inductive behaviour-shaping context.   without acknowledging this outside-in inductive behaviour-influencing source, we are forced to explain human behaviour fully in terms of the assertive internals of the human individual, which involves ‘drilling down and back’ into the causal sequences that we purport to be fully responsible for the individual’s visual record based behaviour.  


  1. the notions of ‘inner-purpose’ and ‘memory’ (as an internal knowledge archive) are intellectual contrivances needed to make the western visual record based worldVIEW hang together.  i say ‘contrivances’ since they are not needed unless one imposes Euclidian space-framing on our mental modeling wherein space is absolute empty and rigid and ‘populated’ by absolute independent objects whose behaviour must, in this case, emanate from the inside outward in temporal-causal fashion.


  1. human ‘self-consciousness’ implies a ‘looking-in-the-mirror’ which gives us an outside-looking-inward visual record of ourselves which, once again, forces us to contrive an explanation of our behaviour coming entirely from our interior and thus forcing a dependency on the contrivances of memory (an internal knowledge archive) and ‘inner purpose’.   as we seek explanations for our behaviour in terms of our ‘memory’ and our ‘inner purpose’ and find none (the reductionist nightmare), we may panic and propose that we have ‘forgotten memories’ due to trauma etc. and that our inner purpose may have been shanghai’d by evil forces etc.


  1. ‘self-consciousness’ is an adjective that can be generally applied to the reductionist viewpoint since it occludes our awareness and attunement with the space-based inductive context that, in nature, our assertive behaviours are seeking to sustain dynamical equilibrium with.  reductionist science therefore renders the entire collective that takes it and acts upon it literally, self-conscious, and out of tune with the space it is included in.   in other words, taking reductionism literally (it is a gross approximation based on the idealism of absolute space) is a major source of dissonance in the world.





Weblog: February 26, 2006


i woke up this morning thinking about yesterday’s ‘rant’ by general rick hillier in the more general context of the split between ‘idealism’ and ‘naturalism’,  and in this regard, the impression came into my mind that ‘science’ is the analogue of ‘self-consciousness’ or ‘ego’ at the collective level.   this is not as complicated as it may sound, in fact it falls into place very simply and easily.


i will start with this puffed up windbag hillier and his patriotic preaching while he tries to sell the expansion of Canadian armed forces to potential recruits coming from families of lesser means on the basis getting a paid education.   in an ideally ‘natural’ world brotherhood, one’s brothers would come to one’s aid in times of need, and Canadian presence in Afghanistan could be regarded in this light.  for example, if we felt ourselves to be ‘one family’ then we would come to aid of one another as the situation demanded.


the proud rhetoric of hillier depends upon a ‘splitting apart’ of what is innately a dynamical unity.   it is like the splitting in the concept of ‘charity’ wherein a minority of people use sweat shops to make huge profits and then give back a small portion, thinking of themselves as ‘superior’ (in performance) and ‘noble’ (in their benevolence). 


this ‘splitting apart’ is where the shift from ‘naturalism’ to ‘idealism’ comes, … it is where the ‘eastern way’ is reduced to the ‘western way’.


as the systems sciences put it, and with which we can find no disagreement, … whatever is the object of our inquiry; i.e. ‘the system’, it is always included within a larger ‘suprasystem’ and there is some kind of influence going in both directions, from the system inside to the suprasystem it is included in, and from the suprasystem to the included system.   in the case of our solar system, we know that this mutual influence is SIMULTANEOUS and so it is seen in general in the aboriginal and eastern way (i.e. material entities are ‘included in the flow’).   but in the western scientific manner of thinking, this interaction is SEQUENTIAL (temporal) and we refer to it in such terms as ‘feedback’ and ‘adaptation’.


ackoff noted that ‘systems emerge’ which are not initially name-labelled but are included within the undifferentiated suprasystem.   what happens then, when we give them a name-label, e.g. ‘university’ and inquire into their internal structure and functioning?  doesn’t this ‘scientific inquiry’ of the standard analytic variety equate to ‘self-consciousness’ on a collective scale, and after those included in the ‘university’ understand, in a scientific inquiry (analytic) sense, ‘who they are’ and ‘what departmental structure or faculty’ they are in and ‘what their function is’, … is this not the point where they become ‘independent’ and start functioning in a way where their behaviour pushes off from the center of their self, driven by their ‘inner purpose’ which is now informed by their scientific understanding?


