Modern Post-Aboriginal ‘Civilization’: The People of the Machine Archetype
Part I: The flip from ‘man belongs to the land’ to ‘the land belongs to man’
Introductory Poem: The White Man’s Re-awakening
The globally dominating ‘way of doing things’, the self-imposing of land-ownership-based sovereigntism on the entire living space of the earth, the self-imposed primacy of a money-based, profit-oriented ‘economy’ evidently derives from a ‘twisted way’ of understanding the world dynamic, which seems to have gotten a foothold first in Europe and proceeded from there to ‘infect’ the world, largely by force, followed by acquiescence and co-optation, as in the forced conversion of aboriginal ‘man belongs to earth’ to the ‘machine world view’ of western civilization where ‘the most powerful machinery ‘owns the earth’.
For many people living within this globally dominating belief system [aka ‘Western civilization’], the name of the ‘most powerful machine’ is God. For others [worshippers of science], it is ‘the machine that goes by the name ‘organism’’, and more particularly, the one we call ‘man’.
The ‘twist’ or ‘inversion’ in thinking that ‘defines’ this ‘post-aboriginal’ or ‘civilized’ mindset [belief system] is the inversion described by Ernst Mach in terms of the confusing of the physical for the psychical. The physical world, according to our experience and to our inquiry into the nature of physical phenomena in the ‘scientific discipline’ of inquiring into physical phenomena [aka ‘Physics’], highlighted since the turn of the twentieth century by ‘relativity’ and ‘quantum theory’, is that the physical world a continually transforming relational space adorned with visible, tangible ‘dynamic forms’. While ‘modern physics’ [Mach, Poincaré, Schroedinger] suggests that these visible ‘dynamic forms’ are ‘the tip of the iceberg’ in the same sense that the storm-cell in the flow of the atmosphere is only the local, visible, material aspect of the overall energy-based relational flow it forms within. While our ‘visual sensing’ and our ‘tactile sensing’ keys to its local, visible, tangible/material aspect and tempts us to ‘forget about’ the inherently non-local, non-visible, non-material nature of a relational energy-flow, the non-local, non-visible, non-material nature of the flow is the PRIMARY PHYSICAL REALITY. And within the primary physical reality are the local, visible continually gathering and regathering dynamic forms [as with storm-cells in the flow of the atmosphere] that are essentially ‘resonances’ within the energy-flow. Bohm calls them ‘ripples in the spatial-plenum’ and Schroedinger calls them ‘variations in the structure of [relational] space’.
The world as a primary physical reality is ‘relational’ as in ‘the gravity field’ and/or ‘the electromagnetic field’ while matter and material bodies and ‘complexes’ of matter and material bodies are resonances within these flow-fields, as with convection cells [storm-cells] in the flow of the atmosphere. These ‘local, visible, tangible’ dynamic forms are NOT ‘things-in-themselves’, they are ‘features’ within a continually transforming relational [energy-charged] flow-space, though the noun and verb architecture of our European languages lends ‘absolute being’ to nouns and imputes source of action to its ‘absolute noun-beings’ so that the real, physical source of action ‘drops out of sight-in-the-mind’ [the mind re-jumpstarts its understanding of dynamics forms in terms where they are imagined to be absolute ‘things-in-themselves’ that are the authors of their own development and behavioural dynamics.
This is the ‘twist’, … the ‘flip’, … the ‘inversion’, … the ‘confusing of idealization for physical reality’, the swapping, in the mind of post-aboriginal ‘civilizeds’, the ‘psychical’ for the ‘physical’. This is the story of the ‘machine people’ or ‘civilized people’; i.e. they/we have this practice of re-jumpstarting ‘dynamic phenomena’, NOTIONALLY, in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’, creating, in the mind, a whole logically-complete-in-itself ‘dynamic world’ that abandons the relational physical reality of our experience. In this ‘flip’, we ‘pop ourselves out of the background [as dynamic forms in the flow] into the foreground [as jump-starting sources of their own behaviour operating in a notional absolute fixed empty and infinite space/operating-theatre]. It is this idealized scenario where questions such as ‘where do these absolutely existing beings such as ourselves come from’ that the answer ‘God’ is offered; i.e. NOT the relational space permeating divine force of pantheism, but the local jumpstarting divine force of monotheism. Belief in this absolute power that ‘explains’ the notional local, single point sourcing of dynamic behaviour, of the monotheist God, is the very essence of the ‘machine world view’. ‘God’ is the foundation of the machine world view which may also be called the ‘civilized world view’ or ‘post-aboriginal world view’. The God-like power of locally jumpstarting dynamic behaviour [denying the non-local, non-visible, non-material sourcing of physical phenomena of relational space/energy flow] is something modern, ‘civilized’ people use as a general means of interpreting/explaining dynamic behaviour. It should not, therefore, be surprising that this way of understand dynamic behaviour finds its way into social structures.
