+ +

  + -   + ±

The New Dialectics
The Dialectical Phenomenology of Michael Kosok

  - +    - -   - ±
  ± +   ± -   ± ±

 

Back to Homepage

revolution vs
 the myth of consistency and identity

Michael Kosok

 



































back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top

























back to top































back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top





























back to top















































back to top
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I

Identity‑Systems, and the World of  Paradox which forms Its Context

    1a      The Myth of Consistency and Identity                                    

   1b      The Reality of Paradox                                                                    
 

Part 2

The Logic, Science and Life of Paradox: Three Specific Analyses

2a In Logic:  going beyond Goedel’s theorems on incompleteness in standard identity logic,  into the existence of a “logic‑of‑paradox” called the Dialectic Matrix which transcends Goedelian limitation.

                                             6                                                                              

2b In Science: presenting an outline for both a universal and a particular unified‑theory of relativity and quantum mechanics based upon the paradox of a non‑linear universe which has no ultimate particle of energy interaction.

                                             7

2c In Life:  showing how subjectivity, in a life of paradox, is intrinsically inter-subjective on all levels of existence making the autonomy of individuality and the communality of society in any form mutually conditioned; the exploitative nature of hierarchical societies in which this mutuality is obscured is contrasted with its alternatives.

Part 3

Paradox and the Dynamics of Transcendence: Redefining Identity through Paradox

 3a The World of “Ing”… being, doing, thinking, identifying, acting, ...inging 

 

 

Part 1

Identity Systems, and the World of Paradox which Forms its Context

 

1a The Myth of Consistency and Identity.

There is a myth — a gigantic, socially‑validated fairy tale which pervades our lives. It is not a whimsical myth, nor is it at all evil… although it can get carried away with itself, plunging humanity into periodic states of violence, alternating with cycles of stagnation. In fact, it is a very practical myth, for there is nothing quite as useful to life as a myth… or two or three. But we would only be misguided sorcerer’s apprentices if we did not know the truly magical qualities myths perform, or the even more transcending states which appear once myths have been seen through not affirmed or negated, but simply…made transparent.

You see, the myth I am talking about arises right out of the heart of humanity, functioning as its self‑creation. Or, by the reverse side of the same token, as its self‑destruction. This myth, upon close observation and self‑observation turns out to be the underpinning of our functioning lives, even if our awareness goes beyond it at times. Indeed, the myth is so powerful that any revolution attempting to subvert it can too easily be co‑opted into but a more subtle and extravagant form of the very same myth!

Simply put, this myth is the myth of identity… the myth of consistency, or in other terms, the myth that there is something one can refer to…called “substance, God, the devil, the state, energy, the class struggle, free enterprise, the unconscious, or even the void, pure emptyness, absurdity or what‑have‑you”: that there is such a self‑same referable identification or home‑base which has some kind of autonomy for us as a leg to stand on…or even a stone for us to trip over…as a ground or perhaps goal to which we can relate or approximate… as something which conditions but is itself not conditioned… as something which we can build upon, accumulate and cultivate, … as even a lack of a goal or an indifferent relativism which obscures its essential quality. And that quality is none other than the way in which such a referable identity is used namely as a self‑con­fining thing, state, or condition functioning as an absolute in our practice … as a state that can be separated even for a short time, or for the deceptive sake of simplification, from that which is not… that state. And one cannot merely get away with the sophomoric comment: “Well then, it’s obvious: everything is contingent, arbitrary, conditionable, relative, random, subject to continual changes in time and so on.” No good. For this kind of un‑self‑reflective denial becomes inverted, in the very next instant, into another absolute: everything is relative! How nice… and you had better keep a good ear to what I say, for I might fall right into the same trap.

But, you see, the funny thing about this myth of identity is its double‑edged paradoxical nature. ldentification on one side gives security for it separates “them” from “us”… it separates the subjective human social disciplines, for example, from the objective non-human disciplines of natural science. Or it simply separates me, my body and mind, from all those other ambiguous things or forces which are obviously not me!… I mean all of you out there. The Sullivanian theory of psychology puts it succinctly: the myth of consistency can be interpreted as a myth which has to sustain a separation between the “me” and the “not me”, not a distinction, which is one of quality mind you, but a separation — one which disassociates. A separation which is the root cause for both our normalised behavior and for schizophrenia, no matter if this separation is thought of as one due to chemical, biological, psychological, social, and/or spiritual activity. The difference, it seems, between sanity and insanity is one of degree i.e., the degree of separation that has to be maintained in the first place, together with the various collapses that occur when the separation crumbles without knowing which way to go.