before the labelling and the scientific inquiry they were simply included within the suprasystem dynamic; i.e. the ‘community dynamic’ and doing what came naturally and spontaneously.   the point where we we name-label and analyze is the point where we are likely to shift from ‘naturalism’ to ‘idealism’ and it is the direct analogue of ‘self-consciousness’ or ‘egoism’.


we may conclude that science (analytical science which is the science of the western educated public) constitutes a collective egoism.   rather than university staff naturally and spontaneously giving their behaviours up to make whole the accommodative openings that arise in the community dynamic, they begin to push forth from their sense of being an independent self with ‘free will’ that is making a conscious choice to act from their self-center as driven forth by their ‘inner purpose’.  


but in natural systems of all types whether said to be ‘inorganic’ or ‘organic’, there is always a coming together of ‘spatial accommodating’ and ‘individual-object asserting’, … and this coming together is guided by a natural ‘resonance-seeking’ in nature as in the celestial ‘harmonies of the world’.


what happens to ‘resonance’ when this scientific self-consciousness descends upon human collectives?  is it not the same thing as when we as individuals become self-conscious?... i.e. we fail to have the natural calm and cool to intuit the ‘openings’ that await us, and we start coming instead from our internal self-center and awkwardly bumping into things; i.e. fomenting dissonance.  we fall out of phase-lock with the dynamics of the suprasystem we are included in.


biophysicist friedrich cramer describes this analogy via a fictional narrative in the german literature in his book Order and Chaos, in the chapter The World is Harmonic.


science is an undertaking of the social collective, and scientific inquiry is like looking at ourselves in the mirror, … the sort of crow’s eye glance that breaks us out of our own natural spontaneity.


henceforth, the spontaneous harmony dissolves and we begin to come from the center of ourselves, from notional ‘inner purpose’ which avoids having to attune to the accommodating quality of the suprasystem space we are included in.   now we bump into things and provoke dissonance which alienates ourselves from ourselves.


this is not an argument for ‘doing away with science’,… only for not becoming bedazzled by it to the point we lose our natural spontaneity.


hillier’s idealist rant is another reminder that we must restore the primacy of ‘naturalism-over-idealism’ and avoid the dissonance-inducing trap of ‘idealism-over-naturalism’.





Weblog: February 25, 2006


today’s news featured a rant by General Rick Hillier, Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, which promoted a new role for Canada’s armed forces and which sought to justify the current mission in Kandahar.   it was another of those ‘make it happen’, ‘construct a better tomorrow’ rants that western thinking has come to be known by.  It prompted me to write a letter to the editor. 


every time i think about our western self-delusion in our manner of representing reality, the ‘systems’ underpinnings of what we are doing wrong become more apparent to me.  as i mentioned yesterday, russell ackoff made the point that for any system that you wanted to talk about, to describe, explain, analyze, model, … it sits within a suprasystem and is subject to the influence of that suprasystem just as the suprasystem is subject to the influence of the system that nests inclusionally within it.    i asked ackoff if the mutual influence was ‘simultaneous’ or ‘sequential’ and he demurred on any response, but he did say it was a good question that deserved an answer.   i knew that the answer ‘simultaneous’ led one into relativity and to non-euclidian representation of reality in terms of a space-time continuum or ‘the evolving space of the continuing present’ if one prefers, … and i knew that the answer ‘sequential’ kept one in the split-apart absolute space and absolute time world of our existing paradigm where things that were inside WERE SEEN TO interact with the outside world via feedback and adaptation.   


all hell would break lose if he had answered ‘simultaneous’, but ‘sequential’ is the safe answer with respect to not stirring up a hornets nest in our existing community which has become so accustomed to thinking in split-apart terms reconciled ‘over time’ by feedback and adaptation.   but just imagine when you are driving in a traffic flow.  if you are ‘the system’ and ‘traffic flow you are in’ is the suprasystem, is the mutual influence between you and the flow ‘simultaneous’ or ‘sequential’?   if you are INCLUDED in the flow then the answer is ‘simultaneous’ since one has to assume a mutually exclusive split between ‘you’ and the ‘traffic flow’ in order to endow both ‘you’ and ‘the flow you are in’ with distinct dynamic authorship rights.  that is, the mutual influence that a hurricane and the atmospheric flow it is included in is SIMULTANEOUS since both the system of the hurricane and the suprasystem (atmospheric space flow) that it is included in are a dynamical one-ness that our visual perception and subjective focus simply splits apart (psychologically) but which remain a dynamical one-ness in the reality of nature 