The modern ‘civilized’ world is permeated with ‘machine-emulating’ social structures such as ‘sovereigntism’ based on ‘man owning the land’ (a psychological ‘flip’ from ‘man belongs to the world’ to ‘the world belongs to man’);
“ … western political thinking itself is grounded in theological concepts of “Christian nationalism.” The notion of “absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original” is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This “God died around the time of Machiavelli…. Sovereignty was … His earthly replacement.” —Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”
This now-pervasively popular ‘flip’ that, in the mind of post-aboriginal ‘civilizeds’, re-jumpstarts the sourcing of dynamic behaviour from the relational space ‘energy-flow’ to the dynamic forms that emerge within this physical space, … dynamic forms that are idealized as ‘things-in-themselves’ [imputed to have God-like ‘being’] and seen as having within them the power of sourcing their own development and behavioural dynamics [imputed to have God-like dynamics sourcing power].
This ‘machine archetype’, an idealization [psychical] used as the basis for understand ‘organization’ and/or ‘organism’ as in ‘dynamic forms’ that, in our installing of it, hijacks the relational reality of our experience [physical reality] is the hallmark of modern, globally dominating ‘civilization’.
“That which is given to all in common we call the ‘physical’; that which is directly given only to one we call the ‘psychical’. That which is given only to one can also be called the ‘ego’ [ich].” – Ernst Mach, ‘The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge’.
This imputed ‘giving only to one’; i.e. giving the sourcing of development and dynamic behaviour to one [e.g. giving only to one storm-cell or whorl in a whorl-filled flow, the sourcing of ‘its development and behaviour’ is not, according to all evidence, ‘physical reality’, it is a ‘mental model’ grounded and reinforced in noun-and-verb language wherein we construct action in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ in a notional succession of time-based ‘actions’ rather than in terms of spatial-relational dynamics [e.g. ‘Katrina is intensifying, growing larger, moving north, wreaking destruction, dissipating’].
In the dynamics of family and community, the behaviour of the ‘aboriginals’ and the ‘civilized’ does not always show up as significantly different, apart from the different ethics regarding the habitat-inhabitant relational [‘man belongs to the land’ versus ‘the land belongs to man’]. The ‘machine model’ [the understanding of the world dynamic in ‘machine’ terms] shows up most dramatically in the institutional organizing such as in sovereigntist governance, justice, and organizations created for the production of goods and services [which in aboriginal society, arise within the natural dynamics of ‘community’, in the non-mechanical form of community].
How ‘reasoning’ supports the flip from ‘man belongs to the land’ to ‘the land belongs to man’
When one starts one’s inquiry into ‘organization’ in the world dynamic using the ‘machine archetype’ for organization; e.g. where the development and behaviour of a ‘dynamic form’ is assumed to ‘jumpstart’ from the ‘dynamic-form-as-thing-in-itself’, ‘analytical inquiry’ is what is called for. That is, the inquiry operation consists of breaking the dynamic form ‘down into parts’, inquiring into the nature of the ‘parts-as-things-in-themselves’ that ‘do their own stuff’ [notional ‘local independently-existing being with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviours]. This is ‘the machine model all over again’. That is, analytical inquiry employs the ‘machine archetype’ for understanding ‘organization’ in a ‘fractal’ [self-similar] sense on multiple levels, zooming down and in as deep as one likes or zooming out as far as one likes, while the notional ‘machine’ remains out there in front of one, in the mental viewscreen, even to the point that one believes one can see ‘the universe expanding’, in denial of any acknowledgement that the observer is a dynamic form that has gathered WITHIN the continually transforming relational space, aka ‘universe’.
The ‘systems sciences’ that arose in the 1950s did so in recognition of how ‘reasoned inquiry’ was UNREALISTICALLY constrained by ‘analytical inquiry’. As Russell Ackoff [systems sciences pioneer] explains, ‘analytical inquiry’ or ‘inwards and back out again inquiry’, to be realistic, must be grounded in ‘out-and-back out again inquiry’. That is, ‘analytical inquiry’ must be grounded in ‘synthetical inquiry’. Ackoff uses the example of the relational dynamics of community and the organization we now as ‘university’ that satisfies a need within the relational dynamics of community that continually ‘breathes life into’ and continually sustains the organization we call ‘university’. If we start with our ‘machine model’ we can ‘analyze’ the university in terms of its physical structures, its departments and faculties and its dynamics processes; i.e. we can inquire into the organization as if it is a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own sourcing of development and dynamics. Ackoff’s point is that this organization gathers within the relational dynamics of community and that we must start with ‘synthetical inquiry’ which asks what function the organization serves within the relational dynamic that it is included in, that continually sucks it into being [as a resonance based feature in the relational flow].
