Tuesday 5 November 2024

"Affordances were characterised by Gibson as properties of the environment taken relative to an animal. Gibson emphasised the mutuality or reciprocity of the relations between animals and their environments but his own work was concerned primarily with the Gibson’s affordances 5 analysis of environmental information. Other ecological theorists have stressed the need to provide a complementary account of those properties of animals that enable them to act on affordances. The term “effectivity” has been widely used for this purpose and much of the formal work that has been done has had as a goal the elucidation of the relation between affordances and effectivities. Shaw, Turvey and their colleagues have argued that affordances and effectivities are “duals” of each other and the coalitional framework set out by Shaw & Turvey (1981) treats the concept of duality as fundamental. It is argued here that Turing’s computational model provides a clear account of effectivities and affordances and demonstrates the mutuality between them better than does the concept of duality. Gibson on Affordances. Gibson (1979, p.22) described psychology as “the study of the perception and behavior of animals and men as a function of what the environment affords.” He regarded the hypothesis that information in the ambient optic array specifies affordances to be “the culmination of ecological optics” (Gibson 1979, p.143). Affordances have many characteristics. They can be subsumed within a framework that focuses on the following seven features; affordances are ecological, they are relational, they are facts of the environment and behavior, sets of them constitute niches, they are meanings, they are invariant combinations of variables and they are perceived directly''.



"According to Lordon, neoliberalism teaches people to find joy in their subjugation and meaning in their obligatory tasks. The author defines this as: "epithumogenesis", which entails developing a regime of desire. The employees' desires are carefully aligned with the organisations' desires, usually maximising shareholder returns. Gordon says, "The epithumè is the product of the incessant work that society carries out on itself. But it is also the product of the continued work of agents or groups of agents within it who are interested in promoting imaginaries of desire that better align with their particular plans” (p.43). According to Lordon, capitalism should be considered a reorganisation of desire, which resonates well with neoliberal capital's self-presentation as a matter of desire and motivation. He suggests that Spinoza's anthropology of the passions offers a way of thinking of the willing slave as a non-contradictory figure for a reality we all recognise. Frédéric Lordon writes, "Neoliberal employment aims at enchantment and rejoicing" (p.60). Based on this statement, Lordon argues that the strength of the neoliberal form of the employment relation emanates from the companies' ability to re-internalise objects of desire, as the desire for many things, including new, intransitive satisfactions. This internalisation of objects of desire makes employees do their daily tasks without question because of the effect of the affects that cause joy or sadness in a person, further spurring the desire to do something. Therefore, Lordon claims that neoliberalism teaches people to find happiness in their repression and meaning in their mandatory tasks. He claims these desires are "for happy labour, or, to borrow directly from its vocabulary, desires for 'fulfilment' and 'self-realisation' in and through work(p.44). Similarly, Lordon also writes that coercion and consent are both forms of "the lived experience of determination" (p.64). For him, coercion is just an emotional term expressing the objective fact of fundamental determination, meaning that individuals are hardly coerced to work for others but determined when they consent. In this case, a determination is personal knowledge regarding the world gained via direct, first-hand involvement, which makes one align with the organisation's desires or participate in something as a result of this personal knowledge. In this respect, this determination for individuals to work for others or do something can either be in a state of joy or sadness, provided they consent. That is why Lordon claims that coercion and consent are both forms of livid experience of determination, as one can decide to do something in either a state of happiness or joy. On the other hand, determination by coercion, which also refers to coerced participation, is simply the over-mobilisation of individuals using sad affects. According to Lordon, coercion is the experience of the determination under a "sad affect", while consent is the experience of the determination under a "joyful affect"(p.50). In this case, consent entails aligning with the employer's desires. The inherent burden of this alignment is compensated by the joyful affect instigated by the individual’s love for the employer and job. According to Lordon, the effects play a vital role in contributing to joyful participation in employment relations and joyful alignment with employers' desires because of their affection for the employer and their jobs".

