Clik here to view.
The farmers who claim to be causally responsible for the production of wheat have to qualify their claims when dustbowl conditions prove otherwise; i.e. forces more powerful than them by far, and beyond their control, had to be operative and keeping things moving along smoothly to make the farmers 'look good' and allow them to pretend that ‘they were responsible’ for wheat production. Is it not the same for colonizers claiming to be 'in control' of colonized lands and peoples?
That is, colonizing powers such as France, who have claimed, together with those participating in the global colonial power alliance, to be in control of vast colonized areas and huge numbers of colonized peoples, ... are currently having to revisit the claim of ‘being in control’. As with the farmers claiming that they were ‘producing wheat’, the question arises here as to whether French police and military could really claim responsibility for ‘keeping the peace’ and ‘keeping everything under control’ before the political climate changed and is now making things seem very much ‘out of control’.
Perhaps we have been viewing things upside down, as certain philosophers and physicists have been insisting, arguing that the activities of farmers and colonizers are ‘secondary’ appearances, and that space has an ‘accommodating’ quality like the space within a semiconductor whose variable ‘accommodating’ will allow electricity to flow through it, a little, a lot, or not at all. When we see the current flowing, it looks as if ‘the current is doing it’.
Alan Turing’s model of how organic forms take shape is by the engaging of ‘actualizer and inhibitor’, or, ‘actualizer and accommodator’ depending on which sign convention one wants to use.
As in the semiconductor, so too in the world in general; i.e. the accommodator influence which is immanent in the conducting space is in a natural primacy over the actualizer influence. This was also Nietzsche’s view, and Lamarck’s [Nietzsche spoke of endosmosis being in a natural primacy over exosmosis while Lamarck spoke of 'les fluides incontenables' being in a natural primacy over 'les fluides contenables'].
The conducting space of colonized lands had to be accommodating for the actualizer activities of the colonizers to transpire in that space. The same is true for farmlands in that they had to be accommodating for the actualizer activities of farmers..
When we see the farmers as actualizers, moving about and view the wheat growing, as if by ‘their hand’, we use this very visible and measurable ‘actualizer activity’ to understand what is going on in the ‘doer-deed’ sense that Nietzsche so bluntly rejects.
We might well ask whether the same erroneous conclusion which credits the colonial actualizers with more than they deserve to be credited is not also a deceptive illusion.
We know from our own human social experience, that females have the power to accommodate or disaccommodate males in sexual activity in the same manner as semiconductors, over a range from a simple diode which shuts down the male actualizer’s deed-doing totally, to that of a superconductor.
Meanwhile, it is possible to measure and graph male sexual activity or ‘actualizer activity’ and if we do this over the twentieth century we will surely see the graph rising from the 1950s onward. As in MLB batting averages we would not be sure whether the rise was due to improvements in actualizer competencies, or whether the rise was due to fielding becoming ‘more accommodating’. In fact, the availability of contraceptives in the second half of the twentieth century implies that the variable that we label ‘male sexual activity’ is not rising from improvements in male sexual mating competencies, but from the semiconductor-like accommodating influence becoming increasingly accommodating, which ‘shows up’ in our measurements of male sexual activity.
If we apply this understanding to the colonial situation, we would say that the colonial actualizer activities, like those of the wheat farmers, are a kind of secondary appearance or ‘schaumkommen’, as spoken of by Schroedinger, within an actualizer-accommodator non-duality.
If French police were formerly able to do their actualizing activities (patrolling) freely through Muslim banlieus without being challenged, this would not mean that ‘the police were in control’, but that the banlieux were ‘accommodating’.
Just as the old practices of the wheat farmers continuing on though the wheat stopped coming demonstrating that it was never that the actualizer activities were in control of wheat production, ... so it appears as well that the colonizers were never in control of the social dynamics in colonized lands. In fact, the actualizer activities are ‘shaumkommen’ as in the philosophical understandings of Nietzsche, Lamarck and others and the physically real situation is that ‘epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression’. In other words, nature’s dynamics, including plant growth, inductively actualize farming activity, and are thus the source of farmers [people engaging in farming activity] as well as plants. Who is domesticating who?