Therefore, you can see that this self‑same separation is precisely the trap. Ironically, however, the paradox in all this is that we too often want and need to be trapped — to be identified deep down somewhere as a separate and not only distinct existence — a separate person whose boundary is his own boundary… or our own country’s boundary, or our own party line or in‑group. That is, most of the time when things are going good. However, when we become closed in by our very so­-called identity, we then search for a way out of that state — out of the trap. Simultaneously, or alternately trying to retain and break through our separation calls for very strange behavior, which seen as a history of consciousness, makes our so‑called normal “civilized” behavior as insane as those who compress the process into one lifetime. With one difference: those who live the intensity of a compressed insanity without totally collapsing in front of it, often manage to have a larger perspective of the whole process, than the slow, meandering, and partial movements of the normal ones.

You see, the thing which continually tends to slip out of our awareness, although it often comes to us in dreams of agony and ecstasy, is that there really is no trap or identity in the first place! On the one hand, we do live in a highly differentiated complex of distinctions mutually subject to each other, forming a vast texture of existence… but on the other hand, despite, and as we shall see, because of this, there simply are no identities or “dictions” against which one can “contra-dict”, and that it is really our very cleverly functioning being that has set up states or systems of identity, consistency and conservation for the very practical purposes of trying to control and manipulate the infinitely rich flux of existence that always seems to defy identification.

This process of identification is what scientists call “linearizing” our being‑in‑the‑world into a “step-by-step” construction of atoms, quantuma of energy, egos, ideas, feelings, concepts, actions of stimulus and response, cause and effect, and so on, so that existence can be accounted for and handled. Indeed, if certain things do not fit in, we round them off… which means ignoring such things as what happens to a certain measured value in varying contexts, ignoring the nutritional value of goods that have to be packaged, dismissing the idiosyncratic thoughts of students that do not automatically say what is supposed to be said…which means bumping‑off or closing‑off either in jails or mental hospitals those who are obviously dangerous… but in such a way that those so distinguished are now separated somehow from society and are no longer worthy of attention and respect… they are obviously no longer one of us… one of the good humans… one of the humans! After all, living so bound‑up with our brainwashed notion of equating the uniqueness of individuality with separation, familiarity can only breed contempt!

Now the tragic‑comical thing about all of this is that it does work… more or less… most of the time. If I thought I could pay for immortality, or take a pill of true happiness, or join the forces for ultimate liberation, or the counter‑forces that speak of maintaining perfect law and order, I would be a fool not to seek such magical powers out... or would l?

 

1b        The Reality of Paradox

But what annoys me is that just a little hesitation or thought can reveal the joker in the pack. And the joke, which is always on you, is that one’s so‑called complex systems‑construction, based upon linearized, computerizable identities, — upon numbers — is only as good or operational as the context out of which they have been carved into the texts of our existence, and within which they are operational and not simply abstract. If I take a measurement of the temperature of a bowl of chicken soup, using recognized procedure, then one should not, in all decency, argue with the fact or number obtained, let us say 78 degrees. That is not the point. The point is that facts don’t speak for themselves! The real issue is just what in blazes do you think you have measured that is the problem. (In our times of ambiguity, one could just as easily have sung “Science­man, Super‑star; do you think you’re what they say you are?)”

I mean, after all, that bowl of soup is actually a bowl on a table, within a room, surrounded by various electro‑magnetic fields, being rudely disturbed by some cold, stiff, glass rod called a thermometer, held in turn by some plastic‑gloved, clammy hand, attached to a body of sorts which itself is a powerful energy source continually radiating heat, light, sound, and furthermore — as we now know for a fact — all sorts of energized information associated to this body’s feelings, thoughts, or what have you. And what about the waiter who brought the bowl, or the bowl’s history which is continually etching itself right into the very texture of its material­ configurations? When you dip into any object or state, you dip into the whole damn universe… including yourself‑within‑that‑universe. So you managed to get a temperature reading… Big deal! The question remains, to what does that reading refer… for example, to a bowl within a large electro‑magnetic field? … or a small one? … and so on, and on and on…

How many things or conditions does one ignore as being irrelevant and on what basis does one judge this? Certainly not simply on other facts, for they likewise don’t speak for themselves. One always relies upon the state or body of awareness as a field within which these facts find co‑ordination and interpretation as events taking place within a system that is already functioning with drives, perspectives, and directions, and thus events which are both conditioned by this field, and, in turn, condition the field such that in their interaction we direct ourselves to those events that have significance for our state. Perception, thought, and knowledge are based upon function and not on so‑called “isolated truths” — other than those we, without arbitrary whim, so select!