"Spinoza’s metaphysics does not ground human identity in the basic metaphysical constitution of things: a human being is not an independent substance and cannot be individuated by its real distinction from all else. The human mind is constituted by its affects, which insofar as they are active, and thus proper to the mind itself, work to preserve its being, and increase its power of action. Still, it is always dependent on and susceptible to what is outside it. Something similar can be said for bodies too; they are not substantially differentiated from the rest of the extended universe with which they interact and on which they depend. But Spinoza’s parallelism (or ‘equalism’) means that an alternative, less substantial account of how we individuate the human body can capture mental identity in the same net. Spinoza provides such an account in his understanding of how the bodily activity of the affects preserves the relations and boundaries of our bodies, particularly the proportion of motion and rest crucial to bodily identity and life. So, the active affects maintain identity – the identity on which they depend – by negotiating what systems theory calls a “systems-environment boundary.” It is perfectly consistent with the dynamically achieved identity of body, mind, and human being, however, that we might take on yet other identities, identities that may be equally important to us and equally ‘ours.’ For instance, Spinoza sometimes speaks of the society common to all humans as a body seeking to preserve its own boundaries and proportions of motion and rest, something that would give a physical grounding to collective identity. Then too, insofar as we approach beatitude and the intuitive knowledge of the whole, we may take on an identity approaching to the identity of the whole, becoming more and more like God. These remain mere speculations, though, unresolved in Spinoza’s work. Indeed, some of the puzzling passages at the end of Part V appear torn between whether we should seek to “merge” our individual mind with God or to preserve its distinctive identity within the field of different, external, and sometimes competing forces''.

11. Influences on Later Authors

Although both Leibniz and Hume take issue with different features of his metaphysics, Spinoza’s approach to the passions seems to have exerted relatively little direct influence on his contemporaries. There are similarities, of course: Hume complicates the understanding of our psychological associations and how they can be transmitted socially in ways not unlike Spinoza. Hume also talks about the mechanisms by which we generate prejudices, although he will find their source more in the causal associations of the imagination than in the passions. But there is little evidence that these are anything more than similarities, especially since Hume’s knowledge of Spinoza was transmitted largely through Bayle. It may be that Spinoza’s approach to the emotions is so closely intertwined with the whole of his system that it is difficult to appropriate piecemeal, and so remains sui generis. On the other hand, Spinoza was to become an important figure for nineteenth-century philosophers, most notably for Friedrich Nietzsche. In 1881, Nietzsche wrote his friend Overbeck that he was “astonished” and “utterly enchanted” to find in Spinoza a precursor insofar as they both tend “to make knowledge [Erkenntnis] the most powerful affect” (Nietzsche 1976, 92, translation slightly altered). Nietzsche later singles out Spinoza’s treatment of pity for praise in the Genealogy of Morals (1887). More generally, his understanding of the will to power shares a great deal with Spinoza’s understanding of our affective drive, although whether this is a matter of direct influence or what Nietzsche might call a common “instinct” is arguable.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD5Spinoza.html#:~:text=The%20human%20mind%20is%20constituted,to%20what%20is%20outside%20it.


 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2

 

Article 27

  1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Monday 4 November 2024

 

Frustration

If I had a shiny gun,
I could have a world of fun
Speeding bullets through the brains
Of the folk who give me pains;

Or had I some poison gas,
I could make the moments pass
Bumping off a number of
People whom I do not love.

But I have no lethal weapon-
Thus does Fate our pleasure step on!
So they still are quick and well
Who should be, by rights, in hell.

   - Parker

 Would eating less meat impact climate change?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

Yes, eating less meat can significantly impact climate change. Here are a few key points:

  1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The livestock sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane and nitrous oxide. Reducing meat consumption can lower demand for livestock production, which can help decrease these emissions.

  2. Land Use: Meat production requires large amounts of land for grazing and growing animal feed. By consuming less meat, less land is needed for livestock, potentially allowing for reforestation or the restoration of ecosystems that can absorb carbon dioxide.

  3. Water Use: Animal agriculture is also water-intensive. Reducing meat consumption can help conserve water resources, which is increasingly important in many regions facing water scarcity.

  4. Biodiversity: Livestock farming can lead to habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. A shift toward plant-based diets can help protect ecosystems and the species that inhabit them.

  5. Sustainable Practices: A reduction in meat consumption can encourage more sustainable agricultural practices and support plant-based food systems that are generally more efficient in resource use.

While individual dietary changes are important, they are most effective when combined with broader systemic changes in agriculture, policy, and consumption patterns.

 https://biologyofcognition.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/autopoieticcomputing8.pdf

 "Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done." 

