[Fis] Congress on Order In Brazil

[Diego Lucio Rapoport]

Dear Karl

I was born years after WW2 in a continent  that was predated by foreigners
(not that locals were not all free from predators, the champion being the
Aztec empire) the Anglo Empire but which was relinquished in the wake of
the 1930 crisis and being largely left to itself until the distribution
that followed WW2 was set in place.

Since then, how to situate ourselves to do our own vis-a-vis the imperative
order has been the subject of much suffering (for example, my generation
was almost wholly "disappeared" (viz., executed) at the early ages of
twenties and even less), frustration and heroism too. We have had and
continue to have little respite but for what we are able to make for
ourselves or simply attention has been focused elsewhere.

 Presently, in the course of two years it has been indebted as an
exponentiated replay of past experiences only to guarrantee that this order
would persist by gaining the support of those that have for life aspiration
being left some scrubs of the cake, say, by being able to travel to the
painted plastic shining theaters of alienation of this hegemon, perhaps
dwelling in secluded neighbourhoods with barbed wires enclosing them, and
just enough to pay for the ticket of the entrance of the club of the
hegemon, in the category of well payed servants, dispensable as any object
might be.

These are facts mingled with aspirations and dreams of serving the machine
that ultimately will crush them.

The new generation is seeing itself  in the need to learn afresh in a world
which the imperative order cannot have ourselves to support it, nor they
can offer any scrubs nor the most elementary needs if not renouncing to
some of their priviliges, but mostly to the idea that this order is THE
natural one. To illustrate better: the First Lady of Chile when the crisis
erupted five weeks ago, voiced the notion that the populace are aliens
which are unfathomable but very much seems that some priviliges were to be
dispensed (Since then, she sticks to the former, and has changed her mind
about the latter, nothing to be dispensed, at all).

Indeed, these "aliens" believe that self, other and locus of being coexist
in place and time, and no element of this triad can be forfeited,

This coexistence is the basis for what i call the natural order, and has
for metaform a HyperKlein Bottle, for which there is no inside nor outside
as absolute, but rather a communication and fusion based on supraduality,
and heterarchies prime with respect to hierarchies. It is the very
structure of perception, cognition, the imaginal and material domains (you
may see this in the works by Diego Rapoport).

Yes, the notion of other orders than the hierarchical one require to be
considered.

A"congress" to that effect, yes, it might be useful.

(Though i confess to have no passport, my tenth expired long ago, and
travel only in my beloved Patagonia with its seemingly infinite expanse,
and irregularly to neighbouring countries where i have lived before).

Best wishes

Diego Lucio

El mar., 26 nov. 2019 a las 21:09, Karl Javorszky (<karl.javorszky at gmail.com>)
escribió:

> A period comes to its end by means of a crisis and restarts as something
> partially new
>
>
>
> Dear Diego,
>
> One needs no factual proofs as a support for the thoughts expressed in
> this chatroom, we are not in the business of factual things here, I
> believe. If we were discussing facts, we would be sitting in some Committee
> on Standards and Norming: where the conceptual work has already been done,
> and there are facts and relations among the facts the participants had
> already agreed on. We discuss concepts here, of which we are not even sure
> that they do exist, like Order and Information. In your valuable expose you
> discuss order concepts, as being visible in social stratification and
> allocation of goods and justice to different participants. Let me talk in
> more general terms about order.
>
> 1. The end of a period
>
> We do live in interesting times. We are witnessing, and taking part, in a
> slow-motion process of a collapse. There is a change in the air. The frame
> had become widened, more aspects can be pictured, from perspectives spaced
> wider than before.
>
> The historical perspective of exporting culture by killing people and
> raping the present, traditional culture, has been with us, without
> questioning, since times writing up records of history have begun, and
> probably since even earlier times. Our generation has understood that
> although killing your opponent may be explained away into doing and having
> done something honourable, by using traditional terms and rhetoric, but the
> procedure itself cannot be actually done maximally effectively – and if you
> don’t want to do something in an efficient manner, why do it at all? The
> ultimate war defeats its own goal, as it leaves all participants dead,
> victors inclusive: so why begin an escalation if all know that it is
> unthinkable to escalate fully. Let us credit Hitler with having fought the
> last ultimate, total war, although Truman would be a serious contender for
> having that named after him, which we since then have understood to be a
> complete idiocy. If the last step of a correct chain of reasoning leads to
> a nonsense, then the whole chain of reasoning is severely discredited. This
> is what falls us now on the head: that the ideology of the Normative Power
> of the Factual has proven to be conceptually finite and local. We cease to
> believe in the magic power of *Individual q*, which he used to derive
> from the *position* that the individual has occupied. The legitimacy of
> his teachings is demolished. He may keep declaring, that such an order *q*
> has to be maintained, because this is the order that keeps the world
> running, and him on his position, but we see in the rural communities,
> outside of the inner circle of the courtiers of Emperor *q*, that order
> *q* is actually dis-allocating matter to places, resources to families.
> There is apparently a much better order *r*, the details of which may at
> the moment not yet be fully spelled out, but a general agreement lies in
> the air, that a differing set of relations among the elements is definitely
> called for, and that such an alternative order is possible.
>
> The end of a period is marked by a crisis. Then, a re-evaluation of all
> concepts is permissible and will take place. Among the teachings that
> experience a re-evaluation by society is the interpretation of history, as
> Orwell has pointed out. If the cultural export, causing a violent import
> and division in the subset of elements subjected to being civilised, is
> defined to be a positive value, the system of measurements yields that all
> is well and order *q* keeps on ruling based on reason, insight and
> tradition. If the costs caused by the extermination of the previous form of
> organisation appear to be higher than the benefits received from being
> civilised into someone other’s design, then unrest will present itself.
> Nature likes to be in an optimal position and state, and elements
> (relatively) free of external prescriptions tend to migrate towards their
> natural places. There is a web of tension when we regard the two webs
> created by the ruling ideology of order *q* and the instinctive feeling
> of there being a more just and sensible way of distributing things, which
> is a version of the natural order, felt by the participants on a gut,
> instinctive, pre-intellectual level of hormonal facts, which we called
> order *r*. The tension between these two is again a web, which is not
> represented on the level of objects, matters and distribution of goods
> among the members of the public. The meta-web is not built on places,
> elements and resources, but on the *differences* of two webs which are
> represented in reality. This is a dimensionless measure of distortion. But
> this is what the people feel, and can instinctively agree on, that the time
> has come *now* that something happens. To this level of interplay of
> symbols is the mombomat looking forward and pleased to provide a wild
> rhythm to.
>
> The collapse relates to the order in society. We do not have any more
> *one* version of teachings of history, and we have differing ways of
> assigning positive or negative values to observed facts and relations among
> facts. The concept of total wars, and therefore of wars generally, has
> become discredited: therefore, the traditional way of settling rivalries
> does not serve its purpose any more. The export of population surplus in
> the traditional fashion, by subjugating the inhabitants of other places, is
> frowned on. The heroic interpretations of cultural rape have lost their
> credibility. Additionally, to the credibility issues of traditional social
> norms, we experience the problem that money is created out of thin, hot
> air, not to speak of problems with the surface temperature of the planet:
> what else is needed to add to the instability? It can well be, that the
> present version of the invention of the Phoenicians will follow the way of