The globally dominating ‘civilization’ or ‘machine culture’ equates ‘reasoned inquiry’ with ‘analysis’ or ‘in-and-back-out again’ inquiry which, essentially, imposes the understanding that ‘organization’ is ‘mechanical’; i.e. that ‘organization’ derives from notional ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally equipped with their own powers of ‘locally originating their own behaviours, notionally from out of their own local, internal processes’. Man himself, is understood in terms of this ‘machine archetype’, and the experience of being a dynamic form included in a continually transforming relational space [as the storm-cell is to the atmospheric flow] is ‘hijacked’ by this ‘habit’ of imposing the ‘machine archetype’ on all forms of organization including ‘oneself’. ‘Reasoning’ in the globally dominant ‘civilized society’ is chronically, habitually equated with ‘analytical inquiry’ and conjugate partnership of ‘synthetical’ and ‘analytical’ inquiry is forgotten. As a result, the ‘organization’ constituted by ‘dynamic forms’ is understood in terms of the machine archetype of organization; i.e. in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves-do’, as if they are not getting life breathed into them by the relational space in which they are serving some function or resolving some deficiency [as in Nietzsche’s post-Darwinist view of evolution].
If we use the example of ‘university’ as dynamic form of organization that the relational space of the habitat/community is continuously breathing life into [the view that comes to us from synthetic inquiry], then we can see that multiple different forms of ‘university’ can arise due to these resonance features arising in different spatial-relational situations in the relational dynamic. Now we have a ‘category’ or ‘species’ whose members have variations within the species and which are, as a category, continuing to evolve. When we apply the machine archetype and analytical inquiry to these dynamic forms, all we can do is hypothesize that their development as ‘things-in-themselves’ is driven by ‘internal components’ [components called ‘genes’] and that the variations between the members of the category/species are created by ‘errors’ during ‘reproduction’; i.e. by ‘random variation’. Inside-outward driven sourcing of development is all that analytical inquiry and the machine archetype allows [absolute fixed, empty and infinite [non-participating] space is an implicitly forced assumption in analytical inquiry and the machine archetype. Evolutionary variations amongst the members of the category, where the view is that the member’s development and behaviour is fully and solely internally driven, cannot be explained by ‘genetics’ since this notion demands that cells with the same genes will construct identical ‘things-in-themselves’. But that is not the case, cells with identical DNA can reproduce as muscle, bone or fat depending on their ‘situational inclusion’ with a fluid [relational] space. In order to be logically consistent with the ‘thing-in-itself’ model, the variations must happen inside-outwardly, so biological science says that ‘signals from the environment’ are received by the inside-outward asserting genetic agents who ‘listen to this voice from out of the blue’.
This is unmitigated ‘anthropomorphism’ based on the machine archetype model of our human selves. Why not ‘outside-inward orchestrated shaping of variants’ due to unique and different situational inclusion in a relational space? This would be consistent with ‘physical reality’ as connoted by a relational space [Mach, Poincare, Schroedinger et al]. If we watch the development of a university very closely, and we start with the notion of the university as a ‘thing-in-itself’ whose development is driven by its internal departments, faculties, physical facilities, processes, professors and students, then as it starts to develop differently from one in a neighbouring state, we can attribute this difference to the different assertive actions of the different components, and such a view ‘holds together logically’ since that can be the only source of the difference in a dynamic form of organization seen via analytical inquiry as an internal component driven thing-in-itself. The more comprehensive view, seen through synthetical inquiry, that the organization is an answer to some deficiency/need in the relational dynamic it is situationally included. Its dynamic form of organization is, in fact, a resonance between the orchestrating influence of deficiency/needs in the community and the inside-outward asserting deficiency-resolving actions. The imputing of a God-like jumpstarting of development and behaviour within the dynamic form seen as a ‘thing-in-itself’ is illusional misconception.
This ‘flip’ that puts absolutist idealization [the powerboater view of things as ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own God-like powers of jumpstarting their own development and behaviour] into an unrealistic [physically] primacy over our experience of being included in a continuously transforming relational space, goes together with the view that ‘turbulence’ is an exception to the base case of ‘stasis’.
For example, turbulence in the middle latitudes is the source of relative constancy in climatic conditions in the equatorial region and in the polar regions. Storms such as hurricanes in the middle latitudes engender for no other reason but to transport thermal energy from thermal-energy-rich equatorial regions to thermal-energy-poor polar regions. The constancy of conditions [apparent stasis] in the equatorial and polar regions are thus THE RESULT of turbulence, turbulence or ‘flow’ is primary and stability is secondary. This is the worldview of Heraclitus where he speaks of ‘the invisible backstretched connection in the harmony/resonance of a lyre, the tension between opposites derives from invisible resonances. E.g. the tension or contrast between equatorial conditions and polar conditions derive from the circulating energy-flow between the two, not vice versa. The notion of a permanent state of being is ‘idealization’ that does not reconcile with our experience of living within a relational space. The ‘web-of-relations’ between sun and clouds and atmospheric flow and lithospheric heat retention and water vapour cycling and particles from solar flares modulated by a changing earth’s magnetic field ionizing the upper atmosphere and forming clouds etc. etc. is the source of ‘resonances’ or ‘organization’ that is ‘local, visible, tangible’ and which therefore APPEARS TO REPRESENT a ‘thing-in-itself’ with ‘its own locally sourced development and behaviour’. That is, resonance-based dynamic forms lend themselves to being modeled as ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own ‘locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour. This is the machine archetype of organization [organization in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do], or in other words, the organization that is understood by way of analytical inquiry [out of the context of synthetical inquiry]. This is view of organization where we see the ‘university’ as a ‘thing-in-itself’ that is seen as being fully and solely responsible for ‘its own development and dynamic behaviour’. What is missing is the view of organization as resonances with the relational dynamic of community/habitat.