— Winston Churchill,


Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Sunday 3 November 2024

 What is Averroes's theory of the unity of the intellect?

Averroes, also known as Ibn Rushd (1126–1198), was an influential medieval philosopher and commentator on Aristotle, particularly in the context of Islamic philosophy. One of his notable contributions to philosophy is his theory of the unity of the intellect, which has implications for understanding human cognition and the nature of the mind.


Averroes proposed that the human intellect is not individual and personal to each person but rather a single, shared intellect among all human beings. This theory is often referred to as the "Unity of the Intellect" or "Averroistic Monopsychism." Here are some key points about the theory:


Separate Intellect: Averroes distinguished between the "active intellect" (Intellect Agent) and the "passive intellect" (Intellect Possessed). The active intellect is a separate, eternal entity responsible for the process of understanding and knowledge. It acts upon the passive intellect, which is the intellect of individual human beings.


Universal Knowledge: According to Averroes, individual human intellects are merely potentialities that become actualized through their interaction with the active intellect. This means that while individuals can experience knowledge and understanding, the essence of intellect itself is universal and not confined to the individual.


Knowledge Acquisition: The process of acquiring knowledge involves the individual's passive intellect receiving forms or essences from the world, which are then actualized by the active intellect. Thus, through this interaction, individuals can grasp universal truths that transcend their personal experiences.


Implications for Individuality: Averroes's view raises significant philosophical questions about personal identity and the nature of knowledge. If the intellect is a shared entity, the implications extend to debates about the soul, consciousness, and the continuity of individual thought.


Influence: Averroes's theory of the unity of the intellect had a profound impact on both Islamic and Christian philosophical thought. It influenced later thinkers, particularly in the medieval scholastic tradition, including Thomas Aquinas, who grappled with Averroes's ideas in his own work.

AI

 


  1. Is the Jungian shadow collective or individual?
    ChatGPT said:
    ChatGPT

    The Jungian concept of the shadow can be understood as both individual and collective, depending on the context.

    1. Individual Shadow: At the individual level, the shadow represents the repressed, unconscious parts of a person's psyche—traits, desires, and memories that they do not acknowledge or accept. This aspect of the shadow is unique to each person and is shaped by personal experiences, values, and social conditioning. Engaging with one's shadow is seen as an important part of personal development and self-awareness.

  2. Collective Shadow: At the collective level, the shadow refers to the darker aspects of a culture or society that are often denied or ignored. This can include societal norms, prejudices, and historical injustices that a community may not fully acknowledge. Jung suggested that when these collective shadows are not addressed, they can manifest in destructive ways, such as conflict, oppression, or societal dysfunction.

In summary, the shadow operates on both individual and collective levels, highlighting the complexities of human psychology and the interplay between personal and societal issues. Understanding both dimensions can provide deeper insights into human behavior and societal dynamics.

Saturday 2 November 2024

 Statistically were hunter gatherers more violent than modern people

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

Statistical comparisons of violence between hunter-gatherers and modern societies can be tricky, but some research provides insights:

  1. Violence Rates: Studies of contemporary hunter-gatherer societies suggest that rates of lethal violence—such as homicide—can vary widely but are often lower than in modern industrialized societies. For example, some research indicates that homicide rates in hunter-gatherer groups might be around 10-30 per 100,000 people, which can be lower than rates seen in some urban areas today.

  2. War and Conflict: While hunter-gatherers did engage in intergroup conflicts, these often resulted in fewer casualties compared to modern warfare. Historical estimates suggest that around 10-15% of deaths in hunter-gatherer societies might have been due to violence, whereas modern conflicts can lead to much higher percentages of violent deaths.

  3. Types of Violence: The nature of violence differs. Hunter-gatherers often engaged in direct, personal forms of conflict, whereas modern violence can include systemic, organized, and state-sponsored violence, which can lead to higher overall death tolls.

  4. Cultural and Social Factors: Many hunter-gatherer societies had social mechanisms for conflict resolution, which may have mitigated violence. In contrast, modern societies face complexities like anonymity, urbanization, and social disintegration, which can contribute to higher rates of violence.

  5. Contextual Variability: It's important to note that violence rates can vary widely based on specific cultural, social, and environmental factors. Not all hunter-gatherer societies were the same, nor are all modern societies uniform.

