AntiPolitics
I've been fucking wrecked by Anti-Politics.net, man...
From the forums, on language:
"A less object-oriented languaging existed in many places in indigenous Native America. We can hear sentences all day long where nouns are entirely missing. Speaking is oriented around the predicate as qualities of action and acting. In Euroamerican languages, sentences demonstrate the pattern S => NP + Pred. Algonquian, for example, demonstrates S => Pred. This does not mean nouns don't exist or cannot be formed. An object might be inferred but only in terms of appearance, likeness as it relates to, impacts or is influenced by something else, as well as how we come to perceive it (grammar & syntax make epistemology apparent). Speech tends to center on relationships rather than properties or attributes of the object. The emphasis is on being, doing, becoming, relating. Ideas are not likely to be turned into stone monuments. Our emphasis on distinction and division, so important to science and philosophy, is said to give us a capability for more complex understanding. But in Hopi, there is, for example, only one word which means both "starting" and "stopping". We might think this simple and inadequate, but the fact of the matter is that it instantly answers certain metaphysical problems. We find that where one process stops, another always starts at precisely the same point, and as we stand further back, we see it's all the same process after all. The word contains in itself a metaphysical statement. It implies context and flux but also expectation. One is not inclined to stop and ask "Now what?". Continuity leaves little time for acquiring signed permission slips. But transformations are also expected. Proper names are also verbs (think "Dances with Wolves"). When the word is no longer appropriate, the name changes. Name changes invariably accompany rites of transition. Such languaging is flexible, and is able to transform with changing conditions. There is nothing simple about it. The language itself (languaging) harmonizes with the world it is ensconced in.
An objective ontology ultimately concerns itself with (among other things like proper class membership or behavior interpreted only as means progressing towards ends, product, objective, etc.) whether reality, the world, universe, etc. is a singularity or multiplicity. We wonder if perhaps we shouldn't unify it. Relativity predicts that at some point, the distinction will disappear because from one perspective, it presents itself as a singularity and comparing perspectives illustrates multiplicity. To concentrate on class membership so we know which noun is appropriate or to create new nouns, relativity soon demands fuzzy logic and even multiple class membership. Free radicals (all possible puns intended) belong to no class. Das in sich. Considering the set of all possible sets (which does not include itself) causes our eyes to cross and we have just created the void and killed the hierarchic (taxonomic) totality. The totality, the absolute cannot be a member of a superordinate set. Yet we have already demanded that the totality is a possible set. I think Bertrand Russel discovered this paradox. Whitehead found proof of god: the Superordinate need obey no rules, it can only (super)ordain. Both De Sade and Mark Twain saw this limitation as proof of the non-existence of god: he must obey the one rule excluding him from our domain, thereby becoming subordinate to man. Stirner said, man, god, whats the diff? Einstein was able to fold space-time inside out and resolve the problem mathematically, but that is not a language I understand. Would we have these problems if "life, the universe and everything" were not considered a noun? Obviously, many do not see a problem at all.
Another possible ontology is reflected in ecology. Reality becomes a verb or relationing. This is hard to phrase in English. We speak of it as a set or sets of relations. "It" is forced back into objective thinking. It is hard to think in terms of qualities of action (adverbs) without a separate referent, a specific subject or object of that relation or behavior. Consider two sentences. "There is a coyote behind the storage shed", and "Coyoting (going on) behind storing". The second makes sense to us when mapped against the first. We say "the noun phrase is implied by 'coyoting', therefore 'coyoting' is a noun". But the second has implications we may not be aware of. The first sentence is a statement of epistemological authority. The second leaves open alternate interpretations: "No, hearing dogging!". The dog or coyote is defined by the pattern of signals it presents to us.
One could say that the objective view can also be questioned, so what's the difference?
Both nouners and verbers are coming from an empirical base - both our epistemologizings are verbs! We only know a creature is present because it is creaturing. If it is not creaturing, a nouner will either call it dead or an inanimate object. Verbers are directed to whole behaviors or patterns of relationships rather than categorical membership based on minimal pairs demonstrating distinction - Bateson's "the difference that makes a difference" (for ex., a two-toed sloth is opposed to a three-toed sloth by virtue of anatomy for the structural morphologist, while an ecologically tuned zoologist will tell you their eating habits are more important than their number of toes - we have a bigger picture). The difference between a dog and a coyote will be argued inside and out for the user of nouns, depending on the level of abstraction each "speaker" is coming from. The verbally oriented will distinguish the two by means of compared pattern - "you'll know it when you see it". Dogs (n.) dog (v.) and coyotes (n.) coyote (v.). Men man and women woman, gorillas gorilla and baboons baboon. Radicals don't fit our expectations. The world (reality) presents itself as patterns or constellations of behavior and relationships between behavers. Nouners go on to dissect them, sometimes to the point of invisibility (atomic theory and politico-economics).