The university’s ‘stable operations’ like the stable climate conditions in equatorial regions are the ‘result’ of the turbulence in the flow of the relational space it is included in. Stasis is the result of turbulence/flow as in a persisting mound of water in a rapidly flowing stream, a standing-wave dynamic form that we see as ‘local, visible, material and APPEARS TO BE a thing-in-itself that is itself ‘developing’ and initiating its behaviour, when its real physical origins are in terms of non-local, non-visible, non-material relational space dynamics aka ‘flow’.
In sum, modern ‘civilization’ derives from a ‘belief system’ where physical reality is ‘traded out’ for a ‘mechanical reality’ based on ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’ which can purportedly be understood by reasoned inquiry that is purely ‘analytical’ [analytical inquiry PRODUCES machine archetypes of organization], out of the context of ‘synthetical inquiry’ [which acknowledges the source of the organization in terms of the relational space the dynamic form is included in, and is arising to resolve a relative deficiency, such as where the dynamic form of organization we call ‘the hurricane’ arises within the relational space to resolve [spatial-relationally] relative difference in the concentration of thermal energy.
In terms of social organization; if we constrain our reasoning to ‘analytical inquiry’, we create ‘machine-like organization’ for social structures. The physical reality of aboriginal cultures, which acknowledges the relational-spatial nature of the world dynamic and thus sees the organization-based entities of ‘man and/or community as belonging to the land’ [dynamic forms of organization being resonance structures whose sustained living is breathed into them by the relational flow they are included in, as is the view that comes when use synthetical inquiry as the grounding for analytical inquiry] differs from the post-aboriginal ‘civilized’ view of organization that is produced by ‘analytical inquiry’. Sovereigntism [the land belongs to man, the land belongs to the community] is an example of imposing analytical inquiry on organization. The creation of a ‘productive enterprise’ as a ‘thing-in-itself’ rather than productive enterprise being immanent in naturally evolved community, follows the same pattern of the exclusive use of analytical inquiry. Studies of exceptionally performing teams depart from this view, these teams allowing themselves to develop and their behaviour to be shaped by it being ‘breathed in’ by the relational dynamics they are included in [i.e. they let themselves [their ‘organization’] and their behaviours develop from the dynamics of the web of relations of customers, suppliers, support services, host community, family they are situationally included in. In other words, they let themselves live as a relational resonance within a relational space. This exceptionally performing team ‘belongs to the relational space dynamic they are included in’ rather than organizing/developing/performing as a ‘thing-in-itself’ notionally with its own locally originating powers of development and sourcing of behaviour [a God-like machine view of organization].
Of course, the collection of sovereign states and production enterprises that dominate the modern landscape are all predominantly in the God-like machine model of organization, a physical rendering that derives from illusional misconception, the flipping around and ‘confusing’ of ‘physical’ and ‘psychical’.
The ‘machine’ as the epitome of the Western mindset.
According to Mach, Poincaré, Schroedinger, Rovelli [‘relationists’] and to our experience, we live within a relational space, and energy-charged spatial-plenum, a ‘fluid-dynamical world’. According to the relational world view, the dynamic forms we see, are not ‘things-in-themselves’ as our noun-and-verb psychologically makes them over into, the dynamic forms are resonance features within the continually transforming energy-flow-space. We can think of all ‘things’; i.e. those objects that are evidently local, visible, material, as having conjugate aspects in the manner of a convection cell [e.g. tornado] in a purely relational energy-charged flow. The ‘authoring source’ of the tornado is non-local, non-visible [purely relational as in convection within a transparent fluid-flow [‘energy-flow’]. The dynamic form, THE ASPECT THAT APPEARS LOCAL, VISIBLE AND MATERIAL TO US, is that aspect of the PHYSICAL PHENOMENA that is highlighted by light-reflecting substances such as water vapour or density differences or other ‘matter’ caught up in the resonant flow-feature. The word ‘matter’ in the previous sentence refers to ‘smaller dynamic forms’ within the dynamic form and thus this description of ‘dynamic form’ which transcends the notional ‘thing-in-itself’ concept of a ‘material object’ is archetypeal or ‘fractal’ as captured by L.F. Richardson (meteorologist, developer of simulations for atmospheric dynamics);
“Big whorls have little whorls,
Which feed on their velocity;
And little whorls have lesser whorls,
And so on to viscosity.”