In summary, while hunter-gatherers experienced violence, evidence suggests that statistically, they may have been less violent than many modern societies, particularly in terms of lethal violence. However, the types and contexts of violence must be considered when making these comparisons.

Taíno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno

Friday 1 November 2024

"Look again at photographs of the Holocaust. This time focus not on the victims but the killers. What do you see? Do you see maniacs gibbering for blood, gobbets of flesh and splinters of bone jutting from their leering mouths? Not particularly. You probably see soldiers, not much different from soldiers the world over, not much different from the soldiers who rode with Custer, or those who flew over Baghdad. Young men with short haircuts, guns in their hands or in their belts, wearing what look in the black-and-white photographs to be monochromatic uniforms. They’re just kids. They’ve been trained to kill, but they’re kids nonetheless. Sociologists Kren and Rappoport summed up current thinking on the subject: “By conventional clinical criteria no more than 10 percent of the S.S. could be considered ‘abnormal.’ This observation fits the general trend of testimony by survivors indicating that in most of the camps, there was usually one, or at most a few, S.S. men known for their intense outbursts of sadistic cruelty.” They conclude, “Our judgment is that the overwhelming majority of S.S. men, leaders as well as rank and file, would have easily passed all the psychiatric tests ordinarily given to American army recruits or Kansas City policemen.”

Now, look at the photos of those who planned the killings, rarely using words so indelicate as murderatrocityhate. They look far more bureaucratic than demonic. Indeed, they are more bureaucratic than demonic. The department within S.S. headquarters in charge of eradicating Jews was officially designated as the Section of Administration and Economy (analogous, perhaps, to the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of deforesting public lands being a part of the Department of Agriculture). The Germans were neither lying nor obfuscating. As [Zygmunt] Bauman notes, “Except for the moral repulsiveness of its goal (or, to be precise, the gigantic scale of the moral odium), the activity did not differ in any formal sense (the only sense that can be expressed in the language of bureaucracy) from all other organized activities designed, monitored, and supervised by ‘ordinary’ administrative and economic sections.”

Here is the way a technical expert described improvements in the mobile killing vans used by the Einsatzgruppen. I trust readers can see past the awkward writing style to the intent. The technician wrote that a shorter, fully loaded truck would be able to operate much more quickly. A shortening of the rear compartment would not disadvantageously affect the weight balance, overloading the front axle, he wrote, “because actually a correction in the weight distribution takes place automatically through the fact that the cargo [that is, the people to be killed] in the struggle toward the back door during the operation always is preponderately located there.” Because the connecting pipe [where carbon monoxide was introduced] was quickly rusted through by “fluids” [that is, by blood, vomit, piss, and liquid shit], the gas should be introduced from above, not below. To facilitate cleaning, the technician suggested that an eight- to twelve- inch hole should be made in the floor and provided with a cover that can be opened from outside. The floor should be slightly inclined, and the cover equipped with a small sieve. Thus all “fluids” would flow to the middle, the “thin fluids” would exit during operation, and “thicker filth” could be hosed out afterward. The disposal of corpses was a huge technical problem, causing significant competition among firms vying for the lucrative market. One firm made the following recommendation: “For putting the bodies into the furnace, we suggest simply a metal fork moving on cylinders. Each furnace will have an oven measuring only 600 millimeters in breadth and 450 millimeters in height, as coffins will not be used. For transporting the corpses from the storage points to the furnaces we suggest using light carts on wheels, and we enclose diagrams of these drawn to scale.” Another company pointed to its excellent furnaces at Dachau and Lublin, which, it said, had given “full satisfaction in practice,” then continued, “Following our verbal discussion regarding the delivery of equipment of simple construction for the burning of bodies, we are submitting plans for our perfected cremation ovens which operate with coal and have hitherto given full satisfaction. We suggest two crematoria furnaces for the building planned, but we advise you to make further inquiries to make sure that two ovens will be sufficient for your requirements. We guarantee the effectiveness of the cremation ovens as well as their durability, the use of the best material and our faultless workmanship.” Sometimes, ashes from the crematoria were sold as fertilizer. One company constructed an electrically heated tank for making soap, with a recipe of “12 pounds of human fat, 10 quarts of water, and 8 ounces to a pound of caustic soda … all boiled for two or three hours and then cooled.” The conversion of the living to the dead has been converted from a moral, human, question into a technical problem to be solved, and, if at all possible, profited from.

“Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs—these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration,” wrote Max Weber, presciently, it would seem, except that he was not writing of death camps but the production process in general, whether the product is soap from the flesh of Jews, fish sticks from the flesh of cod, or two-by-fours from the flesh of trees. He continues, “Bureaucratization offers above all the optimum possibility of carrying through the principle of specializing administrative functions according to purely objective considerations. . . . The ‘objective’ discharge of business primarily means a discharge of business according to calculable rules and ‘with out regard for persons.’”

The point is this: When those in power set social goals aimed at increasing that power (this includes maximizing revenue, since, in our society, money translates to power, and includes maximizing production for the same reason), and when the rest of us do not question these goals too deeply but merely attempt as smoothly as possible to make our own minuscule contributions to the goals of our society, the culture will smoothly commit atrocities seemingly without end. This is true whether our contributions consist of making certain that shifting cargos do not stress front axles, increasing the efficiency of oil extraction from beneath the ground, or writing books that earn profits for bookstore chains or publishing conglomerates. The smooth functioning of bureaucratic society requires we each do our part.

***

In front of the gas chambers and crematoria were well-kept lawns and flower gardens. Often, as those who were about to die arrived, they would hear light music, played by an orchestra of “young and pretty girls all dressed in white blouses and navy-blue skirts.” The men, women, and children were told to undress, so they could be given showers. They were told, most often pleasantly, to move into the room where they would soon die. As Bauman observes, “rational people will go quietly, meekly, joyously into a gas chamber, if only they are allowed to believe it is a bathroom.”

Once the doors were locked, behind them, a sergeant would give the order to drop the crystals: “All right, give ’em something to chew on.” Soon, but too late, the people would realize that they had signed their final false contract, and, at last they would fight for their lives, stampeding toward the doors that were sealed behind them, where “they piled up in one blue clammy blood-splattered pyramid, clawing and mauling each other even in death.”

***

By this point, the pyramid of blue and bloodied bodies is really beside the point. The men who dropped the crystals, or who oversaw the use of Jews to clean up the thick and thin fluids and fire the bodies, did not make up the bulk of the killers. Most of the killers worked at regular jobs, just like you and me. The preeminent historian of the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg, commented, “It must be kept in mind that most of the participants [of genocide] did not fire rifles at Jewish children or pour gas into gas chambers. . . . Most bureaucrats composed memoranda, drew up blueprints, talked on the telephone, and participated in conferences. They could destroy a whole people by sitting at their desk.”

Jensen



To Marx and Engels, all relations were determined by the relations of production. All of history was only the story of class struggle, and once the workers had taken hold of the levers of the machines, class struggle (and history) would magically end. They did not understand that instead of the workers taking hold of the machines, the machines had already taken hold of the workers.

Jensen



Gilman



“It is told that Buddha, going out to look on life, was greatly daunted by death. ‘They all eat one another!’ he cried, and called it evil. This process I examined, changed the verb, said, ‘They all feed one another,’ and called it good.”

 Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Jensen

 The panopticon



"Our culture has made us all slaves to an idea, and idea that takes precedence over everything, over our own lives and the lives of others. And slavery to an idea is far more dangerous than slavery to a human, because we do not even know that we are slaves. We pass through our days with the freedom of a dog who never reaches the end of its leash, certain that what we see is all of reality, all there ever was, all there ever will be, all that is possible. Having enslaved ourselves to this idea, we then enslave others, passing on the knowledge of how to be a slave from father to son, father to daughter, mother to son, mother to daughter, sibling to sibling, teacher to student, owner to laborer, boss to employee, slave to slave''.

Jensen




“The distance we feel from our actions is proportionate to our ignorance of them; our ignorance, in turn, is largely a measure of the length of the chain of intermediaries between ourselves and our acts. … As consciousness of the context drops out, the actions become motions without consequence. With the consequence out of view, people can be parties to the most abhorrent acts without ever raising the question of their own role and responsibility. Wage earners who insert the fuse in bombs can view their activity as but a series of repetitive motions performed for a living. Railroad workers who take trainloads of prisoners to extermination camps can think of themselves as simply providing transportation. … The remarkable thing is that we are not unable to recognize wrong acts or gross injustices when we see them. What amazes us is how they could have come about when each of us did none but harmless acts. We look for someone to blame then, for conspiracies that might explain the horrors we all abhor. It is difficult to accept that often there is no person and no group that planned or caused it all. It is even more difficult to see how our actions, through their remote effects, contributed to causing misery. It is no cop-out to think oneself blameless and condemn society. It is the natural result of large-scale mediation which inevitably leads to monstrous ignorance.”