Verbers such as the Cheyenne were able to create behavioral "classes" (named pattern) such as Contrary (against social roles or categories) or Hemaneh (betwixt and between categories) to include those who exhibited behavior outside of social expectations within the community. Whether a "phase" or "permanent condition" was of no importance as change is expected in the world, and the very existence of radicals makes them also part of the world. Nouners such as ourselves like to destroy what doesn't fit nicely into our established (structural) categories.
Isn't the first rule of nature "survival of the fittest"? Of course, Vaneigam defined survival as "prolonged death"!
It shouldn't follow that I'm thinking verbers are superior to nouners. Relativity is an epistemological methodology, not a political moralism. In fact, likely neither even exists except among the most rigid of thinkers. On the other hand, a primacy on nouns (objects) and taxonomic classification does fit better with reductionism and may be, in the long run, "subjectively" restrictive, particularly when our behavior (who we are) is only valuable to another who's ends may not be our own - we become use-values, commodities. Could it be that verbs direct our gaze to bigger pictures which do not oppose subjects against objects and go on to mediate them? The point is that the implications of either tendency illustrate a different world view, not different (mutually exclusive) worlds, even though they may be "worlds apart". This is my interpretation of linguistic relativity, and perhaps why I've been diagnosed "schizophrenic".
All kidding aside, relativity and mutual influence should never be confused with determinism. It is true what Butler said that a chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg. It is equally true that a chicken and egg are only nodes between more important lines. You can only guess at the picture until you connect the dots. An artist can draw a continuous line with nary a dot and still give us a recognizable representation.
That's this got to do with politics, anti-politics, class struggle, revolution or their critique? Related questions: "How do we find agency?" and "What sort of world do we want?""
From the forums, on language:
"A less object-oriented languaging existed in many places in indigenous Native America. We can hear sentences all day long where nouns are entirely missing. Speaking is oriented around the predicate as qualities of action and acting. In Euroamerican languages, sentences demonstrate the pattern S => NP + Pred. Algonquian, for example, demonstrates S => Pred. This does not mean nouns don't exist or cannot be formed. An object might be inferred but only in terms of appearance, likeness as it relates to, impacts or is influenced by something else, as well as how we come to perceive it (grammar & syntax make epistemology apparent). Speech tends to center on relationships rather than properties or attributes of the object. The emphasis is on being, doing, becoming, relating. Ideas are not likely to be turned into stone monuments. Our emphasis on distinction and division, so important to science and philosophy, is said to give us a capability for more complex understanding. But in Hopi, there is, for example, only one word which means both "starting" and "stopping". We might think this simple and inadequate, but the fact of the matter is that it instantly answers certain metaphysical problems. We find that where one process stops, another always starts at precisely the same point, and as we stand further back, we see it's all the same process after all. The word contains in itself a metaphysical statement. It implies context and flux but also expectation. One is not inclined to stop and ask "Now what?". Continuity leaves little time for acquiring signed permission slips. But transformations are also expected. Proper names are also verbs (think "Dances with Wolves"). When the word is no longer appropriate, the name changes. Name changes invariably accompany rites of transition. Such languaging is flexible, and is able to transform with changing conditions. There is nothing simple about it. The language itself (languaging) harmonizes with the world it is ensconced in.
