James S Saint

[Mithus]

From the book:

Affectance in:
- Physics: Ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses wherein "positive" is electrical positive and "negative" is electrical negative potential.
- Psychology: Subtle influences, often random and unintentional wherein "positive" is perceived hope and "negative" is perceived threat.
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.
- Physiology: Subtle nutrients, toxins, and EMR, often undetected organic and inorganic chemicals and microwave signals, wherein "positive" is healthy and "negative" is unhealthy.
- Economics: Small exchanges in trade, often unnoticed and unrecorded, wherein "positive" is wealth gain and "negative" is wealth loss.
- Military: Subtle elements of control, often physical, psychological, traditional, or religious intimidation or inspiration wherein "positive" is more control and "negative" is less control.

[Meno_]

From the book:

Affectance in:
- Physics: Ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses wherein "positive" is electrical positive and "negative" is electrical negative potential.
- Psychology: Subtle influences, often random and unintentional wherein "positive" is perceived hope and "negative" is perceived threat.
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.
- Physiology: Subtle nutrients, toxins, and EMR, often undetected organic and inorganic chemicals and microwave signals, wherein "positive" is healthy and "negative" is unhealthy.
- Economics: Small exchanges in trade, often unnoticed and unrecorded, wherein "positive" is wealth gain and "negative" is wealth loss.
- Military: Subtle elements of control, often physical, psychological, traditional, or religious intimidation or inspiration wherein "positive" is more control and "negative" is less control.

In terms of an earlier definitions within child psychology, there is a correspondence with my view of deconstructing the psyche into earlier elements, or 'normally' deconstructing, or de-differenting the psychically variably established stasis(existential epoche),.

Which under unusually dramatic circumstances may subtly and negatively affect. a dramatic reversal into a pre-unified Lacanian mirror.[regression (with loss of intervening variables)].

Imputed by positive, (more actual re-cognition of richer symbolic content) or lesser, leading to negative affectance.

Absolute acceptance, implies in existential terms, a relational discordance, as in Nietzche<Heidegger>Sartre, a variable positive~negative relationship between Being < Existence > Nothingness; in re-cognition.
Re-cognition has both phenomenological and eidectic variable overlapping applications.

This is how I perceive the affectence-effectance relationship.

[obsrvr524]

From the book:

Affectance in:
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.

That is the one that I am more interested in, but so far, i'm not seeing much on this board about that.

[Mithus]

From the book:

Affectance in:
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.

That is the one that I am more interested in, but so far, i'm not seeing much on this board about that.

Yes, James didn't write much about it here. In case you haven't seen them, maybe you'd like to read his posts in these threads:

Rewrite the Constitution
In Sight of SAM, I am
The Communal Particle
The Ant and the Übermensch
Global Information Segregation
Before the Annihilation
Will Machines completely replace all Human Beings?
Thinking about the End of History
Forms of Government

[obsrvr524]

There is a treasure trove. Thanks.

This is going to take forever to catch up.

[promethean75]

You better watch out, man. Saint jameses 'SAM' model is highly if not completely socialistic. Don't let him getcha.

[Mithus]

You better watch out, man. Saint jameses 'SAM' model is highly if not completely socialistic. Don't let him getcha.

SAM is democratic in sense A
SAM is capitalistic in sense B
SAM is socialistic in sense C
SAM is communistic in sense D
SAM is constitutional in sense E

But what SAM is exactly, is NotA, None of the Above categories.

Now, promethean75, don't be like so many others on the Internet who claim to know a text before they have read it.

[promethean75]

but three of a kind - A, C, D - beats a B high, dude.

[obsrvr524]

You better watch out, man. Saint jameses 'SAM' model is highly if not completely socialistic. Don't let him getcha.

Due to your comment I jumped ahead to research "SAM". I know from many years ago, James was extremely anti-socialist. And he had pretty solid arguments. But since you said that and knowing James to be a theorist, I thought that perhaps he changed his mind at some point.

His explanation of a "SAM Corporation" refers to a multi-cellular type of structure. That alone infers an anti-socialist nature but isn't conclusive.

I found more relevant and detailed description in the thread, Democratic vs undemocratic. In that thread he explains:

The fundamental construct of the SAM Co-op is the CRH - Constitution for Rational Harmony:

Constitution for Rational Harmony - Restoring Sanity
For small gatherings;

Preamble
We who gather in this union ordain and establish these Articles of Rational Harmony for the purpose of firming the rational pursuit of maximum momentum toward eternal united harmony.

Articles

1) Governing Authority
All governing authority shall be vested in the following four fundamental offices; Representative, Senate, Executive, and Judicial.

i. No action is to be performed by any office or member of any office unless by instigation of proper Constitutional process as documented herein.
ii. It is the obligation of the union to prepare every member for reestablishing this authority in the event of its demise such as to include;

a. Teaching the rationale of this constitution and methods concerning its establishment
b. Providing all materials and tools required to re-initiate the authority of this constitution and its implementation.
c. Training all members in concerns of confidence, anti-cancer, anti-terrorism, decisiveness, faith, and optimal isolation

iii. It is the obligation of the union to provide sufficient preoccupation to offer resistance to corruption of critical harmony of both the union and the members without significantly infringing upon member rights to participate in constitutional decision-making.