John Lachs

"Lies are expensive to maintain. Our bodies know when we lie to them or to anyone else, so they must be deadened so they do not betray the nasty game we are playing. But our bodies still know, even when our emotions are numbed and our thoughts confused. We are not machines. We are animals who live and die and breathe and love and hate, who want to rest and to enjoy life and who do not wish to be cogs or slaves, who feel pity and do not wish to convert the living to the dead. And so we must be deadened, to make sure we do not slide back into our bodies. And then we must be watched, so that we do not forget that we are dead. Thus the omniscient God. Thus the Panopticon. Thus “the collective terror that identifies democracy with chaos and insecurity."

Jensen



"What must be grasped about all of this if we are to have any significant chance of altering the course (or rather helping the natural world to alter the course) of our deathly culture is that Bolonkin’s vision has already come to pass. We are already living in the midst of it. Just as it would be a mistake to consider the Panopticon to be only a building of stone and glass and light and dark, it is a mistake to consider machines to be only artifacts made of iron and steel, and computers to be only metal boxes housing silicon chips. They are all much more. The Panopticon is a social arrangement, a way of life, a way of being in the world and relating to the world and to each other. The Machine, too, is a social arrangement, a way of life, a way of being in the world and relating to the world and to each other. And the Computer also is a social arrangement, a way of life, a way of being in the world and relating to the world and to each other. We are inside of the Panopticon, we are inside of the Machine, and we are inside of the Computer.




Surveillance, and this is true for science as well—indeed, this is true for the entire culture, of which surveillance and science are just two holographic parts—is based on unequal relationships. Surveillance—and science—requires a watcher and a watched, a controller and a controlled, one who has the right to surveil or observe—with knowledge, truth, providence, and most of all might on his side—and one who is there for the other to gain knowledge—as power—about.

These unequal relationships require a split, a separation. There can be no real mixing of categories, of participants. The lines between watcher and watched, controller and controlled, must be sharp and inviolable. Humans on one side, nonhumans on the other. Men on one side, women on the other. Those in power on one side, the rest of us on the other. Guards on one side, prisoners on the other. At Pelican Bay State Prison, where I taught creative writing for several years, I once received a chiding letter from my supervisor after I innocently answered an inmate’s friendly question as to what I was doing for Thanksgiving: to even let him know I was spending it with my mom was to make myself too known—too visible—to this other who must always be kept at a distance.





These unequal relationships—insofar as we can even call them relationships—must be oppositional. Predator and prey must not be working together for the benefit of both of their communities, and for the benefit of the land. Instead, from this perspective— this perspective based on selves being separate, and knowledge being gained through splitting off—predator and prey (and this applies to humans as well) must be locked in an eternal battle, good against evil, a battle that ends in Armageddon.

As civilization plays out its grim endgame, and as those in power move ever closer to their ultimately unattainable goal of absolute control (through absolute surveillance), converting in their efforts the wild both inside and out to devastated psyches and landscapes, it might be well past time to reconsider the premises that underlie much of this destructive way of being (or not being) and perceiving (or not perceiving). For in many ways, perception shores up the whole bloody farce.

A classic device of power—and this is true whether we’re talking about emperors or perpetrators of domestic violence—is to present their victims with a series of false choices whereby no matter which the victims choose, the perpetrators win and the victims are further victimized. Nazis, for example, sometimes gave Jews the choice of different colored identity papers. Many Jews then focused, reasonably enough, on trying to figure out which of these colors would more likely save their lives. Of course the color of the identity papers made no material difference: the primary purpose of the choice was to divert victims’ attention from the task of unmaking the whole system that was killing them. In addition, this false choice co-opted victims into believing they were making meaningful choices. In other words, it got them on some level to take responsibility for what was being done with them: If I am killed it is my own fault because I chose the wrong color''.

Jensen


"Affordances were characterised by Gibson as properties of the environment taken relative to an animal. Gibson emphasised the mutuality...