Knowledge thus rests on a shrewd and clever ignoring of apparently nonrelevant conditions (e.g., air‑friction, sun‑spot activity, certain electro‑magnetic fields, emotional stress etc.) for a particular situation, which, in turn, means that knowledge depends upon ignor-ance. Simply put: knowledge is based upon ignorance! Which is not bad…  it is stupidity however, which ignores the ignorance surrounding any one piece of information — whether mental or physical or what have you — while wisdom comes only when one can take notice and responsibility for his ignorance — for that which we, in our particular contextual situation have chosen to ignore for purposes of simplification and control, and whether or not this de‑limitation was conscious, inborn, forced upon us, or unconscious altogether: anything, which once appeared continually becomes redefined within newer gestalts as they make their appearances, and the so‑called future is but the past in its process of yet manifesting its reverberations. Otherwise, what seemed a good old fact (or thought, value, ideal, form, feeling, etc.) and what looked ignorable and condition­able in one context may all of a sudden flare up and become the very essential, but uncontrollable factor in a different context!

You see, it’s all really very simple: that is to say, there simply is no text, element, or particle which is not simultaneously‑and‑mutually in a state of conditioning‑and‑being‑conditioned with its context, space, or field, both forming a texture of interaction, of energy‑transformations. Either there is nothing to talk or reflect about — to define and measure, or any one distinction is already a di‑pole or dia‑logue of mutual relation between that which is, and that which makes what is stand out as being what it is, namely its co‑defining field of that which it is not! Furthermore, there is a singular boundary state that is a transitivity‑relation making each element or X a function of its complement called not X, and at the same time making each element X a function of itself through its context — i.e., through the mutual two‑way dependency each element and complement element (“matter and anti‑matter”) has on the other. Con­sequently neither positive nor negative is primary and in need of a synthesis as it is often said. Rather, transitivity of relation‑and‑self‑relation is immediate and primary by being the very “points, lines, and planes” of distinction and determination about which positive and negative, or other oppositions such as whole, part, inner and outer, past and future, subject and object, feeling and thought, etc., etc., are the two inseparable distinctions of this so‑called “state” — a “state” which is, as such beyond identification for it rests on the tension of ambiguity of a di‑pole as a para‑dox that cannot be resolved into two separated distinctions of identity or dissolved into one inseparable indistinction of identity. Transitivity as paradox cannot be reduced to a linear denumeration of numbers or position, for it is at once a referral to any state, and its anti­-state expressive of a trans‑state of relation and self‑relation. In this way, nothing is merely in a singular state of “being‑itself”, or in a non‑singular state of “becoming-something-else”, but in a trans‑singular state of “self-becoming” in which becoming something “other” is an integral and immediate aspect of what it means to be “itself.” Hence, neither the simple continuity of pure indistinct inseparability, nor the complex discreteness of pure separated distinctions hold in paradox, but rather a “simplexity” of contiguity, of forms‑transforming where activity is at once a referral to an element and the transformation of that element.

Furthermore, should transitivity itself appear posited as a particular form of movement, then a counter‑transitivity will appear as its co‑determinate complement, now revealing and creating a higher order transitivity of transitivities moving in opposing and/or complementary ways, producing a balance or imbalance of motion. As in the calculus, one can have an infinity of “derivatives” or transitions within transitions through any one so‑called point or boundary-of‑relation!

In fact, what would be more natural for any immediate state of paradox to reappear the instant it disappears — i.e., the instant it becomes an object of reflection, revealing a counter‑position of non‑paradox or identification, made for purposes of simplification and control, both the fluidity of any given state of paradox, and any structured presence of a counter‑paradox or identity acting as the two complementary forms and anti‑forms within a higher order paradox now immediately present… a presence open to the possibility of further negations, each negation in effect being a self‑negation of paradox within an immediacy of paradox that remains beyond identity, but rather is what is happening, be it contemplative meditation or interruptive calculation. In simple terms, any reflection about experience or immediacy is at once within experience and immediacy, making all reflection a self‑reflexive activity with all elements present mutually determining. It is this very circularity of transitivity and paradox from which there is no‑exit, that makes one realize it is not the case that “an absolute is an absurdity”, or an example of a paradox which must henceforth be avoided, but rather that any genuine absolute is paradox itself — ie., that which is ever‑present‑beyond a delimit­ing identification but is, instead, the very immediately‑present condition of identification which can, therefore, reveal itself as an identified or reflected condition only within itself as a particular sub‑state and never as a completed and final statement or a leg to stand on (including, therefore, this particular formulation of paradox if its terms of expression merely serve to freeze the immediacy of paradox into a delimited formula). Paradox resolves or dissolves nothing: it must be lived, and cannot simply be reflected upon as something to follow or apply. Transitivity and the dynamic logic of paradox is a different kind of ball park!