2) Member Representation
The “Representative” office is to be responsible for the observation and documentation of the current situation of the union.

i. Any union member shall be allowed to propose, through the Representative office, recommendations and suggestions concerning any union action as long as such items are accompanied by documented reasoning to support the proposal's need for consideration.
ii. Any member must be allowed to debate the superiority of any existing or proposed rationale before the Senate and Judicial offices to the extent of rationale concern.
iii. The Representative office is responsible for documenting and reporting on the situation of the members in regards to;

a. Before and after relevant events
b. Surroundings involved in events and member situations
c. Higher and lower states of authority concerning events
d. Higher and lower dependencies of relevant events

3) Governing Principles
The “Senate” office is to be responsible for receiving and evaluating all action proposals regarding any and all union members and establishing action priorities.

i. Principles of rationale (amendments) are to be formulated, documented, and utilized in determining proposed rational actions.
ii. These principles are to be published sufficiently to allow critical review by the other offices.
iii. Proposals are to be evaluated for superior rationale with existing principles pertaining to the accomplishment of the goal of the maximum momentum toward eternal union harmony.
iv. All alternative options to any proposal are to be rationally considered and documented along with the rationale for being rejected.
v. All evaluations are to be accepted or rejected based on documented rational reasoning. Any rationale found to be superior to existing rationale must be incorporated into relevant executions replacing inferior rationales.
vi. Any delays in processing must provide rationale for the delay. Any rationale for delay must conform to the same rules as any other proposal in being documented and open for public review.
vii. A final execution plan is to be formed from all current rationale, which is then to be documented and presented to the Executive office for execution.

4) Execution of Authority
The “Executive” office is to be responsible for accurately implementing any and all execution plans received from the Senate. As such this office is in charge of all policing and manual efforts.

5) Verification of Governing Rationale
The “Judicial” office is to be responsible for verifying that all duties are being carried out as per Constitutional rationale and for arbitration of irresolvable dispute.

i. All judicial actions are to be documented and remain open for membership rational counter-debate.

6) Qualification for Station (Purity Issue)
All office holders and members are to be qualified only by their ability to perform the associated duties of their position as determined by Judicially verified Senate rationale.

i. The determination of ability to perform shall be made by Judicially verified Senate rationale and shall remain documented for rational membership review and update.

7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)
The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.

It is far more effective than living alone or with merely a partner simply because it offers an immediate "circle of close-nit friends" as well as a global network of strategies and information (the Angel Network). It is like having a doctor, lawyer, accountant, philosopher, and neurologist all in the family and dedicated to the "family".

As I understand it, socialists seriously hate constitutions except as a prop or ruse. Constitutions limit the power of a governing body. Socialists do not tolerate anything limiting their power. That is why the US Constitution has been under such attack lately by the Left. So that is one thing.

I was familiar with James' CRH from long ago and it poses an even greater problem for socialists.

Socialism is about the centralization of authority. James' CRH and thus SAM is an extreme distribution of authority, the very definition of "democracy". So it seems to me that SAM and socialism are almost exact opposites.

I'm guessing that James' idea that people in one of his groups are very much like a tight nit family and thus strongly live for each other is similar to the socialist idea that all people are to live exclusively for sake of the social elite or upper class. That is the only place I see any association between the two. James' groups don't seem to have any upper class structure, merely 4 offices under constant scrutiny from the other members.

The US has 50 States with somewhat distributed authority among them. That makes the US a democracy even though the States are tied together by a republic architecture. The primary issue is just that socialism requires a central government with total authority over all people throughout a nation. Socialists don't like that the 50 States have any degree of independence from their authority. James was talking about perhaps 50 million independent groups/States with freedom for people to swap from any one small group to another, volume permitting.

Any distributed authority, or anything democratic, is the exact opposite of socialism (the term "Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron). It is merely an issue of distributed authority versus central authority. So even if there is some tiny element of a socialist nature inside the diverse and distributed cells or groups, the fact that the groups are their own authority absolutely forbids socialism.

So the way that I see it is that James' SAM Corp is actually, literally, a million times less socialist than the USA and would totally forever block socialism and its big brother communism.

[promethean75]

His explanation of a "SAM Corporation" refers to a multi-cellular type of structure. That alone infers an anti-socialist nature but isn't conclusive.

exotic philosophical language like 'multi-cellular type of structure' is really only articulating an already simple and well understood feature of government; that of seperate bodies that cooperate (and keep each other in check) to make the governing process as democratic as it can be. contrarily, any government that yields absolute executive power from a 'single cellular structure' - to use the language of james - is a fascist government. probably the fact that you imagine socialism as being unable to be 'multi-cellular' is because the historical examples of any attempts at a socialism never made it past the initial stage of its revolution... and therefore had to mainstain a stringent 'proletarian dictatorship' comprised of a single party. this is why its commonplace to equate communism with totalitarianism, something marx nor lenin never permanently advocated. the purpose of the temporary central party dictatorship was to concentrate control and work out the difficult organizational processes involved in stabalizing the newly revolutionized society. but instead of moving past this stage, the communist countries turned into state-capitalist models. this is largely due to the fact that there was immense economic competition with other capitalist economies... so they had to be able to compete. that, and its a natural historical trend for those in power to find ways to keep their power. but this is all 20th century stuff, and the world is now more than ever ripe for a sucessful, global revolution something along the lines of what trotsky envisioned so long ago. shame that the banner of socialism is being carried by the clowns on the left today. they're all entirely too moderate in my opinion.