> the commodity money cowry clams. If the rules of the distribution game had
> been conceptually biased, skewed by the writers of the rules, and had a
> built-in bias preferring those in the sub-procedure of accumulating
> capital, who already have had accumulated some capital, then a
> concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is a built-in consequence,
> to be expected as a certain outcome of the game. Once all the wealth has
> been won from the other players, the losers will lose interest remaining in
> the game, of continued play. This would in itself not disturb the haves,
> that the have-nots are unwilling to cooperate: if they don’t want to
> starve, they will cooperate. The problem for the haves comes rather from
> the drying up of flows from the have-nots, as the have-nots had become
> actually too poor to continue subsidising the haves. If the steady income
> stops, the haves, too, have no interest in continuing the game. Then a
> decoupling of bonds takes place. The haves and the have-nots are no more
> members of the same community, they will not be depicted any more as *one*
> Sachverhalt, there ceases to exist a word to describe their common
> interests, because the former antagonists have no common relation any more
> as participants of distribution and re-distribution. This can happen in
> intellectual relations also: it is no more, that a person’s views are
> irritating: they just become irrelevant.
>
> 2. Several, competing concepts of order
>
> A European of some age, one will remember thankfully our variants of
> Emperor *q* in the 1968ff years. (In Europe, only one person, Benno
> Ohnesorg, was shot during political demonstrations, no Kent State
> University or Tienanmen Square style massacres. This has given the 68-ers a
> feeling of victory.) Not being too repressive, the European version of *q*
> had made it possible for the 68-ers to do the *Long March Through the
> Institutions*. Antiauthoritarians pop up at times from the most unlikely
> places, like anarchists throwing bombs at royalty. Now the right honourable
> learned friends are co-participants in the spectacle of a big bang of the
> numbering system, with the fragments caught and reassembled into a
> mombering system. This is truly a réussit, if it goes through, of *change
> the system from within, from its basis*.
>
> The concept of order is the anatomy of the Emperor. Order concept *q* is
> differing to order concept *r*, which is how we call a version of the
> most natural order that is ever possible. Order prevails, if requirements
> are met. We know the requirements from the words: all are, where they
> should be. If requirements change periodically (see influences of Earth,
> Moon, Sun), there will appear a collection of possible, maybe including
> some of them: ideal, arrangements and strategies for the elements to be on
> or to progress towards their ideal places. This is what we are looking for:
> the most sustainable compromise among differing requirements that change
> periodically. If we turn up in our archaeological work on relations among
> variants of *(a,b)* some generally valid rules of order, then we have
> unearthed, uncovered, unveiled a new faith, a new concept of basic order,
> at least as legitimate as all other existing order concepts.
>
> 3. The powers above us
>
> The Emperor’s message is, invariably along the centuries, that it is
> necessary and rational to keep faith with him. “I represent the order. The
> fact, that I am *up* and you are *down* keeps reinforcing archaic
> knowledge of our species, from the times we still dwelt on trees. The chief
> is up and he pisses down: his urine’s flavour and *haute-gout *are the
> key properties, on which members of the group recognise each other as
> belonging to the same group. The most basic of all relations – gravity
> itself – is normed, adjusted, defined, rediscovered, reinforced on my being
> up and you being down. If you don’t believe in me being up, you don’t
> believe in gravity.”
>
> Gravity is one of 3 axes that appear by themselves if one orders diverse
> forms of appearances at his hearth’s leisure in a systematic fashion. It is
> important to remind the learned friends, that numbers have so far nothing
> to do with the idea of order relations to be proposed as useful and
> practical. The numbers will eventually validate the hypothesis, that
> predictable patterns appear if one orders some glitzy puppets around. Dogs
> have a perfect understanding of spatial geometry, as their ability to catch
> a frisbee shows, but dogs will not be credited by using numbers as the
> basis and method for their calculations of paths. We discuss the
> instinctive intelligence here, which arrives at correctly predicting
> coordinates in space, without using that Sumerian invention, *N*, 1,2,3,…
>
> The basic order, visualised as three axes, has one, additive and oriented,
> which serves as our basis of experiencing the effects of gravity, because
> it exerts a continuous ordering requirement on the elements. The other two
> are conceptually symmetric, de facto not quite symmetric.
>
> 4. Oh, to be different (diverse, alien, biverse)
>
> There is a rather archaic feel to a pre-Sumerian deal, where two partners
> in commerce try to establish the value of an item of exchange. How much it
> is, both parts together, has already been agreed on: the merchants
> themselves being subject to an equaliser, they have no difficulty in
> imagining an objective equaliser that is valid for other, factual objects
> of reality, too. The equal gradation and additivity of the vertical axis,
> which depicts *a+b=c*, allows the connection of a mental image, of *N*,
> with an experience rooted in natural order, which we call gravity. The idea
> of the pre-Sumerians, with *putting the two pieces together* and agreeing
> on rules on how to establish names for the procedure, has been developed