‘flow’ is not a ‘substance’ but pure immaterial movement in terms of spatial-relationship (as in wave dynamics).   since we are used to thinking in terms of material objects, we tend to choose ‘sequential’ and ‘feedback’ and ‘adaptation’ since the material constituents we see as discrete and independent.   but in the case of the traffic flow, all of the participants are referring their movements to spatial relational patterns and therefore to purely immaterial motion (everyone is moving under one another’simultaneous mutual influence).  it is not that ‘things are moving’, it is rather that space is transforming (spatial-relationally).





Weblog: February 24, 2006


today is a bright sunny day and right now, as i sit at my computer desk, i can look out through the glass sliding doors, over the deck and through a clearing in the forest i can see the brilliant white of a b.c. ferry as it glides up the swanson channel on the way to otter bay.  i could see the same imagery on a video recording but something would be missing --- the understanding that i could go out my front door down the winding road to otter bay and be there just as the ferry arrived to meet and embrace an old friend.


i am included in what i see and my awareness of inclusion comes through my ‘feeling’ experience.   it is  not that ‘seeing is believing’, it is that ‘feeling is believing’.  we are bound up in a living flow and ‘feeling’ is what informs us of that.   the man engulfed in the ocean wave or being swept out to see in a swift ebb tide can close his eyes and still be aware of his being included in the flow.


the man who stands or sits still and glares at the world ‘out there’, complaining about all the nasty goings on and the ugliness may convince himself that the ‘world is out there’, finding little difference between the latest television news report and what he sees with his own eyes.  


how did we ever come to put so much credence in ‘what we see’?


having spent some years in studying and applying ‘science’, i would have to accuse, at least in part, ‘science’ form ‘dumbing us down’ by having us build a world view based on ‘believing what we see’.


that is, science has us build mental models of ‘reality’ based on ‘what things do’ and informs us of the laws and implications of ‘what things do’ and we confirm this by visual perception.   ‘feeling’ as in ‘feeling included in the spatial flow or ‘evolutionary dynamic’’ is not required to make these scientific models of reality.   they exist regardless of whether or not ‘we are in them’.  that’s why scientific views are termed ‘objective’ and ‘observer-excluding’.  they purport to represent a world that exists the same for all, without dependency on any ‘observer subjectivity’.


and what could be MORE SUBJECTIVE than ‘feeling’?  each of us is uniquely, situationally included in the world dynamic (evolutionary dynamic) and what value, science seems to have asked,  is there in a world view that is unique and subjective?  we need a worldview that is the same for all, and as it turns out, that corresponds to ‘what we see’ with the ‘feeling’ taken out of it.


nevertheless, the importance of the subjective worldview of our unique situational inclusion in the evolutionary flow persists, because it is this wordview or more accurately ‘worldsense’, that inspires or induces us to do what we do.   the prince and the pauper may ‘see’ the same city as they approach it in their travels, but what the city inspires in them, respectively, is very different commensurate with their feelings of inclusion.  apparently, the city is more than the objects that make it up.  the city is also ‘a space’ that the visitor will be included in and that space has an ‘accommodating’ quality to it that discriminates between the prince and the pauper, inspiring very different asserting behaviour from them.


this is not only true for humans, but for bears, rabbits and even the participating molecules in crystal-forming dynamics.   that is, individual asserting and spatial accommodating are ‘complex conjugates’, a dynamical one-ness, … call it ‘relativity’ or ‘quantum entanglement’ or whatever you like; i.e. it is a greater reality that ‘what we see’.


so, you and the prince can talk about the city in a visual context and be agreed on the shape of its objects, humans included, … but not of that scientific, objective description of the city is going to inform you on ‘how it feels to be included in the cityspace dynamic’.  that is not important to science.  but it is of primary importance to us as human individuals.