As I understand it, socialists seriously hate constitutions except as a prop or ruse. Constitutions limit the power of a governing body. Socialists do not tolerate anything limiting their power. That is why the US Constitution has been under such attack lately by the Left.

there is nothing socialists oppose about the idea of a constitution per se. moreover, if you think of a socialism in terms of a governed and government split rather than a government of the governed, you'd naturally think in such dichotomous terms as 'the government not wanting to lose its power to the governed'. but if the governed are the government, there is no opposing body to lose power to.

and the american constitution is being attacked because of how silly some of that shit is. just read a tweet of some redneck placating to trump over the right to bear arms. dude actually thinks there is a 'god' that has granted him a natural right to have a gun. i mean c'mon, man. seriously?

uh-oh. my toasted asiago bagel with cream-cheese has just arrived, and i should therefore like to conclude this post with great haste.

[Meno_]

75,

In the long run I kind of take an adverse position.Aristocracy had a stranglehold of many centuries of absolute control, the new money aristocracy knows they have to make it this time or they will be broken in an age of progressive short changing.
So it will rather be an internal spiritual virtual revolution with a spiritual head of reason triumphally coming back and willingly sacrificing itself, if , and only of, the new world order stumbles badly.
It will be the Roman Imperium redux, by structural necessity.
Even the eagerness by which a drastic power grab acceleration tries to obligate what is left of representing any form of checks and balances.
Its inconceivable for it to retain a will to powerful another socialist revolt. People will be satiated by perfumed narcotic overfed materialism to be able to sort things out.
The new left's spectacular failure is proof enough, that was a prime example of a missed universal opportu ity.

[obsrvr524]

His explanation of a "SAM Corporation" refers to a multi-cellular type of structure. That alone infers an anti-socialist nature but isn't conclusive.

exotic philosophical language like 'multi-cellular type of structure' is really only articulating an already simple and well understood feature of government; that of seperate bodies that cooperate (and keep each other in check) to make the governing process as democratic as it can be.

That is not the multi-cellular aspect that I was referring to.

The way I understand it is that every SAM group is a separate cell-like or family like entity consisting of from 4 to 50 people. Each has its own constitution with unique amendments. Those constitutions act like a DNA molecule would in a human cell. The whole body of society would then have millions of those cells, each with a slightly different constitutional amendment set.

That is what I meant by "multi-cellular".

contrarily, any government that yields absolute executive power from a 'single cellular structure' - to use the language of james - is a fascist government.

I thought to be a fascist government required the forced oppressing or silencing of policy opposition. James' CRH requires open, free, and constant debate concerning all laws. He even stated that laws must prove that they are accomplishing their aim else they are automatically removed.

It seems to me that a fascist government just does whatever it wants without allowing opposing views (exactly what the US Left is currently doing - a fascist socialist coup d'état). James' CRH is the opposite, actually requiring regular debate against already standing laws as well as any new laws. The two seem completely incompatible. His CRH preempts and defuses any attempt toward fascism.

probably the fact that you imagine socialism as being unable to be 'multi-cellular' is because the historical examples of any attempts at a socialism never made it past the initial stage of its revolution... and therefore had to mainstain a stringent 'proletarian dictatorship' comprised of a single party. this is why its commonplace to equate communism with totalitarianism, something marx nor lenin never permanently advocated. the purpose of the temporary central party dictatorship was to concentrate control and work out the difficult organizational processes involved in stabalizing the newly revolutionized society. but instead of moving past this stage, the communist countries turned into state-capitalist models. this is largely due to the fact that there was immense economic competition with other capitalist economies... so they had to be able to compete. that, and its a natural historical trend for those in power to find ways to keep their power. but this is all 20th century stuff, and the world is now more than ever ripe for a sucessful, global revolution something along the lines of what trotsky envisioned so long ago. shame that the banner of socialism is being carried by the clowns on the left today. they're all entirely too moderate in my opinion.

Weren't Marx and Lenin all about historical natural outcomes of societies? If even with extra help, society ends up in a different place than they predicted, they were simply wrong.

Just from my own standpoint Marxist communism is just a fantasy. Didn't Marx propose an eventual state of communal and peaceful anarchy, having no rulers? He imagined a day when there would be no competition against the status quo and thus everyone would simply be happy going along with the flow. That is a utopic fairy tale.

The communist party in China became dictatorial and capitalistic because natural human drives required it to happen. There was, and is, resistance from both outside and inside the communist state. And there always will be. That alone requires a military control over the population. And a military control requires an economic control which in turn requires wealth and capitalistic pursuits.

Even if they conquer the world, which they certain strive to do, they will not "beat their swords into plow shares". That story was about as realistic as the Democrats paying off all student loans and providing universal healthcare for all the world. It was socialist carrot-on-a-stick propaganda since day one.

if you think of a socialism in terms of a governed and government split rather than a government of the governed, you'd naturally think in such dichotomous terms as 'the government not wanting to lose its power to the governed'. but if the governed are the government, there is no opposing body to lose power to.

That sounds like double talk. The governed cannot also be the governor. That would constitute certain death. A government populous participation scheme can and does work, but there must always be something outside, uncontrolled, dictating limits. There must always be a restraining or confining element. And there must also always be incentive.

There is always division between an upper and a lower authority. And there must always be. That is why socialism always has a class distinction. It is a simple minded way to maintain a governed vs governor distinction.

In trying to avoid the potential wordsmith games involved in classifying government types, the issue is really only a matter of who has authority over your life. James was saying that the highest authority should be a combination of your own neighbors rather than someone far removed from your situation in life and probably someone you will never meet - an extreme democracy that even the Greeks would envy. He expressed the concern that a distant, unrelated person would not be able to truly assess your situation and thus not be able to properly guide or govern your life. How much does Pelosi or Trump know about your real situation?