> into a strongly rooted and organised mental system, the present numbering
> system. This was the easy part.
>
> To compare two things with each other, it helps to consider, what they
> yield if joined. It also helps if we see by how much the blue smaller, *a*,
> is different to the green bigger, *b*. The discussion has two points: how
> the blue relates to the double of the green, and how the green relates to
> the double of the blue. This may appear rather alien, even
> extra-terrestrial alien, to us, but this is the pattern the orderings bring
> forth. How much the *two parts of something* are *different t*o each
> other is as good a question as how much they are *together*. The inner
> difference can have two voices: once the smaller narrating how he would
> experience the difference to the bigger, if only he was double his size,
> once the bigger, telling us, by how much he is bigger, and even by how much
> more bigger, relative to the smaller, if he was double his size. (The songs
> of the equal are haikus.) These are two different tales of order, which
> give a descriptive structure, creating a background for the experiences to
> be placed in. Combined with the upright axis, of which the effects are
> independent (the two parts remain additive, even as they are classified
> according to their inner alienation), which is *semper et ubique,* the
> three axes generate a space. Right-left and front-back are describing
> measures of diversity, the upright axis describes the similarity property
> of objects.
>
> The two diversity axes disperse the elements across a wider territory than
> their similarity property. There are more ways to be different than to be
> similar, which is no great wonder, given that there are two narrators of
> diversity, who have to fuse into one to sing about similarity. The natural
> order is visible in the form of a lentil, at times in the form of a flat
> doughnut. Saturn makes the example well visible: one would assume that the
> things circling Saturn are ordered according to their inner diversity
> (alienation), as predicted by the measurement gradation of the two
> horizontal axes. The two degrees of alienation *{a-2b, b-2a} *give the
> position *(x,y) *of any *(a,b)* on a plane exactly, and with their sum *{a+b}
> *giving an exact value *z*, the individual called *(a,b) *could be
> assigned a place in a 3D space. Diversity (alienation, biversity) is as
> much a valid property of two objects included in the same Sachverhalt, as
> is their most common, and commonly used, property valid. If it is
> legitimate to derive the *additive *property of *(a,b), *then it is
> equally legitimate to derive the *diversity (alienation, biversity) *property
> of the same *(a,b).*
>
> 5. Oh, to be subversive once again (Urban guerrillas of number theory)
>
> Your position suggests, that you believe in the existence of a better
> order than presently exists. You discuss the social context of the apparent
> disorder. Physicists will be interested in the forms of the breakdowns of
> the order. Chemistry will investigate, how assemblies are built, which
> common sub-orders govern associations, and genetics investigates, which is
> the perfect stage for the artistic performance of a piece called folding
> and unfolding, following the rules of folding and unfolding. Some will be
> interested in how the assembly blows up for containing too many inner
> contradictions, some will watch and discuss, what measures are to be taken
> to reduce the overall distortion between the actual web of allotments and a
> more natural one, and some discuss, how the inner peristaltic of the system
> invariably leads to destabilisation of power structures and dissolution of
> order, allowing for a different form of organisation. Some theorise about
> ideal circumstances, trying to use the pause signal of the system as a
> carrier frequency.
>
> The ideal order, in which theoretical genetics functions, is well
> different from the social order actually existing in different forms among
> regions of the planet and across species. However, both approaches discuss
> the identical idea of a system of ordering principles having several forms
> of realisation, and judgements being possible regarding differing forms of
> appearance of order. You say: “There must be a better order!”, I say:
> “There is a natural order.”.
>
> 6. We have to talk about the issue
>
> What the Congress could contribute is a discussion about the meaning of
> the term Order. The possession of the megaphone has given some groups of
> society structural advantages. The guy with the megaphone sounds forcefully
> convincing, compared to those who rely on the quiet voice of reason.
>
> Discussing tales of Utopia and contrasting them with descriptions of
> actual reality will direct attention to the distortion measure, describing
> the alienation between two variants of order. Addressing what we understand
> what the word “Order” means is a great and brave task.
>
> Maybe in a quiet corner some fellow-accountants will happen to have an
> exchange, talking shop among *jongleurs des cycles*, periodic and
> rhythmic learned friends; such a meeting of minds could be an invigorating
> experience, if you have sympathies for new wilds, shakers of fundaments
> among those in the philosophy of numbers. Similarly, learned friends whose
> revolutionary impulses express themselves in more Earthbound subjects, will
> meet in their own biotope. Sex, drugs, crime are the retro side of the web
> of concepts that is order, so the order concept is always eminently trendy.
> If the web is folded in fashion *q*, the result is called ordered, by the
> guys with the megaphone, but then Spartacus, Robin Hood and Che Guevara
> demonstrate that perspectives exist, which maintain order concepts that are
> radically different to *q*.
>
> Wishing you the best:
>
> Karl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191126/fb50620c/attachment-0001.html>