—L. F. Richardson
A fluid energy-flow system is purely relation and has no dependency on a material substrate. Light can reflect from energy-density contrast [as in thermal layering] giving visibility to turbulent features within relational flow. E.g. stress tensions can show up in material that seems homogeneous in the human-visibility portion of the wave spectrum, if observed in the X-ray portion of the wave spectrum. In other words, our limited visual sensing capabilities tend to present physical phenomena to us in an ‘incomplete manner’ that, for example, psychologically detaches convection cells (storm-cells in the flow of the atmosphere) from the flow which is continually authoring them or ‘continuously breathing life into them’.
Language is an invention which different cultures architected in different ways. As Sapir and Whorf [and Wittgenstein, Poincaré and Nietzsche] point out, European languages are architected to impute ‘absolute being’ to ‘dynamic forms’ and to attribute authorship of behaviour and development to dynamic forms now conceived as ‘things-in-themselves’. This is the fallacious foundation of Darwinism, as Nietzsche points out in his ‘anti-Darwin’ writings. The biological sciences and Darwinism synthetically split apart the ‘development of a thing-in-itself’ and ‘the dynamic behaviour of a thing-in-itself’, in the same manner that language does it for storm cells. For example, we speak of the whorl in the flow developing into a ‘hurricane’, as if ‘hurricane’ is a thing in itself and when it reaches this ‘status’, we talk about the hurricane as a self-standing thing-in-itself with ‘its own behaviour’ which is now ‘moving northwest towards New Orleans and, as if it were the source of its own behaviour, ‘wreaking destruction on New Orleans’.
But the ‘physical reality’ is not changed by these words and grammar and the convection cell [resonance feature] continues to be authored by the relational flow space it is included in, which continuously breathes life into it, or not [i.e. when thermal equilibrium is approached, since it was thermal disequilibrium which sourced the cell, the breathing of life into the cell by the ‘all’ of the flow declines and what we ‘see’ is the degeneration and dissipation of the cell]. The physical reality is ‘the purely relational energy flow’, the ‘holodynamic’, the ‘all’ that we are ‘one with’ while the ‘dynamic form/s’ that we psychologically, with the help of our European noun-and-verb language make over into ‘things-in-themselves’ or ‘local, visible, material entities’ [‘schaumkommen’ or ‘appearances’ in Schroedinger’s, Mach’s, Bohm’s terms] IF WE TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY/LITERALLY are ‘illusional misconception’ [Vajrayana Buddhism].
The global populace is split on the question of whether the pseudo-reality rendered by language in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’ can be safely assumed to reconcile with our physical experience of situational inclusion in the continuously transforming world [not just visible observations] or accepted as a synthetic formulation of some utility that should not be ‘confused for physical reality’. This Poincaré describes as the split between ‘realists’ who accept the ‘what-things-in-themselves-do’ as ‘physical reality’ versus the ‘pragmatic idealists’ who consider physical reality to be a more comprehensive reality [e.g. ‘the relational space flow’] that lies beneath the incomplete visibly observed aspect wherein the resonant features only are visible to us, which we then reduce to ‘things-in-themselves’, notionally authoring their own development as recurring forms with such notional devices as ‘reproduction with random chance variations’ [Darwinism] and authoring their own dynamic behaviour with such notional devices as internal knowledge, intellection, purpose and instinct; i.e. with whatever is needed to give logical consistency to the notion that the dynamic form IS a ‘thing-in-itself’ with ‘its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour’.
To try to summarize this commentary in as few words as possible; … ‘organization’ as in ‘local, visible, tangible dynamic forms [e.g. organisms such as humans] in the physical reality of relational space are ‘resonant energy-flow features’. Reasoned inquiry into the origin and nature of these forms, if it is ‘analytical’ starts from the ‘machine archetype’ assumption that imputes dynamic forms of organization to be ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally equipped with their own God-like powers of locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour-sourcing. This is all that ‘analytical inquiry’ can come up with. An entire internally logically consistent mental modeling [psychical] scheme can be developed by re-rendering the world dynamics of our experience in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. This ‘flip’ in the grounding of our understanding, from ‘the physical’ to ‘the psychical’ IS is the demarcation between ‘aboriginal’ and ‘post-aboriginal’, aka ‘civilized’, society. In physical reality, dynamic forms of organization derive from the physical relational dynamics they are situationally included in; i.e. the relational dynamics of habitat continually infuse or breathe life into organization such as ‘community’ and the relational dynamics of community-in-habitat continually infuse or breathe life into organization such as ‘the university’. [The continuing coniunctio of ‘deficiency/demand’ and ‘nurturance/supply’ IS ‘community’; i.e. the community IS the economy; a social dynamic that ‘splits apart’ ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ desecrates ‘community’].