He used the analogy of the entire world being nothing but small businesses. I didn't see anything implying an overseeing hierarchy of authority controlling those businesses. Instead, the idea seems to be a practical answer to the concern, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" without the irresponsible welfare state debacle.

How can you have a socialist State if there is no State? He seemed to be proposing a form of constitutional anarchy - a constitutional substructure with no proposed hierarchical superstructure - no national ownership of production or financing.

It does seem that he allowed for a hierarchy to be formed by the choices of the independent groups or cells. He mentioned somewhere that a natural hierarchy would gradually evolve through time and experience from his CRH. In that vein he described the entire society to be like a human body where the brain and mind form without the conscious designs of the cells (the groups). The human body is certainly not a socialist structure. The human mind does not dictate the means by which the liver or kidneys do their job. It comes much closer to a constitutional republic of constitutionally formed cells (DNA being the cell's constitution or James' CRH).

[promethean75]

The way I understand it is that every SAM group is a separate cell-like or family like entity consisting of from 4 to 50 people. Each has its own constitution with unique amendments. Those constitutions act like a DNA molecule would in a human cell. The whole body of society would then have millions of those cells, each with a slightly different constitutional amendment set.

sounds like a PAZ, and the first problem with these that comes to my mind is this; how do groups not bound by the same constitution interact with each other without coming into conflict over what is interpreted as legal/illegal behavior, or what is characterized as a 'right'?

Weren't Marx and Lenin all about historical natural outcomes of societies? If even with extra help, society ends up in a different place than they predicted, they were simply wrong.

well i mean nobody can predict what will become of a society, really. aside from flirting a bit with hegel's dialectical materialism idea that society evolves and develops according to some internal rationale/logic (which he later dismissed as too philosophical and idealistic), marx's predictions weren't so outlandish and really a matter of commons sense. at some point the working class will become conscious of its situation and want to radically change it. all marx did was critically analyze the relationship between workers and the owners of the means of production, and presuppose and impending conflict because of those circumstances. but phrasing such as 'historical natural outcomes of societies' are too ambiguous to really represent marx's thinking. that's something hegel would say, but probably not marx. there can be no unnatural outcome of a society, can there? i mean what's an 'unnatural outcome'?

Just from my own standpoint Marxist communism is just a fantasy. Didn't Marx propose an eventual state of communal and peaceful anarchy, having no rulers? He imagined a day when there would be no competition against the status quo and thus everyone would simply be happy going along with the flow. That is a utopic fairy tale.

that 'utopian society' stuff was made up by the right to caricature marx's ideas and discredit them as fantastical nonsense. if marx ever used the term 'utopian' to describe this theoretical society, what he meant was a society in which drastic improvements were made to the quality of life for its citizens... not that we would all sit around the camp fire holding hands.

The communist party in China became dictatorial and capitalistic because natural human drives required it to happen.

i don't know if natural human drives 'require' anything, but i do know that there are any number of ways a political system can go under the various influences of the particular environment they are in. what happened to china is more like a contingency than a necessity. that china became what it did doesn't mean it 'had' to become what it did, though.

to address all your other questions i'd rather just try and explain how eloquently simple the basic premise of socialism is. the single most important objective here is to put complete control of the means of production into the hands of the workers, and abolish private corporations. this seemingly minor detail would force a radical restructuring of the entire government and therefore affect every aspect of life directly. as a result a true democracy would take shape around it because the working class would become the managing class, hence the governing class. that's the basic gist of it.

[obsrvr524]

The way I understand it is that every SAM group is a separate cell-like or family like entity consisting of from 4 to 50 people. Each has its own constitution with unique amendments. Those constitutions act like a DNA molecule would in a human cell. The whole body of society would then have millions of those cells, each with a slightly different constitutional amendment set.

sounds like a PAZ, and the first problem with these that comes to my mind is this; how do groups not bound by the same constitution interact with each other without coming into conflict over what is interpreted as legal/illegal behavior, or what is characterized as a 'right'?

I didn't see how the CRH would usurp authority from any existing Western government other than perhaps granting free speech. The Asians might not like it.

I suspect that you're missing the point of the groups. No matter what the surrounding circumstance, it helps to have allies or friends. The SAM constitution seems to merely provide for allies regardless of life's concurrent challenges. It really wouldn't matter what kind of government you were under unless they expressly forbid SAM type groups. The SAM Corp (or later called "Coop") is merely a structured agreement between friends to provide for mutual support. There doesn't seem to be anything sinister, nefarious, or rebellious about it. It seems to be, and as he stated, merely like a small business agreement that pertains to more than merely making money. And I'n sure that making money isn't forbidden either.

Weren't Marx and Lenin all about historical natural outcomes of societies? If even with extra help, society ends up in a different place than they predicted, they were simply wrong.

well i mean nobody can predict what will become of a society, really. aside from flirting a bit with hegel's dialectical materialism idea that society evolves and develops according to some internal rationale/logic (which he later dismissed as too philosophical and idealistic), marx's predictions weren't so outlandish and really a matter of commons sense. at some point the working class will become conscious of its situation and want to radically change it. all marx did was critically analyze the relationship between workers and the owners of the means of production, and presuppose and impending conflict because of those circumstances. but phrasing such as 'historical natural outcomes of societies' are too ambiguous to really represent marx's thinking. that's something hegel would say, but probably not marx. there can be no unnatural outcome of a society, can there? i mean what's an 'unnatural outcome'?

In this case, "natural outcome" doesn't imply the existence of an unnatural. It merely emphasizes that things happen for understandable and expected reasons, like the "natural consequence" of a rock rolling down a hill or perhaps a parachute not opening in time.