An objective ontology ultimately concerns itself with (among other things like proper class membership or behavior interpreted only as means progressing towards ends, product, objective, etc.) whether reality, the world, universe, etc. is a singularity or multiplicity. We wonder if perhaps we shouldn't unify it. Relativity predicts that at some point, the distinction will disappear because from one perspective, it presents itself as a singularity and comparing perspectives illustrates multiplicity. To concentrate on class membership so we know which noun is appropriate or to create new nouns, relativity soon demands fuzzy logic and even multiple class membership. Free radicals (all possible puns intended) belong to no class. Das in sich. Considering the set of all possible sets (which does not include itself) causes our eyes to cross and we have just created the void and killed the hierarchic (taxonomic) totality. The totality, the absolute cannot be a member of a superordinate set. Yet we have already demanded that the totality is a possible set. I think Bertrand Russel discovered this paradox. Whitehead found proof of god: the Superordinate need obey no rules, it can only (super)ordain. Both De Sade and Mark Twain saw this limitation as proof of the non-existence of god: he must obey the one rule excluding him from our domain, thereby becoming subordinate to man. Stirner said, man, god, whats the diff? Einstein was able to fold space-time inside out and resolve the problem mathematically, but that is not a language I understand. Would we have these problems if "life, the universe and everything" were not considered a noun? Obviously, many do not see a problem at all.
Another possible ontology is reflected in ecology. Reality becomes a verb or relationing. This is hard to phrase in English. We speak of it as a set or sets of relations. "It" is forced back into objective thinking. It is hard to think in terms of qualities of action (adverbs) without a separate referent, a specific subject or object of that relation or behavior. Consider two sentences. "There is a coyote behind the storage shed", and "Coyoting (going on) behind storing". The second makes sense to us when mapped against the first. We say "the noun phrase is implied by 'coyoting', therefore 'coyoting' is a noun". But the second has implications we may not be aware of. The first sentence is a statement of epistemological authority. The second leaves open alternate interpretations: "No, hearing dogging!". The dog or coyote is defined by the pattern of signals it presents to us.
One could say that the objective view can also be questioned, so what's the difference?
Both nouners and verbers are coming from an empirical base - both our epistemologizings are verbs! We only know a creature is present because it is creaturing. If it is not creaturing, a nouner will either call it dead or an inanimate object. Verbers are directed to whole behaviors or patterns of relationships rather than categorical membership based on minimal pairs demonstrating distinction - Bateson's "the difference that makes a difference" (for ex., a two-toed sloth is opposed to a three-toed sloth by virtue of anatomy for the structural morphologist, while an ecologically tuned zoologist will tell you their eating habits are more important than their number of toes - we have a bigger picture). The difference between a dog and a coyote will be argued inside and out for the user of nouns, depending on the level of abstraction each "speaker" is coming from. The verbally oriented will distinguish the two by means of compared pattern - "you'll know it when you see it". Dogs (n.) dog (v.) and coyotes (n.) coyote (v.). Men man and women woman, gorillas gorilla and baboons baboon. Radicals don't fit our expectations. The world (reality) presents itself as patterns or constellations of behavior and relationships between behavers. Nouners go on to dissect them, sometimes to the point of invisibility (atomic theory and politico-economics).
Verbers such as the Cheyenne were able to create behavioral "classes" (named pattern) such as Contrary (against social roles or categories) or Hemaneh (betwixt and between categories) to include those who exhibited behavior outside of social expectations within the community. Whether a "phase" or "permanent condition" was of no importance as change is expected in the world, and the very existence of radicals makes them also part of the world. Nouners such as ourselves like to destroy what doesn't fit nicely into our established (structural) categories.
Isn't the first rule of nature "survival of the fittest"? Of course, Vaneigam defined survival as "prolonged death"!
It shouldn't follow that I'm thinking verbers are superior to nouners. Relativity is an epistemological methodology, not a political moralism. In fact, likely neither even exists except among the most rigid of thinkers. On the other hand, a primacy on nouns (objects) and taxonomic classification does fit better with reductionism and may be, in the long run, "subjectively" restrictive, particularly when our behavior (who we are) is only valuable to another who's ends may not be our own - we become use-values, commodities. Could it be that verbs direct our gaze to bigger pictures which do not oppose subjects against objects and go on to mediate them? The point is that the implications of either tendency illustrate a different world view, not different (mutually exclusive) worlds, even though they may be "worlds apart". This is my interpretation of linguistic relativity, and perhaps why I've been diagnosed "schizophrenic".
All kidding aside, relativity and mutual influence should never be confused with determinism. It is true what Butler said that a chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg. It is equally true that a chicken and egg are only nodes between more important lines. You can only guess at the picture until you connect the dots. An artist can draw a continuous line with nary a dot and still give us a recognizable representation.
That's this got to do with politics, anti-politics, class struggle, revolution or their critique? Related questions: "How do we find agency?" and "What sort of world do we want?""