And what we shall now briefly illustrate is the logic, science and life of paradox, showing how it is emerging right through the myths of fixed identity and consistency that have poisoned our society as a result of becoming increasingly ignorant of our necessary states of ignorance when we think we know something… of not being wise enough for the vast accumulation of undigested identity, property, money, government, industry, parties, overspecialized disciplines, techniques of transcendence and revolution, institutions, together with our unre­flected habits of identity re‑action instead of dynamic response… all of which becomes the spectacular manure pile of our modern ecologically unbalanced civilization — of our inner insanity and outer violence.


 

Part 2

The Logic, Life and Science of Paradox: three specific analyses

2a        In Logic

For example, the famous theorems of Goedel in mathematical logic point to an intrinsic limitation to linear identity systems. Simply put, if anything asserted is called “A” and its negation asserted to be “not A” or “B”, such that A and B are separate, self‑bounded identities functioning within a common space of relation, then, in general, this space is insufficient to reveal all its possibilities. Either the two asserted oppositions will overlap, producing a completed space with no gaps, but a contradiction of identity, or they will “underlap” leaving gaps of incompleteness as the price one has to pay for not having con­tradiction. One either says too much or too little, but never “hits it on the head” except, of course, for artificially delimited finite systems in which well‑determined structures appear because the indeterminacies of a non‑finite open field have been eliminated by axiomatic exclusion. But such systems are sterile and uncreative.

However, a true logic of creation can be mapped out that is not based on self‑bounded, formed or asserted identities, but rather on what I have called “trans-determinate” elements “e”: In such a context, each element or element‑complex (actually an element‑simplexity!) is an element‑of‑transition to begin with, void of any subsistence as such. Thus, either any e state is immediately a transition void of identification of any kind, or it appears reflected as a positive asserted +e state or text, co-existing with its counter-state — a non-asserted contextual -e, such that both share and, in fact, are mutually defined through one singular transitive trans-asserted boundary-zone called +- e which at the same time redefines a higher order state of explicit transitivity or immediacy called e', expressive now of a developed-developing + e, -e dynamics as its texture of self-determination. The whole cycle of dynamic immediacy transforms any original immediate e-state right into an e' state of self-mediated immediacy by the very act of its recognition — either through conceptualization or perception, or what have you, for we have not identified this e-ing process as located in something as opposed to not being in that something. Thus e' as a whole is a void of identification (lacking a position called “+” against which a separate “-” can appear) as e was, but it is not lacking in content.

Now just as e can manifest itself as e', e', in turn, could reveal e", displaying deeper cycles within cycles of transitivity within transitivity… the whole logic of self‑determination being called “The Dialectic Matrix” — a trans‑structure not only overcoming the limitations of Goedel’s structured theorems, but re‑presenting a higher order dynamics which, by its very nature is self‑reflexive, self­-generating, and hence both autonomous and creative. In effect, a matrix­ logic of dynamic immediacy is the logic of the imminent present — i.e., a present‑to‑present dynamics in which any immediate present neither remains as a static state, nor simply becomes negated into a past, but self‑negates itself into a newer present, within which past and future are the + and ‑ mutual sides of a +‑ determining process.

As an example of the kind of evolving‑structure which appears, +e and ‑e, or A and notA (using the old classical terminology) can each reveal both itself and its other within it as an expression of sub­-transitions: as A and notA express a so‑called “external” transition state, A, for example, is also an A‑to‑notA sub‑transition relative to A, while notA is a notA‑to‑A sub-transition relative to notA, reflecting the intrinsic mutually between A and notA, now within each element. This makes the A to notA transition itself a double‑transition of sub‑transitions, expressing a dipole of dipoles, or four terms‑in-­relation… and an example of a second order matrix state called e" (which maps out complex numbers in a two‑dimensional plane). Then a next order transition would reveal a doubling of these four terms into eight sub‑terms on three levels of interaction, and a triple di‑polarity and transitivity (— mapping out hyper‑complex numbers on a three‑dimensional cube). In the limit, as the level of transition “n” becomes unlimited, there will be 2n number of terms within any level becoming unlimited. This produces an indenumerable infinity of terms‑of‑relation within a denumerable infinity of levels, neither the continuous indenumerable infinity nor the discrete denumerable infinity now existing independent of each other! In a paradoxical logic, the very opposition between either an indenumerable or a denumerable infinity… or continuous vs. discrete — whole vs parts — becomes transcended into contiguous states of coupled infinities, all infinities becoming mapped out by the dialectic matrix of transitivities that has no beginning or ultimate set of all sets that can be posited or denied, being instead the very process of relation and not simply any one product… any one + or ‑ phase. Non‑linear set‑theory is an open‑field texture of relations which transcends hier­archical structures that rest on a sub‑structure or point to a super­structure that is itself not part of the texture.