Just from my own standpoint Marxist communism is just a fantasy. Didn't Marx propose an eventual state of communal and peaceful anarchy, having no rulers? He imagined a day when there would be no competition against the status quo and thus everyone would simply be happy going along with the flow. That is a utopic fairy tale.

that 'utopian society' stuff was made up by the right to caricature marx's ideas and discredit them as fantastical nonsense. if marx ever used the term 'utopian' to describe this theoretical society, what he meant was a society in which drastic improvements were made to the quality of life for its citizens... not that we would all sit around the camp fire holding hands.

The communist party in China became dictatorial and capitalistic because natural human drives required it to happen.

i don't know if natural human drives 'require' anything, but i do know that there are any number of ways a political system can go under the various influences of the particular environment they are in. what happened to china is more like a contingency than a necessity. that china became what it did doesn't mean it 'had' to become what it did, though.

So you don't believe in determinism - everything is a consequence of what came before it?

to address all your other questions i'd rather just try and explain how eloquently simple the basic premise of socialism is. the single most important objective here is to put complete control of the means of production into the hands of the workers, and abolish private corporations. this seemingly minor detail would force a radical restructuring of the entire government and therefore affect every aspect of life directly. as a result a true democracy would take shape around it because the working class would become the managing class, hence the governing class. that's the basic gist of it.

At this point I think you have answered why you thought that James was proposing a socialist and fascist government. He was proposing the exact opposite, but I can now see why you thought otherwise.

We aren't really talking about James anymore, but socialism. Do you have a preferred thread where we can discuss your ideas concerning the proposed benefits of socialism?

[obsrvr524]

Do you have a preferred thread where we can discuss your ideas concerning the proposed benefits of socialism?

[promethean75]

Nah I don't hunker down and get involved in serious debates/discussions anymore. I learned years ago what a waste of effort this is. I'm only here because I'm a forum addict.

[obsrvr524]

Thanks for your candor. I suspect that you are far from being alone on this board in that regard.

This appears to be a soapbox board - output only. I'm still wondering why James stayed here so long.

[barbarianhorde]

Thanks for your candor. I suspect that you are far from being alone on this board in that regard.

This appears to be a soapbox board - output only. I'm still wondering why James stayed here so long.

James was here for a long time discussing stuff with me. He once said I was the main reason he was here. When we had a falling out he began slowly withdrawing. He developed much of his ideas on cooperation in the period we were trying to get something on the rails. But meanwhile he was calling my friends snakes who would betray me. He was right about one or two by the way.

Its true many people aren't here to take but to give. Everyone learns from each other though, except perhaps you, but thats not our problem.

that, and its a natural historical trend for those in power to find ways to keep their power.

Not to mention, will to power is what got them there in the first place. Usually, if not always, the party-leader types were, and I am from the heart of European Communism so I really have known them, the machiavellian and person-glorification types. Underneath them they have a layer of sycophants and actual hard loyalists, and these control what gets access to the leader.

but this is all 20th century stuff, and the world is now more than ever ripe for a sucessful, global revolution something along the lines of what trotsky envisioned so long ago.

How is anything more promising for socialism now? Where do you see any openings?

[barbarianhorde]

James completely opposed socialism because he opposes anything besides the Constitution of the US, which he intended to amend with this laborious procedure of perfectly justified adaptation to new circumstances which is partly outlined above. He didn't intend to begin from scratch.

[barbarianhorde]

From the book:

Affectance in:
- Physics: Ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses wherein "positive" is electrical positive and "negative" is electrical negative potential.
- Psychology: Subtle influences, often random and unintentional wherein "positive" is perceived hope and "negative" is perceived threat.
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.
- Physiology: Subtle nutrients, toxins, and EMR, often undetected organic and inorganic chemicals and microwave signals, wherein "positive" is healthy and "negative" is unhealthy.
- Economics: Small exchanges in trade, often unnoticed and unrecorded, wherein "positive" is wealth gain and "negative" is wealth loss.
- Military: Subtle elements of control, often physical, psychological, traditional, or religious intimidation or inspiration wherein "positive" is more control and "negative" is less control.

Either he was slipping here or was misunderstood; In physics, the "negative" should be entropy and "positive" anentropy, "self-harmony".

Quite clearly, whereas in the lower categories, the "negative" and "positive" are value-judgments based on the standard of power, whereas "positive" or "negative" referring to electric charge isn't a value judgment. An electrons state isn't less desirable than a protons'.


Disagree?
Search James for Anentropy and self-harmony.

[obsrvr524]

When we had a falling out he began slowly withdrawing.

Do you remember about what time period that was?

Everyone learns from each other though, except perhaps you, but thats not our problem.

Why would you think that I am the exception?

In physics, the "negative" should be entropy and "positive" anentropy, "self-harmony".

Wouldn't that distinction be the "philosophy" category rather than physics?

whereas in the lower categories, the "negative" and "positive" are value-judgments based on the standard of power, whereas "positive" or "negative" referring to electric charge isn't a value judgment. An electrons state isn't less desirable than a protons'.

It seems to me that he used the general idea of objectively constructive or gainful as the "positive". I guess there are times when that could be merely a value judgement.

In his The Communal Particle thread, he states:

And as the communal particle forms, it will most naturally have both "positive affects" and "negative affects", "cooperative people" and "uncooperative people", or perhaps "constructive people" and "destructive people". And what determines the "potential" of the community is the balance of how much positive-noise to negative-noise happens to be there as the community forms, how many constructive people vs destructive, or cooperative people vs antagonistic people. If the number of positive people and negative people are the same, the community will be a neutral community having both within. Of course people are not really entirely positive or entirely negative, just as EMR noise isn't, but if gauged by their average, each person will register as more of one than the other in that environment.