the systems sciences (e.g. Russell Ackoff) had something important to say about this, but the queen science of physics ‘does not have to listen’ to commoners such as systems scientists.  ackoff noted that before we could inquire scientifically into anything, we had to extract it from ‘the mess’ (the whole continuing evolutionary dynamic).  he used the example of ‘a university’.   on what basis did we extract it?  we had the impression that it was an independent entity/organism operating in-its-own-right, which is already and over-simplification.   then we use analysis to break it down into its structural components; its departments and faculties and we inquire into how all the people and faculties and departments work and how the relate to one another and come to constitute ‘a university’.


this type of inquiry is in terms of ‘what a thing is’ and ‘what a thing does’, … but as ackoff points out, this ‘in-and-back-out-again’ inquiry doesn’t deal with the relevance of the system in the context of the suprasystem in which it is included (e.g. the local community dynamic, or even the global social dynamic).  in order to get to a full understanding, we have to firstly (since it is of over-riding importance) inquire in an ‘out-and-back-in-again’ fashion, getting to understand the suprasystem in which the system (university) is included and into which it was born, and how that coming into being transpired before we deliberately defined and labelled the concept ‘university’ (i.e. when it was just an incipient pattern of social behaviour).  only when we understand how the suprasystem accommodates the asserting system within it can we fully understand the ‘system’ per se; ‘there can be no understanding of ‘hitting’ out of the context of ‘fielding’ since these two psychological split-outs from a dynamical one-ness.


science typically considers its inquiry complete after it explains ‘what a thing is’ and ‘what it does’ and this corresponds to the prince and the pauper’s OBJECTIVE, VISUAL-PERCEPTION based view of the city; i.e. it doesn’t go so far as to inquire into how entities feel as they experience inclusion within a dynamical space.   even the behaviour of a planet is inductively shaped by its unique situational inclusion within solar system space (the gravitational field).   the outside observer’s visual view of the earth’s motion is not privy to the earth’s situational inclusion in a nonlocal dynamic that is inductively shaping its behaviour.  we, as an astronaut, could see that ‘the earth rotates’, but as poincaré observes, using this example, it is not true that ‘the earth rotates’, implying that the earth is the author of its own behaviour.  what does the earth turn relative to? the answer ‘absolute space’ is not a valid answer since space is not absolute (that is simply a mathematical convention that allows us to think in terms of independently behaving objects).  the answer is that the earth is uniquely, situationally bound up in a spatial flow, the transforming gravitational field in which material objects, rather than enjoying ‘absolute existence in their own right’, are inclusional forms wherein energy is morely highly concentrated than in the gravitational field at large.


now we have ‘two scientific views’, … the one which allows and encourages us to say ‘the earth rotates’ as if the earth authored its own behaviour (taking the absoluteness of space we have mathematically imposed for ‘reallity’) and another scientific view that says that the earth is situationally included within a spatial flow and it, itself, is a form within the flow, in the manner that the hurricane is a form within atmospheric flow-dynamic.


which one should we choose, and why?


if we ignore the REALITY that every system nests inclusionally within a suprasystem and go strictly for the scientific view in which an absolute space is populated by independent entities capable of ‘their own behaviours’ (this is our western cultural tendency) we construct a model of reality wherein the future is constructed from the immediate past.   as poincaré notes, this is a ‘temporal’ view of the world which lends itself to being expressed by differential equations (very convenient for scientists);

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

this is a reduced, visual-perception-consistent representation of reality from whence our notion of ‘progress’ comes from.  it is ‘reduced’ since it simply goes with ‘what object do’ such as ‘the earth rotates’, ignoring the fact that the behaviour of an entity is inductively shaped by its situational inclusion within suprasystem space (ignoring ‘feeling’ in the context of sensing inclusion in a transforming spatial field, a capability of all things deemed inorganic or organic).  the notion of ‘progress’ comes from objectifying the world as a continuing ‘construction’ as in a mathematical progression in terms of ‘the world’ at a ‘particular time’; i.e. world(t1), world(t2), world(t3) …etc.  at each particular time, there exists a particular object-world in the same manner that reductionist evolutionary biologists (Darwinian fundamentalists as Gould calls the self-appointed ‘biological authorities’) portrays the development of man from ape; anthropoid(t1), anthropoid(t2), anthropoid(t3) …etc.   the picture this presents is one in which ‘the object-entity evolves’, a view that occludes the ‘full house’ view in terms of ‘coevolution’ of multiple entities included within a common suprasystem, as in the case of our second scientific view where entities are inclusional forms within an evolving fieldspace.