If reasoned inquiry into these organizational forms is ‘analytical’, the answers to this type of inquiry can only emerge in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. Synthetical inquiry is required in order to understand dynamic forms of organization in terms of resonance-based features within a relational space.
Modern, ‘post-aboriginal’ ‘civilization’ derives from a ‘belief system’ in which ‘reasoned inquiry’ is equated to ‘analytical inquiry’. This gives rise to a re-rendering of the physical world dynamic in the idealized ‘machine archetype’ terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. The confusing of this ‘psychical idealized pseudo-reality’ for ‘physical reality’ leads to the construction of social organizations using the ‘machine archetype’ ‘sovereign state governments and justice systems’ are examples of this confusion, as are stand-alone ‘production-enterprise’ organizations [which hijacks the conjugate relation of deficiency in a relational space, and nurturance, as is the source of naturally persisting resonant forms [aka ‘community’] that gather within a continuously transforming relational space.
The ‘experienced feeling’ that associates with this ‘confusing’ of the psychical for the physical is that we are always ‘coming from ourselves’ in terms of our internal knowledge, intellection and purpose, instead of ‘rising to the occasion’ by our situational inclusion within a continuously transforming relational space, where we let our own developing organization, the blossoming of our creative/assertive potentialities be a life that is ‘breathed into us’ by our the relational dynamics we are situationally included. This natural physical source of development and sourcing of behaviour, of resonance-based dynamic forms, is not ‘visible’ to analytical inquiry and is not comprehended within a ‘machine archetype’ [where development and sourcing of behaviour is imputed to be locally originating and internal process driven and directed].
The continuing transformation of spatial relations in a relational space is ONE dynamic and since it is one dynamic, the ‘development’ of a dynamic form and the ‘behaviour’ of a dynamic form are not ‘two different dynamics’ but one and the same dynamic [the transformation of spatial-relations]. Darwinism is a ‘device’ which splits apart the ‘development’ of a dynamic form and ‘the behaviour’ of the dynamic form by alleging that the dynamic form attains the status of a ‘thing-in-itself’, and then imputing this ‘thing-in-itself’ whatever is needed to explain the behaviour of the dynamic form AS IF IT REALLY WERE a ‘thing-it-itself’. Much of this idealized modeling, making use of the ‘machine archetype’, was done by the ‘biological sciences’ prior to Darwinism. The secularized theological concept of a ‘thing-in-itself’ implicitly has within itself the power of sourcing its own organization and development and sourcing its own behavioural power-drive and steerage. Concepts such as a central nervous system or ‘brain’ that is porportedly ‘controlling the behavioural dynamics of the notional thing-in-itself’ doesn’t go far enough to explain how the thing-in-itself developed. Darwinism is a solution to this LOGICAL need to explain development separately, that arises from FIRSTLY IMPOSING ‘thing-in-itself’ status on a dynamic form in the spatial-relational flow. That is, coming up with the concept of ‘evolution’ as a separate dynamic from ‘behaviour’ is a logical imperative dictated by the initial logical model of the dynamic form as a ‘thing-in-itself’. In the case of a dynamic form in a relational space; e.g. a hurricane, there is no need to break the dynamic into two pieces, (a) the ‘development of the notional thing-in-itself’ and (b) ‘the behaviour of the thing-in-itself’, as they are just one dynamic, the dynamic of relational transformation within a relational space.
The concept of ‘instinct’ must also be invented s to explain how the inboard steerage equipment can be operating from ‘birth-as-a-thing-in-itself’ before it has ‘seen the world it is being born into’, … and ‘knowledge, intellection and purpose’ are needed to explain how the ‘thing-in-itself’ directs its own behaviour. In this way, the dynamic form in the relational space, whose organization, development and behaviour IS the coniuntio of outside-inward flowing nurturance and inside-outward asserting deficiency [one asserts relative to the dynamic situation one is included in, to achieve something, to resolve a deficiency that requires an action for its resolution]. In the title image of an aboriginal community (the community is a relational dynamic that is the source of the grass huts), the suggestion is that ‘community’ IS the relational resonance where the influx of nurturance is sustaining balance with the asserting actions that are in the service of seeking nurturance. ‘Farmers’ and ‘hunters’ are concepts that are implied within ‘community’, a ‘community’ is not a machine with ‘thing-in-themselves’ components called ‘farmers’ and ‘hunters’. The modern ‘so-called’ ‘community’ that is constructed from ‘farmers’ and ‘hunters’ [or ranchers] is a kind of synthetic reconstruction of a ‘community’ based on an analytical or ‘machine archetype’ view of ‘community’.