That would match with the entropy and anti-entropy. The anentropy (he explains as being the stable state) would perhaps refer to the neutral? Neither gaining or losing, but still being the most valued state in many regards.

The notion recently promoted in the last 400 years or so that the goal and purpose of life is "power" (WtP), is false and merely a social/psychological trick. And that is the real reason that so very many people are not Nietzschian nor Faustian. Life has never actually been about gaining power. The truth is rather that gaining power is for ensuring maintenance. But it is too easy for Man to confuse anti-entropy (the effort to grow) with an-entropy (the effort to maintain).

The focus must be maintained upon the actual goal/purpose. A degree of power must be sought, just as a degree of sex is required for reproduction. But that doesn't mean that anyone has to become manic about either. Power and sex (just as examples) serve only the purpose of ensuring the future maintenance.

Acquisition is not the goal. SAM maintains focus on Maintaining = Anentropy (anti-corruption). It does that through its decision making process which involves IJOT, an ongoing calculation of the eternal maintaining of joy throughout its populous.

James had pointed out long ago that life is actually not a pursuit of growth, gaining, and spreading as has been promoted for a long time, but rather life is actually interested in maintaining. The effort to expand (anti-entropy) stems from the higher concern to merely ensure maintenance (anentropy). Sex is instilled as a means to surround and protect a body with compatible defense.

He explains that the WtP thing is actually just the anti-entropy beginning stage of seeking anentropy. And that thought complies with Marx, Lenin, Hegel, and most political theorists who I know anything about.

[promethean75]

James had pointed out long ago that life is actually not a pursuit of growth, gaining, and spreading as has been promoted for a long time, but rather life is actually interested in maintaining.

even in this maintaining there is active force, and that we call one kind 'defensive' and another 'offensive' is really beside the point. so preservation and maintenance are just another instance of dominating, only here we call it reactive rather than active. but to be clear it's not entirely sensible to talk (simpliciter) of intentions to grow and expand and preserve when referring to nature, because these characteristics are only attributed to language using people for describing various behaviors. of course you could say 'this system is pursuing stability', but it wouldn't mean the same thing as saying 'joe is pursuing some stability in his life.' only a being capable of knowing and planning and anticipating can be said to 'pursue'... while, say, a plant might be observed to be in a stable, balanced state, but this isn't because the plant pursued these things. but james isn't the only one guilty of this gross pathetic fallacy. here's another guy who did the same thing...


https://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche. ... nwill.html

now all this does apply to human beings and how they can understand the fundamental dynamic underlying their pursuits... but it cannot apply to things that do not consciously and intentionally pursue anything. to do so would be metaphorical and not literal language.

the grey area is... how complex does a life form have to be in order to be accurately described in such a way. are we taking monomeric molecules, polymeric molecules, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, what? at what point does it make sense to talk of an organism as actively engaging in behavior that can be defined as 'pursuit'? i'll tell ya. when that organism shares a public language with other language users. if a mawfucka don't speak your language, it makes no sense to try and understand his behavior as such.

in that sense i can't conceive of a will to power pervading through all that exists, much less that these things might have a 'will'.

philosophers luuuuv to do this, man. and really it's something they can't help. they bring to life the entire universe with these metaphors and absentmindedly think of it in this distorted, anthropomorphic way. bergson does this. holy shit does he do this, man. schopenhauer as much as nietzsche, too.

[barbarianhorde]

Solid reply obsrvr.

When we had a falling out he began slowly withdrawing.

Do you remember about what time period that was?

Around 2014 and onward.
I started elaborately talking to him in I believe 2010.

Everyone learns from each other though, except perhaps you, but thats not our problem.

Why would you think that I am the exception?

I was just pissed off, this site has been unfathomably rich in constructive dialogue. (Ive been here since 2006)

In physics, the "negative" should be entropy and "positive" anentropy, "self-harmony".

Wouldn't that distinction be the "philosophy" category rather than physics?

No, because James explained atoms and even protons, neutrons and electrons in terms of anentropy and self-harmony.

whereas in the lower categories, the "negative" and "positive" are value-judgments based on the standard of power, whereas "positive" or "negative" referring to electric charge isn't a value judgment. An electrons state isn't less desirable than a protons'.

It seems to me that he used the general idea of objectively constructive or gainful as the "positive". I guess there are times when that could be merely a value judgement.

Exactly. There is nothing less objectively constructive and gainful about an electron than about a proton.

In his The Communal Particle thread, he states:

And as the communal particle forms, it will most naturally have both "positive affects" and "negative affects", "cooperative people" and "uncooperative people", or perhaps "constructive people" and "destructive people". And what determines the "potential" of the community is the balance of how much positive-noise to negative-noise happens to be there as the community forms, how many constructive people vs destructive, or cooperative people vs antagonistic people. If the number of positive people and negative people are the same, the community will be a neutral community having both within. Of course people are not really entirely positive or entirely negative, just as EMR noise isn't, but if gauged by their average, each person will register as more of one than the other in that environment.

That would match with the entropy and anti-entropy. The anentropy (he explains as being the stable state) would perhaps refer to the neutral? Neither gaining or losing, but still being the most valued state in many regards.

Well, given the laws of thermodynamics, maintaining stability is a positive thing, requiring concerted effort.
Thats kind of the mystery that makes western philosophy superior to eastern types - the acknowledgement that neutrality and balance is an active thing, not a passive property of the universe.