 

2b        In Science

This leads us now to a re‑examination of modern physics. From a non‑linear perspective of paradox, any one element or particle, being a particle of energy and transitive interaction, must reflect in some way, the entire universe of interacting energy within it, the “universe” acting as the field of interaction of the particle on many levels of relation. At the same time, this universe is subject to the activities of each of its elements or particles as a “universal”‑particle radiating out its perturba­tions… there existing in effect as many universes in development as there are elements or particles. Or, in other terms, there are existing as many “wholes” as there are “parts”, whole and part, like outer and inner or positive and negative mutually and simultaneously developing together as a non‑linear, non‑hierarchical simplexity of levels of relation.

The first condition in which each part becomes a determined function or “perspective” of the whole relative to itself, is a generalization of the theory of relativity, while the second inverse condition in which the whole is a counter‑determination of each part as a “probability” distribution of its effects throughout the whole is a generalization of quantum mechanics. Generally, however, relativity is over‑deterministic by itself, just as quantum mechanics is over‑in‑deterministic as a separate theory — and removed as they still are from each other (despite ad hoc mathematical syntheses having no real material or physical inter­pretations that form a totality), they are yet in essentially linear and partial forms. Only by seeing the functionally inverse‑complementary ways in which relativity and quantum mechanics express a singular non­-linearity between whole and part, field and particle… only by seeing in a singular formulation how any particle localization and its field of non-localised interaction simultaneously condition-and-are-conditioned by each other through a two‑way relation of mutuality, will the indeterminism of the “part” orientation of quantum mechanics, and the determinacy of the “whole” orientation of relativity be redefined in terms of a whole­-through‑its‑parts self‑determination state. In such a universe, the whole, or field, neither simply converges deterministically upon each part, nor does each part merely diverge indeterministically as a proba­bility distribution of effects over the whole, but rather parts and whole, particles and fields trans‑verge through each other, everything being both a universal state of inseparable co‑relation that is unlocalizable and a particular distinct element which manifests this totality through it as a unique and particular kind of totality.

Now the author has outlined such a non‑linear self‑interacting model of relativistic quantum mechanics that is both universal and particular. As a universal theory, non‑linear physics cannot be bound by the limitations of any ultimate particle such as the atom once was thought to be, and which the photon of light is now in turn regarded — ­the photon limiting the velocity of relativistic energy to that of light, and limiting the energy and momentum indeterminacies of a fully formulated quantum‑mechanics by making them also a function of the velocity of light. However, as a particular theory of non‑linearity, based upon the material‑physical properties of light as an electro‑magnetic unit of interaction describing a specific level‑complex of relations involving space and time changes coupled to the wave‑length and frequencies of electro‑magnetic‑type interactions, it is possible to come up with a unified relativistic quantum mechanics which does not regard the photon as any absolute limit to interactions, but instead transforms the very abstract non‑physical treatment of both present‑day theories into one that is concrete and specific. In particular, I have outlined an electro­-magnetic relativistic quantum mechanics based upon a paradoxical “text‑ context” relationship between + and ‑ charged particles as opposing “texts” of interaction; their + ‑ mutual electro magnetic field as their context. One then, literally, comes up with a set of non linear equations of self-interacting particle field energy and frequency which automatically brings in quantized relativistic frequencies and wavelengths,            pinning down present-day relativity and quantum mechanics as we know them to a range more or less outside that of the elementary particle or nucleus, and basing it on the photon regarded not as an abstracted absolute, but as a physical unit of interaction conditioning only a certain level-of-relations (In fact, good arguments exist showing that light as we know it has no existence within the particle range.) This leaves the door open for extended non linear relativity and quantum mechanics not based upon the limitation of the electro-magnetic field-photon, when one examines deeper levels of interaction — such as the strong forces within elementary particles and the nucleus, or the weak forces of neutrino radiation — forces and energy interactions which I feel are being hampered in their investigation by having imposed upon them an absolutized theory of relativity and quantum mechanics no longer responsive completely to the kind of interactions existing. Naturally, there will be gradations and couplings to the different types of non-linear relativity and quantum mechanics — both for deeper levels below the electronic, and for higher levels above the electronic — such as bio‑chemical systems, and socially‑conscious­bio­chemical systems, each level displaying their own kinds of whole-­part non‑linear interactions and transitions, based on different units of interaction, other than the photon.