In our modern post-aboriginal ‘machine archetype’ based ‘civilization’, our values [rewards and respects] are based on ‘machine archetype qualities’; i.e. the quantity and quality of ‘dynamic forms of organization perceived in terms of ‘what-things-in-themselves do’. This pseudo-reality, which derives from confusing the ‘psychical for the physical’, is less and less satisfying to ourselves: ‘we’ who are REALLY, PHYSICALLY, dynamic forms of organization that are resonance features within a relational space whose lives are breathed into us by the relational-spatial dynamics we are included in. Our understanding of ourselves is in no way adequate when is in the sole, one-sided analytical inquiry and machine archetype terms of the inside-outward asserting dynamics of a ‘thing-in-itself’. We do not want to be constantly coming, in our heads, from our knowledge, intellect and purpose [e.g. to improve the quality and quantity of our ‘assertive performance’]. We want our lives to be given meaning by our situational inclusion [our real physical participation] in a continually transforming relational space. We want to feel the call of this evolution, the call of nature, inviting us to take our part in the unpredictably unfolding scheme of things. We want to give over the sourcing of our development to this outside-inward beckoning call for us to ‘rise to the occasion’ to become who are meant to be by way of our situational inclusion in the relational dynamic. We do not want to drive our development inside-outwardly, to start from our internal components and process of knowledge, intellection and purpose. To do so would shut out our experiencing of situational inclusion in an unpredictable, continually transforming relational space.
The institutionalizing of the ‘machine archetype’ [in ‘sovereign states’, ‘productive enterprises’ and our imaging of God and man using this ‘machine archetype’] is shaping the dynamics of the modern ‘post-aboriginal’ ‘civilized world’. This civilization pretends to stand on top of the world and to do its own thing, based on its scientific knowledge and intellectual powers. In other words, this civilization pretends to be a God-like internally jumpstarted dynamic form of organization. Instead of ‘nations’ [as they were in aboriginal society] acknowledging that ‘nations are included in the relational world space’ and ‘rising to the occasion’ as their situational inclusion in the continuously transforming relational space invited them to do, the post-aboriginal nations see themselves as ‘things-in-themselves’ [as in the secularized theological concept of the ‘local, independently-existing sovereign state] that are fully and solely internally driven and directed. Therefore, the most powerful amongst these nations see the solution for conflict amongst themselves as having only one mode of resolution, which is for the nation which has the best knowledge, intellection and most noble purpose, arming themselves with thinktanks, braintrusts, theological advisors etc., to direct the whole league of nations. This is what ‘analytical inquiry’ and the ‘machine archetype’ give as a solution to conflict amongst them. In such a worldview, that demotes physical reality and elevates psychical pseudo-reality [the re-rendering of dynamics in terms of ‘what-things-in-themselves do’], … ‘rising to the occasion’ translates into something entirely different that it does in aboriginal understanding; i.e. it is understood by the ‘ego’ in terms of the ‘noblesse oblige’ of ‘the most powerful’, to become the Patriarch of the World; i.e. to become God.
* * *
This entry was posted by ted lumley on July 31, 2012 at 11:54 am, and is filed under APN. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Critique #1 of ‘The Civilized Worldview’, – The land belongs to man [An ‘Oedipal’ notion]
The aboriginals believe that ‘man belongs to the land’ rather than ‘the land belongs to man’. Our experience informs us that our actions are relative to the physical habitat we are situated in, a habitat that is ‘dynamic’ in that it is continually changing [e.g. with the seasons and with the activities of ‘new species’ that emerge within it and transform it]. Our actions change the space we move into, in the same general manner as the actions of a gopher in tunneling in the soil changes the space he is living in, which in turn disrupts the behaviours of plants, worms and other inhabitants that share inclusion in that space. When people move into a beautiful natural setting, they chop down trees and build a house. Their neighbour’s experience is that the physical form of the land is transformed by the actions of new arrivals. The loss of a windbreak from the falling of the trees and the arrival of sewage from the new residents, induces revisions to their behaviours. There is no ‘time delay’ between the chopping down of the tree and wind blowing through to the previously established residents, it is simultaneous or ‘spatial-relational’. And it should not be overlooked that the former residence of the people moving in, now abandoned, is inducing other people or mice etc. to move into it.
Our experience is that as we move, we change the habitat we are moving into at the same time as we are changing the habitat we are moving out of. Since the world is one habitat, this implies that WE ARE NOT MOVING, that our notion of ‘things moving’ is too simplified a concept; i.e. the physical reality is that the habitat is transforming in a spatial-relational sense, and we are not the only ‘dynamic forms’ contributing to the transforming. In fact, our experience would support understanding this in the inverse sense where ‘the transformation of the habitat’ COMES FIRST and the dynamic forms such as ourselves, are ‘secondary’, in the manner that the transformation of the atmosphere ‘comes first’ and the storm-cells within the atmosphere are ‘secondary’.