do i  believe in the importance of my unique situational inclusion in a common hostspace flow?


that’s a trivial question, of course i do, it is what over-ridingly shapes my life.


here’s a better question.


do i believe that it makes sense to exclude consideration of the individual’s unique situational inclusion in a common hostspace flow, … in designing schemes to manage and govern the social dynamic; i.e. reducing the worldsense to a visual worldview in terms of independent entities that author their own behaviours, as in ‘the earth rotates’?


our current culture says ‘yes’, that is the normal way to think about things and to manage them.


i say ‘no’, that it is an insane thing to do, …. which makes my view ‘abnormal’, … though as Giordano Bruno said (just before they burned him at the stake in 1600 for the same sort of ‘heresy’), … ‘the majority has no monopoly on the truth’. 


as i approach the city as a pauper, side-by-side with a prince, we are bound to agree on the nature of the objects that constitute and populate the city, but none of this will speak to the different manner in which the cityspace dynamic will accommodate us, as we each seek to actualize our assertive potentials.


the government of the city, managing on the basis of ‘what things do’, as in ‘the earth rotates’ and giving short shrift to how the suprasystem differently accommodates the asserting of individuals that are uniquely situationally included within it, … may be more focused on a ‘keep the streets safe’ campaign, than improving the accommodative quality of the cityspace (suprasystem space) relative to the actualizing of assertive potentials of the included participants.


the scientific view of the world in the visual perception terms of ‘what things do’ encourages us to believe that we can ‘construct a better future’ and that is what the reductionist governors are going to propose for their city.  by the same token, if there is a ‘wobble’ in ‘the earth’s rotation’ then the challenge is to operate on the earth and get it to correct its behaviour, rather than to accept that the behaviour of any entity is inductively shaped by nonlocal influence from the remote past, and that to conceive of the behaviour of an entity as pushing out from the center of its self driven by its inner purpose, is an illusory over-simplification that effectively detaches the entity from its inclusion in the common suprasystem flowspace in the psychological reality of the observer using this simplistic worldview, but not in the reality of our inclusional experiencing of nature.


 * * *


maybe that ferry is bringing someone to island who cannot be fully described by entity-centric forward-constructing analytics, … maybe she will bring nonlocal influence from the remote past to inductively shape behaviour in the present, … will bring tears to the eyes of her lover waiting for her on the otter bay dock as the long disunited lovers rediscover their loving togetherness.


of course, we can understand this solely, as science asks, in the forward-constructive terms of ‘what things do’; the ferry comes in, they move towards each other with open arms, they embrace, tears run down their cheeks, he picks up her bags and they walk up to where his car is parked.   there is no need to incorporate the influence of the suprasystem space-flow in which this observed system is included with its nonlocal influence from the remote past.  this picture speaks for itself.  it is the primary reality according to science, … ‘seeing is believing’, is it not?


anyone for a ‘worldsense’ that will subsume/transcend our ‘worldview’ by comprehending our felt experience of inclusion in the commonspace of evolutionary flow,… felt experience that keeps us in touch with inductive behaviour-shaping nonlocal influences from the remote past?, … that gives an understanding of our behaviour and why ‘the earth rotates’ that is far deeper than the entity-centric local notion that our behaviour pushes off from the center of our self driven by our ‘inner purpose’.





Weblog: February 23, 2006



yesterday, after a brief conversation with one of the Islands Trust Trustees, i wrote an open letter to the trust on how i see the challenges of their accomplishing their mandate.  it exposes (or tries to) how our ‘scientific viewpoint’, which is ‘idealist’ comes up short and how we have developed smoke screens that allow us to avoid conceding this reality (i.e. scientific viewpoints are commonly represented in the euclidian space terms of ‘what things do’ which is inadequate when behaviours of groups of things are shaped by the space-dynamic in which they are included; i.e. the group behaviour is outside-inward induced rather than inside-outward constructed.  in the former case, the remote past and the nonlocal influence the present while in the latter case the future is the product of the immediate past).


now, that last sentence may sound complicated but it is easily accessible to our understanding of our experience.  for example, we normally think in terms of constructing the desired future.  this is ‘scientific thinking’ or ‘causality’ or ‘determinism’ etc. as where a hockey team trains for going to the Olympics and capturing a gold medal.   things don’t always happen the way we want them to but we take responsibility for what does or does not happen.   all the way along we think in the terms that we are constructing the future from the immediate past.