The notion recently promoted in the last 400 years or so that the goal and purpose of life is "power" (WtP), is false and merely a social/psychological trick. And that is the real reason that so very many people are not Nietzschian nor Faustian. Life has never actually been about gaining power. The truth is rather that gaining power is for ensuring maintenance. But it is too easy for Man to confuse anti-entropy (the effort to grow) with an-entropy (the effort to maintain).

What he doesn't deny is that gaining power is required to maintain anentropy. Thus that therefore anentropy is "about" gaining power just as gaining power serves anentropy.

The focus must be maintained upon the actual goal/purpose. A degree of power must be sought, just as a degree of sex is required for reproduction. But that doesn't mean that anyone has to become manic about either. Power and sex (just as examples) serve only the purpose of ensuring the future maintenance.

No one said anything about becoming manic.
It is rather that the word "power" makes people afraid, whereas it is a very morally-neutral term in physics. (Im coming from a physics background) Power doesn't mean "crushing others", it mostly means things like having a heartbeat. (As you know heartbeat is electrically powered so to want to keep ones heart beating is will to power.)

I personally do not believe there is any specific goal to existence. Will to power is simply a phenomenon that one can observe in all behaviours. So is anentropy a state that is observable in all stable particles and beings. My intellectual humility prevents me from prescribing a universal goal to the whole of existence. I just observe that all goals are values, thus that all goal-orientedness is valuing and that all activity which has as its orientation the maintenance of the self (indirectly, through appropriating the values proper to survival) is self-valuing.

Acquisition is not the goal. SAM maintains focus on Maintaining = Anentropy (anti-corruption). It does that through its decision making process which involves IJOT, an ongoing calculation of the eternal maintaining of joy throughout its populous.

James had pointed out long ago that life is actually not a pursuit of growth, gaining, and spreading as has been promoted for a long time, but rather life is actually interested in maintaining. The effort to expand (anti-entropy) stems from the higher concern to merely ensure maintenance (anentropy). Sex is instilled as a means to surround and protect a body with compatible defense.

I do not agree with James that nature has any concerns. His teleology for nature goes too far for me.
I only see tendencies which survive (due to logically clarified reasons indicated above) and tendencies which don't.
"Will to power" is a tendency which survives because it supports itself. I call that "self-valuing".

He explains that the WtP thing is actually just the anti-entropy beginning stage of seeking anentropy.

That makes it a profoundly fundamental thing though, doesn't it?

And that thought complies with Marx, Lenin, Hegel, and most political theorists who I know anything about.

Haha - don't let James hear this. He absolutely loathed Marx.
But again will to power isn't a political concept but one of physics and ontology, which explicates into more complex and particular fields such as human behaviour. Just like RM:AO and Value Ontology and any serious philosophical model.

[obsrvr524]

When we had a falling out he began slowly withdrawing.

Do you remember about what time period that was?

Around 2014 and onward.

I am not finding any discussion between you and him. Were you using a different name then?

James explained atoms and even protons, neutrons and electrons in terms of anentropy and self-harmony.

I thought he explained everything in terms of affectance and anentropy was merely the stable state of gaining and losing affectance (subtle influences) at the same rate. Anything stable would be "anentropic" including those particles. Or am I missing something (I am jumping around a lot)?

There is nothing less objectively constructive and gainful about an electron than about a proton.

He defined one as being of more affectance than what is around it and the other as being of less. Guess which was which. Both were called "anentropic" particles.

Well, given the laws of thermodynamics, maintaining stability is a positive thing, requiring concerted effort.

Maintaining merely means that something is enduring through time. Whether that is positive or negative is a value judgement. If you like whatever it is, its maintenance is positive. If you dislike it, it's negative that it persists.

James,
Please define "anentropic" for us ignorami.My dictionary does not include that word. Thanks.

"Anti-entropy". And/or "the effort to sustain" rather than "the effort to disseminate" (entropy). In Science, "entropy" really refers to the state of being dispersed rather than the culmination of forces that cause dispersing, but it is useful to use it in both ways.

An anentropic harmony is immutably stable, such as a sub-atomic particle or "the perfect religion/government/economy". The trick with Life is getting the "harmony" part right (the joy).

Thats kind of the mystery that makes western philosophy superior to eastern types - the acknowledgement that neutrality and balance is an active thing, not a passive property of the universe.

Apparently James agreed with that, although he has some Taoist references in there. The Taoists were anything but passive.

What he doesn't deny is that gaining power is required to maintain anentropy. Thus that therefore anentropy is "about" gaining power just as gaining power serves anentropy.

But he called it "anentropic" only when it is gaining no more than it is losing, like a stable economy.

Because you believe in such massive national and global economies, the most stable wealth distribution will always be:
$$ W = \frac{1}{1 + x^2} $$
.. not a great deal different than the current global economy.

Money is a crude measure of affluence, which is a social term for Affectance. Need more be said?

The "solution" - stop forming such massive economies (of course nothing is a solution if never applied).

Yes James, i understand that definition of enlightenment of Buddhism. It says that- be in the stream but do not get wet; detachment.

But, i am not able to accept it completely. There is some paradox in it as this perception restricts the effort of elevation to some extent. Perhaps, it may be useful for enlightened ones, but not for a distant traveler, whose journey is still on.