In no way can non‑linear logic, physics, or science come up with a particular formulation of universality (such as present‑day relativity and quantum mechanics attempts to do) — universality that postulates irreducable units or terms void of the contingency these units have as being only limited and partial expressions of interaction explicitly open to other contingent units, all units functioning as “relative-absolutes” or “relative-units-of-stability” within their appropriate contexts; for example, electro‑magnetic behavior of charges according to standard Maxwell’s equations might itself become transformed if careful measure­ments are made within biological‑activity for in a non‑linear situation, no whole is merely an expression of its sub‑parts, or are any parts simply the expression of the whole within which it is present: the very properties of particles functioning within a system of particles is equally an expression of the complex relationship between the particles forming a gestalt of relations and thus no one can say for all time just what an electron or a charge is or must do.

However, to do justice to extending non‑linear dynamics and the science of paradox to all levels of space‑time — to those already known and to those just emerging into view by discovery and/or creation‑ — including human, social and spiritual space‑time manifestations, an Institute for Non‑Linear Research coordinating the mutuality of the various distinct disciplines is needed, something which the author is starting at Fairleigh Dickinson University and which is open to the participation of all interested parties.

 

2c        In Life

Finally, insofar as there is a life of non‑linearity and paradox, and not only its logic and science, the following should be noted. Pre­cisely because there is no ultimate identity but only a self‑reflexive transitivity of mutual relation, it is this very selfness of mutuality that constitutes what we call, for short, the self. Localizing the verb into a noun, into a highly complex and objectifiably self‑reflexivity operating on many simultaneous levels of transitivity, the self appears as an “ego”, and its counter‑objects of relation as its “World.” However, everything is, to varying degrees of transitivity, an expression of self‑reflexive processes — and hence processes of self called subjectivity, the human ego being but one de‑limited form in our part of the universe, Objectivity, in turn, refers to the self‑mediating elements or “parts” constituting a self‑reflexive totality, self or state of subjectivity. But since whole and part are non‑linearily interdependent, any determined part, capable of being reflected upon, is equally a self‑reflexing whole and in a state of subjectivity, and any so‑called whole, in turn, may appear as an objective particularization — such as a particular kind of society of selves. Indeed, intersub­-jectivity is but the expression of the objectivity of subjectivity, meaning that the structure of any objectifiable element within a self‑reflexive process is to varying degrees itself a self‑reflexive totality and whole: all relations, therefore, are relations between different kinds of wholes — producing a whole of wholes and not a “part-whole” hierarchy. Thus any one person is himself or herself already a complex of wholes or self‑reflexive centers of subjectivity on various dimensions and a society, in turn, exhibits a range of singular personality states characterizing its peculiarities of organization and accumulating history of culture.

Thus, Self and Other, I and Thou, autonomy and communality are but mutual expressions of each other on different dimensions and not identifications in simple opposition — such as a sub‑ego “id-state” of mere object‑directed impulses vs a “super-ego state” of simple rationalization and sublimation. A full ego or self‑reflexive process is at once a dialogue of relations between various states or levels of full self reflexivity, there not existing such a thing as a pure object or “mindless” object-activity void of subjectivity and the mutual interaction of co-relation, nor a pure state of reflected subjectivity void of the same mutuality of relation in which all elements are phases of an inter-active conditioning process of active distinctions and not simply subordinated distinctions, or worse, illusions of distinction altogether. Not recognizing this, splits the self and its “psychology” into an anti‑social “biological” base which watches over the “impulsive and spontaneous” organic‑autonomy of any subjectivity, even if the organism is a tight‑knit group of organisms, functioning as a “family unit”, vs. the antibiological “social” and political superstructure which watches over the “rational” external modality of coordination between systems of subjectivities, even if it is a coordination of a vast universe of distinctions within any one state of selfhood, such as a single human being.