but all the while we are doing this, we are included in a common space and subject, through that common space, to nonlocal influences from the remote past.  for example, tensions have slowly been building between the Indian and Burmese plates and this triggers and earthquake and this in turn triggers a tsunami and somewhere in Thailand, while we are in the midst of constructing a desired future; e.g. by building a restaurant, we are inundated by the tsunami.   this is an example of the remote past and the nonlocal influencing ‘our present’.   all things are included in a ‘suprasystem’, a ‘hostspace’ which exposes the ‘inhabitants’ to what went on some time ago somewhere else; e.g. the pollution your grandfather put into the atmosphere in ‘the old country’ can be influencing your present in ‘the new world’ (the Americas).  systems scientists point out that we normally only consider ‘what systems do’ (‘what things do’) but every system nest inclusionally within a suprasystem and that suprasystem allows for the remote past and the nonlocal to influence the system’s ‘present’.   the system does not operate in a vacuum, but that is the way we tend to think about things.  for example, if someone asks you about your present functioning, chances are you will talk about yourself and what you are working on, as if your behaviour is pushing out of the center of your self, driven by your ‘inner purpose’.  you will likely fail to mention that you are included in a space that is exposing you to nonlocal influences from the remote past, like the second hand cigarette smoke from the bar across town or nitric oxides from the pulp mill across the continent.


that’s what i wanted to share with the islands trust.  they are in ‘construct the desired future’ mode but all the while, they are exposed to the nonlocal influences from the remote past.   there can be no assessment of their hitting out of the context of the ‘fielding’ they are hitting into.. 





Weblog: February 22, 2006


last night on CBC’s The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos there was a discussion on how politics associated with the Olympic Games,  showing film clips going back to Hitler’s 1936 games intended to showcase Aryan supremacy which backfired when Jessie Owens (black) won four gold medals.


an american commentator pointed out that the feeling about international sports competition in the US is now that of the ‘established Empire’, that it ‘has been there, done that’ and the interest, rather than being national-political, is more empathy and support for individual Americans realizing their dreams of winning.   the commentator suggested that the growth of celebrity worship in the US might shed light on this emphasis on outstanding individuals without any great excitement over team and national achievements.


canadian criticism of the men’s hockey team, which ‘was supposed to win the gold’ and came away without a medal also suggested that people projected the power of the team on the basis of the number of celebrities on it, and took the actual ‘teamwork’ for granted.


there can be no assessment of  hitting out of the context of fielding; the team must develop a spatial dynamic that accommodates its own asserting..





Weblog: February 15, 2006


still more talk about the ‘Mohammed cartoons’, and whether they should have been re-published or not.  one circulating email asks why muslims were not outraged by the rise of violent acts by muslim fundamentalists but were by cartoons.  if one starts from the buddhist adage, ‘there is no path to harmony, harmony is the path’, … then there would be no question but NOT to republish the cartoons since it obviously ‘offends’ many muslims.   but not being buddhists, (being ‘western’), rather than putting our behaviour in the service of sustaining balance and harmony, we insist on rationally thinking things through and deciding ‘what is the right thing to do’.   this is ‘unnatural’ in the sense that the dynamics of nature do not proceed like this.   when we are in a crowd dynamic, we DO put our behaviour in the service of sustaining a harmonious flow, … we DO NOT work it all out and decide what behaviour is right.   not usually, but it is a cultural thing.  the crowds in some cities all wait for the ‘walk’ light and stop for the ‘don’t walk light’; i.e. they prefer to be ‘regulated’. 


so, we have this need to ‘manage’ the social dynamic and therefore we have to have some principles or some basic model on which to base our management.   in the west, we tend to use the ‘rational’ model.  the assumption is that ‘everyone is rational’ which is a very poor assumption.   classical economic theory was based on the notion of ‘the rational investor’ which meant that the investor would respond to each piece of good or bad news about the company he was investing in as the news became available.   but what modern economists have found is that people have a ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ emotional threshold.  if they hear two pieces of bad news about the company they have invested in over a period of six months, they won’t sell, but if they hear three pieces of bad news in six months, then they will say, … and similarly with respect to good news and buying.   the main point here is that people have two properties that lead to NONLINEARITY in the system; ‘memory’ and ‘emotional threshold’; i.e. people are not logical circuitry; i.e. they are NOT RATIONAL.  