Every way that has been taught up to this day, has always left something out. RM allows you to find out what and why for each case. Sitting blissfully on a mountain top is not "The Way". Merely avoiding the bad is not "The Way". Maximum rate and density of change is "The Way". In physics, it is "Maximum Harmonic Momentum". In economics, it is the maximum rate of exchange possible and thus the greatest economy. In life, it is the greatest inspiration possible applied to the most dense population possible producing the greatest rate and range of the greatest products and services possible wherein there is absolutely no unemployment, but not the enslaved labor type of employment often seen today.

That one makes me think that James would definitely be a Trumpian.
And also:

This is precisely what happened in Europe. Some of their financial institutions( both public and private) becomes too large to be accommodated by their economy and sucked all their wealth, leaving both governments and folks behind wondering

Yes. That is dangerous and something we can talk about shortly. There is a limit to how dense the wealth can be compared to the society.

In social terms this is the stage of choas/revolt in the society. Thus, it would be better for the particles(institutions) not grow too big and try to live in the harmony with the ambience(society).

Yes and one of the most important reasons for RM to be clearly and mathematically understood. For a governance to purposely stop growing, it must see a very clear and indisputable reason, very indisputable. That is why each detail of this must be accurately understood. Their mathematicians can then model it and prove what will happen when they try to get too large (again). The ideal happens to be a great many tiny governances that are all designed fundamentally the same way, but very different in many ways. I hope we can eventually get into exactly what they way must be and why.

Chankya advised this in his book Chankya Sutra.
Excess of everything is bad, even of the virtue.

And again that is why it all must be understood to the point of being mathematically modeled rather than depending on people's faith in their elders. People are convince to lose their faith, but the mathematics and logic is difficult to argue against. Using Definitional logic, which I haven't been doing much of here, the entire understanding is totally irrefutable.

No one said anything about becoming manic.
It is rather that the word "power" makes people afraid, whereas it is a very morally-neutral term in physics. (Im coming from a physics background) Power doesn't mean "crushing others", it mostly means things like having a heartbeat. (As you know heartbeat is electrically powered so to want to keep ones heart beating is will to power.)

I personally do not believe there is any specific goal to existence.

Where did James say anything about existence having a goal? I'm not finding anything.

Will to power is simply a phenomenon that one can observe in all behaviours. So is anentropy a state that is observable in all stable particles and beings. My intellectual humility prevents me from prescribing a universal goal to the whole of existence. I just observe that all goals are values, thus that all goal-orientedness is valuing and that all activity which has as its orientation the maintenance of the self (indirectly, through appropriating the values proper to survival) is self-valuing.

I don't see any disagreement with that.

Acquisition is not the goal. SAM maintains focus on Maintaining = Anentropy (anti-corruption). It does that through its decision making process which involves IJOT, an ongoing calculation of the eternal maintaining of joy throughout its populous.

James had pointed out long ago that life is actually not a pursuit of growth, gaining, and spreading as has been promoted for a long time, but rather life is actually interested in maintaining. The effort to expand (anti-entropy) stems from the higher concern to merely ensure maintenance (anentropy). Sex is instilled as a means to surround and protect a body with compatible defense.

I do not agree with James that nature has any concerns. His teleology for nature goes too far for me.
I only see tendencies which survive (due to logically clarified reasons indicated above) and tendencies which don't.
"Will to power" is a tendency which survives because it supports itself. I call that "self-valuing".

"No concerns"? You believe that people and animals just live and die in blissful harmony, void of concerns?

You might want to inform the Buddhists. They seem to be wasting a lot of time teaching that trick.

He explains that the WtP thing is actually just the anti-entropy beginning stage of seeking anentropy.

That makes it a profoundly fundamental thing though, doesn't it?

Yes but you seem to be attributing concern and casting teleology now. A will is a desire. At what point does the physical mechanism become the willful incentive?

And that thought complies with Marx, Lenin, Hegel, and most political theorists who I know anything about.

Haha - don't let James hear this. He absolutely loathed Marx.

He certainty had a serious distaste for socialism.

But again will to power isn't a political concept

I'm not so sure that is true. The will to power mantra has been used throughout a great deal of revolutionary politics.


I never knew how much trouble people were going through to do all of the quoting. It's kind of a pain in the butt.

[obsrvr524]

James completely opposed socialism because he opposes anything besides the Constitution of the US, which he intended to amend with this laborious procedure of perfectly justified adaptation to new circumstances which is partly outlined above. He didn't intend to begin from scratch.

Are you referring to his proposal to make US laws obligated to their statutory goals? I' not finding anything else concerning James being a fanatic about the USC.

The US Constitution needs merely ONE small change from its original form in order to repair all damages that have taken place as well as rise to far, far greater heights.

That one change is merely to require that the reasoning behind each and every law be recorded for public view and open debate.

All of that is exactly antithetical to the New USA under Global Socialism.
And that is why you couldn't even begin to go in that direction.
The G8 would shut you down in a heart beat.

But yes, that is the way it was supposed to be. People in authority were NOT allowed even as much freedom of speech as private citizens due to having more authority. Just like on this forum, once you become a mod, you have an obligation to be more careful of what you are saying to or about people. But also like almost every forum, mods, people in authority, immediately begin to dictate what others can say while allowing themselves more freedom to say whatever they want.

The intent of the US Constitution was to be the opposite of the historical tendencies toward totalitarian socialism. The USA was strictly anti-socialist. Yet now, due to leaving a very small window open, the USA is merely pretending to not be socialist and preparing for marshal law when they finally can no longer pretend (pretending is expensive).

He really prophetically hit the mark on that one. They aren't hiding it any more. Trump bumped their timeline.

And his SAM Coop is completely separate from the USC. He was understandably a bit fanatical about that constitution concept.