Now it is this part vs whole linearization of the non‑linear state of inter‑subjectivity which forms the basis for exploitation in society — whether so‑called “capitalistic”  exploitation stressing the parts over the whole, or “communistic” exploitation stressing the whole over its parts — or a whole range and combination of hybrid forms. In all cases of social political repression, society keeps its destructive grip on existence by means of maintaining a high degree of separation, specialisation and division of labor between the participating states of subjectivity which would otherwise tend to express and develop the intensity and extensity of the intrinsic mutuality of relation that constitutes them, in the first place, as self reflexive processes of autonomy precisely to the degree to which a mutuality of co-ordinating relation permits any one element to be a function of itself, through its co-defining context of existence.

Thus, people live and work — in a repressive society — in atomized compartments of identity functions, lifted out of the organic coordination which emerges from a true communality and instead, a hierarchical stratification and institutionalization of imposed coordina­tion into an identity system of identities, sets in (through political parties, governmental bureaucracy, economic interests, educational‑propagandistic systems, church‑and‑ideology centres, military‑police organizations, etc.) which deadens the autonomy of individuals and their functioning groups. In such a society, which takes an infinite variety of forms each at odds with the particular kind of repression that is in vogue in the others, the essential goal lies in regarding each component merely in terms of its efficiency of performance (economic, political, ideological, scientific, or what have you)… and hence as a manipulative means, and never as a true end; never as an origin of a living creation going beyond the structures of the vested interests and identifications containing such a society. (And by “society”, we can mean any system of subjectivity, such as, for example, a “single” organism or human being himself.)

Feedback mutuality of response and respons‑ability (as opposed to the isolation of obligation vs. resistance) between wholes and sub-­wholes has become obscured, leaving most individuals feeling impotent outside of this self‑creating and self‑consuming monster of identity­ accumulation and behavior‑control “systems-structure.” Such a system knows only “linear programming” and not a non‑linear living within which programming becomes re-sensitised to the diversity of distinctions constituting themselves through their mutuality of feedback into highly organized and intense organic “systems” in which the transitivity of immediate spontaneous movement is an integral part of the coordination and stability of its structure — a structure of stability that is really a delicate balance of mutual movements and which is vital and functional only as long as such movements, either overtly or covertly, manage to make themselves felt. As a result of the sickness of vitality exploitative and self‑exploitative systems bring into being, health (and not identity normalisation or mere identity destruction) periodically attempts to assert itself through rebellions arising right out of the midst of the armour of such anti‑organic systems, but they have too often, in the past, become co‑opted into but a more refined and subtle form of repression — or an even greater brutality of oppression.

People have yet to learn the true power of their own subjectivity, of their self‑reflexive transitivity right in the very context of their living and working situations, instead of becoming brainwashed by the repre­sentatives of power living outside of their context, and taking the forms of highly stratified political parties, economic industries, global‑financial institutions and so on. People have yet to learn that power does not corrupt, but that it is impotency which corrupts — the impotency to handle the power one does have at whatever level, and the impotency which hides under masks of conformity and unreflective obedience. Power — genuine energy of interaction and transition flowing directly and in the open — is dangerous only to those with self enclosed identity structures to protect — structures which imprison both exploiter and exploited, although in vastly different forms. Power becomes wasted through the dynamics of separation in which one divides oneself into only a delimited set of roles or types, and offers what is left to representation by others outside of his context of living and working. One has yet to learn that the deeper one penetrates the uniqueness of any structure, situation, discipline, or person for that matter, the more extensive will its universality of contextual relation emerge: mere uniqueness is blind, as is pure universality empty. Specialization and generalization as oppositions must be transcended in a dynamics of “universal uniqueness” in which the very intensity of concentrated intimacy with the distinctive simplexity of any one activity reveals the unlimited breadth of its scope and universal significance. Attempting to have one without the other de-vitalizes non linear power into abstractions of identity, all of which are really specializations of one kind of perspective, blind to the paradoxical dynamics of totality.