those who would re-publish the cartoons don’t feel as if muslims who get angry when they are published ‘are rational’, … but they believe that ‘they themselves are rational’ and that rational people are not outraged by the publication of cartoons.  they may be rational, but the assumption that social systems are rational is not a realistic assumption.   if there was an islamic empire as powerful as the US, with nuclear weapons and the power to keep other nations ‘in check’, muslims might be less angered by cartoons about them so long as their ‘position of power’ was not threatened., but if they feel themselves to be ‘the underdog’, it is as if they are steadily getting ‘bad news’ and we get that ‘memory’ and ‘emotional threshold’ effect again.


as lafontaine said, those who are most powerful are also the ‘most rational’, … ‘la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.  people who feel ‘put down’ by the more powerful are prone to this ‘nonlinear’ or ‘nonrational’ response.  it is easier to stay rational and linear if you are ‘in control’. 


we are a culture that insists on seeing and managing the world in terms of ‘what things do’, … and this means that we do not take into account the slow build towards the threshold and the explosive release of energy, … we see only the explosive release of energy.  if one lives within such nonlinear systems, putting oneself in the service of sustaining harmony and balance is a more stable and resilient approach since one can never know the whys and wherefores of ‘the build’ towards the emotional threshold.





Weblog:  February 14, 2006


the ‘Mohammed’ cartoons issue is very interesting and continues to be written and talked about. i don’t think that many people recognize the basis for the ‘split’ in views on this.  this splitting into two camps on this issue or that issue is ubiquitous in our westernized world.  some call it the politics of the right versus the politics of the left, but there is a deeper psychological source to it than ‘politics’ per se, and it pertains to whether one believes that reality is determined by ‘what things do’ (a view that ignores the role of space) or, … that there is always something going on in our busy common living space and the behaviour of things can only be relative to the ongoing dynamics of the space that the ‘doers’ are situationally included in. .  


if we believe that the ‘declaration of independence’ of a nation makes sense (in an evidently interdependent global community space) then we implicitly believe the world is what we make it, as a group of independent assertive achievers.  but this ignores the accommodating role of the space we inhabit.  if the space become uninhabitable how can we continue to assertively achieve?


can we REALLY define a nation and its ‘assertive achievements’ in-its-own-right, out of the context of the global hostspace it is included in?   this is the same sort of question as ‘can you REALLY define the health of a human individual in-its-own-right, out of the context of the global hostspace it is included in?  are there not continuously ongoing processes of exchange amongst multiple interdependent participants?


the same question crops up in communications. can we really declare the content of our speech ‘independent’?  does it ‘speak for itself’ as in ‘the sound of one hand clapping’.  in the wake of WWII when the realization was fresh in mind as to how political rhetoric could incite damange, Sartre wrote ‘la responsibilité de l’écrivain’ to warn about how what we utter, once its out, initiates a process of transformation in the social dynamic.   ivan illich wrote about how ‘silence is a commons’ and dennis gabor wrote about how communications is really an interference phenomena rather than a back and forth dialogue.


our mistake is to ignore the role of space (the female) and to go solely with (the male) ‘what things do’ (e.g. ‘what words do’).  but the fact is that our actions transform the hostspace dynamic we are included in and so do our utterances.   we don’t have to give up satire, we can satirize ourselves rather than satirizing other cultures en masse and when we make fun of ourselves, we laugh well.   but making fun of ourselves is not an argument in support of making fun of another culture/religion.  there was already an inter-cultural mischievousness embedded in the muhammed cartoons.


ok, it was valentines day today and i haven’t written anything ‘sweet’ (one has to go back in my archives to 1998 to find something that approximates ‘sweet’ (or sexy) valentines day writing; e.g. ‘the polarities of resonance’, .   i did go out for a game of pool in the pub and while there, a well dressed man and woman came in by taxi from the ferry, … it seemed that he had brought her to the island getaway as a valentines day present, … but in the only ‘nightspot’ on the island, there was just two guys playing pool, a barmaid and a couple of kitchen workers lingering over a beer or two.    does the ‘merriment of the party-goers’ exist in-its-own-right even out of the context of the party?