our indo-european languages are used to construct 'semantic realities' in which 'names' are used as place-holders for sources of authorship of results which imply great power in the sense of positively causal authorship.
so, we can agree that literate people who buy into some or other 'semantic reality' can manifest coordinated behaviour aka 'organization'.
organization is also manifest amongst illiterate people or those who are drawn into harmonious collective activity intuitively. if a man is trying to erect a shelter for his family, others may be DRAWN IN to assist him because the 'need' speaks for itself in relational dynamics. organizing in nature is relational and involves the conjugate relation of deficiency and surplus, sink-and-source, convergence and divergence, transmitting and receiving. as lao tsu points out, it is 'what is not there' in the clay vessel that allows us to fill it, that is what makes it useful, although we attach value to 'what is there'. and so it is with 'organization'. although it is the inductive influence of the collection basin that orchestrates the confluence of raindrops into rivulets, rivulets into streams and streams into rivers, the semantic reality we construct ignores the natural primacy of inductive influence [need, deficiency]. the 'power' of the 'powerful river' derives from the collection basin ['know the male but be ravine to the empire' - lao tsu] yet we construct inverted depictions such as 'the Colorado river carved out the Grand Canyon'.
as with raindrops, so with followers of donald trump and so with 'loyal citizens' of a sovereign state, organization is inductively orchestrated but manifests in terms of assertive actions. The 'powerful state' and the 'powerful river' invert the physically real relational order/organization by falsely attributing local authorship power to a 'word' endowed, by an 'error of grammar', with 'being'. some non-local, non-visible, non-material 'organizing influence' inductively gathered together the raindrops, and this 'inductive organizing influence' goes missing when we construct a semantic reality which attributes jumpstart power to the river. to say that 'the state has power' is an 'error in grammar' as nietzsche has pointed out;
“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531
before and after we invent the local existence of a 'state' and declare its 'independent existence', there is some organized activity; e.g. as people flow into a region like water flowing into a basin, and this organization is, after-the-fact, given a name [the state] that imputes 'being' to that which is, in the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience, a relational activity.
before we invented 'the state', organization was inductively orchestrated as 'an-archist' organization. but after we invent 'the state', efforts are made to 'run the organization in reverse', ignoring the inductive organizing influence and substituting a 'common semantic reality' featuring a 'commander in chief' and a hierarchical management structure [backed by principles and rules], all of these made known through the promulgating/transmission of an official, common 'semantic reality', henceforth the official explanation of the authoring source of the organization. information media plays a key role in making 'believable' this 'semantic reality' manufactured by the political leadership, as do the interventions of regulatory and enforcement agencies that aim to 'make believers out of everyone'.
it is not that 'need' is no longer the inductive influence orchestrating the movements we call 'organization'; ... just as people volunteer to labour for and dance to the tunes of others in order to gain access to the essential resources of land guarded and controlled by others, so it is in the organizing associated with 'the state'. of course, since we build semantic realities that start with the 'subjects' and 'what they do', the inductive organizing influence goes missing and full attribution for the organizing is given to the semantic structural components [in systems sciences terms, this is seen as analytical inquiry that is ungrounded in synthetical inquiry [Ackoff]].
sir einzige has already made this point in this discussion topic, but it is unpopular and irritating to a lot of people including those who insist on fighting their battles 'inside' of the popular 'semantic reality' wherein 'the state is taken to be the authoring source of powerful actions' instead of being exposed as a 'spook' that semantic-reality-conditioning has given us a belief in.
to rally ourselves to construct organization on an intellectually directed basis puts us in the spook-making business along with the statists.
organization: does it derive from people and their actions?
participants in this discussion continue to be at odds with one another re the nature of 'organizational power', as in 'the power of the state'.
SirEinzige [Wed, 03/09/2016 - 23:55]'s comments aim to elucidate on this, but there is a deeply entrenched, hard-to-dispel, orthodox Western view that organizational power derives from the people in 'the organization'. in other words, 'organization' (a verb) is commonly intellectualized as a 'thing' constituted by 'its part[icipant]s; i.e. 'organization' is a 'verb' that is treated as if it were a 'noun'. this is what happens in the noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar. yes, i keep repeating myself because this tends to go in one ear and out the other because of what has been entrenched in us from birth in the Western culture.
romeo dallaire, the resident UN CO during the rwanda genocide claims that ISIS is 'organization' as a verb rather than 'organization' as a noun;
"“ISIS can’t be defeated without a strategy to help child soldiers.”
as our experience-based intuition informs us, the organization we refer to as ISIS does not 'bottom out' in the interior of independent human beings who are 'members of ISIS'.
but the reason we tend to think so is because logical propositions do now acknowledge inductive influence. the more realistic view of organization in nature is in terms of eddy currents inductively actualized within the relational flow deriving from the relational flow [self-organization]. this is the essential implication of Mach's principle. ISIS organization is a verb rather than a noun, that is what Dallaire is saying. the power of ISIS does not jumpstart from the interior of its members.
dallaire is probably not going to say, although an indigenous anarchist would, that 'the state is not a noun but a verb'. the power of a state does not jumpstart from the interior of its members.
if you want to learn about 'organization' from an indigenous anarchist, participate in a few 'learning circles'. the whole idea is that, without defining a worldview and developing strategies and tactics, one's understanding and thus one's engaging with the world will be transformed by such participation. the organization-as-verb referring to the relational social dynamic of the indigenous anarchist community, is continually transforming and the influence for this transformation derives from the 'learning circles'. if you question each community member, looking for the common set of laws and regulations, goals and objectives they are following, that explains their efficient and harmonious 'organization', you will not find any such logical structure in their 'system' of community, because their relational dynamic is inductively coupled to the dynamic of the relational suprasystem in which they are situationally included.
organization in nature is a verb, not a noun. it is intellectual abstraction to endow an activity with thinghood. newtonian physics makes it into a noun but as benjamin whorf's linguistic research makes clear, our sense of organization as a noun derives from the architecture of noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar.
"“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’
to present a scenario wherein a gang of cops beating up on protestors proves the power of the state, is like claiming that a gang of ISIS fighters killing opponents proves the power of ISIS. as dallaire points out, the power does not jumpstart from the ISIS members, but derives upstream from that. If we get Russell Means and Ward Churchill to follow through on this narrative, they would argue that the source is upstream in the troubled relations between colonizers and colonized and merely manifests through the 'organization-as-verb' called ISIS by means of a continuing inductive process that orchestrates and shapes the behaviour of children as they develop into adults. The Euro-American colonizers use projective identification of the 'tarbaby' type [shades of schizophrenia], seeing him as an 'independent evil other' instead of seeing his behaviour as being influenced by your own; i.e. in denial of;
"You don't see the world as it is, you see it, as you are."
Add new comment