Revolution, a genuine revolution of social existence, comes only with what you are doing, and where you are situated — it cannot be imposed without creating more exploitation by domination: neither political revolu­tion nor spiritual transcendence comes from “without”, but only from within the dynamics of subjectivity present. In inter‑subjective social terms, only the development of voluntary systems of federated groups of functional autonomy — i.e., only by creating a community of communities in which direct democracy on different levels governs the intra and inter‑subjective states of all functions of social existence (e.g., living conditions, work, public services) on a basis of a responsibility of action founded within the living and working context out of which it becomes delegated into responsive political existence, can exploitative hierarchical societies of atomized functions become transformed. Then, any coordination of autonomous communities into a higher community of communities will not automatically mean giving that coordinating community or center a hierarchical priority of initiatives for action, i.e., for initiatives in deciding the needs and desires of the essential units of subjectivity constituting the body of a society. The “higher” a community of communities becomes within a non linear society, and the broader its coordinating functions develop, the weaker its initiation function must become insofar as its purpose lies in the second-order (or n-th order) initiatives of coordinating the primary initiatives and not establishing them. The so called “brain”or any “centre of centres” is then but only one member of a whole body of centers, wherein initiative for action must be distributed, integrating by feedback, the so called “super ego” rationality of coordination with its complementary “sub-ego” spontaneous, non rational, emotive power of initiation, across the whole of society as a fully developed “ego” or process of self reflexivity, instead of fusing these two functions into one identity structure of domination separated from the diversity of society as a whole, or dividing them into competing structures of identity domination, separated from the integral function of society as a whole.

Then, and only then, can the experts, technicians, and men of learning that require vast systems of interlocking institutions, be made responsible to these communities and not usurp the power of a living organism for the parasitic ends which, in turn, convert the organism into a means. To date, however, such rebellions and reconstitutions into organic forms — which did occur throughout history and are still forming (e.g., town councils, people’s councils, co-operatives, living and working communes, grass root ad hoc committees for community action)… such forms tend to dissipate, or persist by becoming reformed into other versions of repression by their absorption into either existing or newly developing hierarchical structures set in opposition or complementation to the existing ones. But this is not to say that a “critical mass” or a “critical-energy” crisis cannot occur, in which the whole thrust of what we now take for granted will crumble at the very basis of its contradictions. This means that the institutionalised-identity-systems which continually repress subjectivity finally challenge the subjectivities which have created this monster in an open battle in which the issues can no longer be pasted over by the accumulated patch-work of worn-out ideology our identity systems manufacture to hide the myth of consistency from their own creators! Then people will become aware of the self‑contradictions their identified lives actually are, and it is only such self‑contra­diction as opposed to fate or so‑called external contradictions, which can become the motive power for transformation, re‑revealing the paradoxical base upon which contradictions and identities grow: human beings will become conscious of their power for creating good and evil, and not merely become the victims of their own creations that have taken on an alien shape divorced from the power of sub­jectivity.

 

Part 3

Paradox and the Dynamics of Transcendence: Redefining Identity through Paradox

Everything, being fully mutually and simultaneously condi­tioned‑and‑conditioning, whether in covert or open form, reveals reality to be a vast energy‑texture of dialogue appearing through transitional texts and contexts… it reveals reality to be a trans­-conditioning process in which, paradoxically, no conditioner of existence can stand out precisely because everything is an integral part of a mutual conditioning process which has no beginning or end… no identity walls to define or confine it. One only needs to open up to the world in order for the world to reveal yourself to you… and vice‑versa. The world is then the very becoming and development of your being and not its casket: you are not a “particle in a box” as the physicist would put it, but a universe‑in‑the‑making, just as the universe is making it through yourself and any self‑reflexive transitivity state. You are ever becoming yourself through your very limits and boundaries of identity, boundaries that are now seen as the very transition states themselves. Consequently, the more one can live all the various dimensions of his existence in such a way that these transitions become open, vivid, vital, and real, the more the world becomes transparent: your being is its becoming. But even this statement does not go deep enough!

Behold! There really is nothing in transition or transformation in the first place! There is nothing simply present undergoing changes of state not involved with the changes themselves… and there is nothing already given or simply not given to transform from or towards something; there is no world or counter world to trap you as an identity as something that is even capable of either persisting in immortality as a given identity, or ceasing to persist by being mortal and losing that supposed identity by becoming something else. Precisely because everything is transition, there is nothing in transition!, and you are this very transitivity itself: you are trans-mortal, beyond mortality and immortality, beyond identity vs. non identity. You are and live in a world of power, a world of “ing”: being, doing, acting, thinking, hiding, identifying, exploding, inging… and any “it” is actually a phase of self differentiating activity of this world of “ing” which, by its very paradoxical nature can appear either as self‑opposition or self‑inte­gration — either as power fighting itself or releasing itself — as the process of self‑reflexivity, creating selves in phase with the transitivity of time or out of phase with time —with any “self-process” being what it is becoming through its own negations, or negating what it is becoming, by becoming stuck within its negations — with the human being as the sharp edge of this paradox: transcend or be transcended!