There is a fit here with the Machean view that space is relational and that ‘Mach’s principle’ is supported by our real-life experience; “The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants.” In other words, ‘man belongs to the overall habitat-dynamic’ or, simply, ‘man belongs to the land’.
In the standard world view of ‘Western civilization’, the ‘inhabitant’ and the ‘habitat’ are take to be two ‘mutually exclusive’ things and ‘change’ is NOT understood in the Machean terms of the transformation of relational space, but rather as something that happens to dynamic forms ‘over time’. This concept of ‘time’ did not enter into the Machean relational space view, but it now comes in, in the standard, accepted world view of Western civilization, when the ‘inhabitant’ and the ‘habitat’ are conceived of as ‘mutually exclusive things’; i.e. where the inhabitant is seen as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with ‘its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development [change] and behavioural dynamics. Space is seen as an absolute, fixed empty and infinite operating theatre for inhabitants as ‘things-in-themselves’ and, with these starting stakes in the ground, explaining ‘change’ forces the invention of the concept of ‘the passage of time’ as in ‘things [-in-themselves] change over time’. While a relational space ‘transforms’ in the continuing present [space is a transforming relational plenum and ‘things’ are dynamic forms within the transforming plenum as convection cells are to flow], the notional collection of absolute ‘things-in-themselves’ inhabiting an absolute fixed empty and infinite Euclidian space, ‘exist independently’ and are not included in an interdependent relational web that is continually transforming, relationally, as in the Machean view. ‘Sequence’, as in a sequence of pictures that purportedly captures the ‘changing condition of the thing-in-itself’ from one moment to the next, and this way of understanding ‘change’ as in the condition of a thing ‘from one moment to the next’ DEFINES ‘time’ as a ‘succession of moments’.
If one takes a succession of pictures of a developing hurricane, or if one alternatively opens and closes ‘the shutters of one’s eyes’, such a ‘succession of moments’ is exposed as artificial or ‘procedural’. That is, ‘time’ is a manufactured concept. There is certainly ‘nothing in it’ to contradict Heraclitus comment that “one cannot step into the same river twice since it is not the same river and not the same person stepping into it’. The ‘state’ of the hurricane or the ‘state’ of the world has no meaning apart from the idealized sense that the world dynamic is defined by how an ‘absolutely existing thing-in-itself’ changes from one moment to the next [i.e. how it changes ‘over time’]. In a relational space, there are no ‘succession of moments’, there is only transformation of relational space in the continuing present.
‘Time’ is part of the standard ‘Western civilization’ world view, and it goes hand-in-hand with notional ‘absolute existence of a thing-in-itself’. Thus, ‘time’ is a concept that enables us to shatter relational space into a zillion ‘things-in-themselves’ that ‘change over time’. This notionally breaks man and all material objects/organisms/organization out of the continually transforming ‘web-of-life’ [relational space] and re-renders these [according to the Machean worldview] innately relational/interdependent dynamic forms in terms of ‘absolute thing-in-themselves BEINGS’. The notional ‘absolute time’ and ‘absolute space’ reference frame [x,y,z,t reference frame] allows us to MEASURE the change in the form of the hurricane ‘over time’. We can measure pressure, temperature, humidity, wind velocity etc. etc. ALL AS A FUNCTION OF A POINT IN SPACE AND TIME as in the mathematical notation P(x,y,z,t), T(x,y,z,t) etc. etc. Instead of accepting that the changing form of the hurricane is relative to the transforming physical space it is included in, we know say that the changing form of the hurricane is relative to an absolute reference frame [x,y,z,t reference frame] which makes it seem as if it the hurricane that is doing its own changing because we have, thanks to the idealized notion of an absolute reference frame, split out the changing dynamic form of the hurricane from its inherent conjugate inhabitant-habitat relation’. The absolute reference frame allows us to speak of ‘the growth’ of the hurricane. But in real life physical reality [in a relational space], there is no such thing as the growth of a thing-in-itself since there are no such animals as ‘things-in-themselves’. The transforming atmosphere develops a ‘indent’ and the indent grows larger as the non-indented atmosphere grows smaller. There is no ‘growth’ in an ‘absolute’ sense. In a transforming relational space, ‘growth’ is relative. It is the same for creation and destruction, these are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation of a relational space.
On the basis of one’s real-life physical experience, then, ‘man belongs to the land’. In the case of ‘the land belongs to man’, one has to invent the concepts of ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ to synthetically [psychologically] split apart the ‘inhabitant’, man, from the ‘habitat’ to open the door to this psychological Oedipus-Complex notion that ‘the land belongs to man’. That is, given that habitat and inhabitant are in conjugate relation in the world [transforming spatial-plenum] that parents all things, Western civilized [psycho-] man has to kill off ‘the father’ [the collective male-assertive inhabitant conjugate] and take possession of ‘his own mother’, exploiting/raping her to satisfy his needs.
Clearly, ‘man belongs to the land’, not the other way round.