As Whorf, Nietzsche and others have pointed out, the transforming relational space of the atmosphere inductively actualizes the development of ‘stormings’ which are relational activities, like ‘farming’, and it is ‘the bewitchment of our understanding by language’ that has us employ a ‘double error of grammar’ [Nietzsche] to (a) impute ‘being’ to the activity by giving it a fixed identity name such as ‘Katrina’, and (b) impute God-like powers of jumpstart development and behaviour to compound the first error, by way of using the noun-name as a subject to inflect a verb. The relational activity of ‘farming’ is thus reduced to pure actualizer-activity terms [farmer-deed-doing terms] and the ‘accommodating influence’, which is in physical reality, PRIMARY, disappears from view in our semantic reconstruction, replaced by an implicitly empty and/or passive space that is seen as a non-participant in the physical phenomenon.
We can make our graphs of the farmer’s varying production of wheat, just as we can graph the varying MLB batting averages and the varying male sexual activity and everything can be carefully and accurately measured and double checked so that there is no uncertainty about the accuracy of the measurements. But should we credit the large increase in male sexual activity in the second half of the twentieth century to males as actualizers of doer-deed action? Language allows us to do this. We can legitimately say, and prove it, that male sexual activities went up by 80% or whatever, but this by no means proves that males were responsible for the increase. In order to understand the increase, we have to accept actualizer-accommodator non-duality as modern physics claims is the case [Mach’s principle of inhabitant-habitat non-duality].
The Western error of reducing the source of dynamics to the actualizer pole is showing up in control based social systems around the world. Just as farmers were never in control of wheat production, colonizers were never in control of colonized land production. Instead, the activities of farmers and colonizers were inductively actualized by epigenetic accommodating influence. The herds of Buffaloes on the prairie plains inductively actualized the development of Buffalo hunters and the luxuriant plant growth in the fertile valley inductively actualized the development of farmers and the resource rich lands beyond the colonizer’s frontiers inductively actualized the development of colonizers.
So long as these spaces were accommodating, the actualizers could [falsely] claim to be in control in a doer-deed sense. Indeed, it was the accommodating quality of these spaces that inductively actualized the doers of deeds, be it farming activity, sexual activity, and/or colonizing activity. But even though our noun-and-verb language and our scientific measurements credit the actualizers as being causally responsible for their doer-deed results; production of wheat, sexual penetrations, colonizer exploitations, this inverts the actual, natural order of things, since it is the accommodating influence that inductively actualizes genetic expression [actualizer production].
Where the popular opinion is headed now in the colonizer nations is shaped by the popular belief that previous governments were able to control the colonized peoples so that the obvious response to the current loss of control is to elect a new group on a mandate to restore control.
Unfortunately, the situation is more like that of the wheat farmers who claimed to be responsible for wheat production and then, suddenly, wheat production went into free fall exposing the fact that the farmers were never really in control.
Epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes farming activity including the development of farmers and the development of crops]. It is not [in the physical reality of our actual experience] the other way round as our semantic constructs and double errors of grammar like to put it.
The streets of the French banlieux can shut down the passage of police just like the semiconductor can shut down passage of current. The ‘female’ accommodating quality of a relational space is in a natural primacy over the ‘male’ actualizer activity; i.e. epigenetic influence induces actualizer activity [genetic expression] within an actualizer-accommodator non-duality.
The wheat farmers thought that they were in control of wheat production but found out that the accommodating quality of the land/climate was making it appear as if they were doing the producing. When this epigenetic influence drifted and shut them down, it underscored the fact that they, the actualizers, were never in control.
The same situation is arising with the colonizers who presumed that they had been ‘in control’ because of the accommodating influence in colonized spaces that was making them look good, just like females becoming increasingly accommodating with the arrival of contraceptives made male actualizers look good. The males can show measurements of their increase in sexual performance and their ego will have them take credit for their improved performance, even if it had little to do with them.
But the same token, the colonizers were never really in control in the past and it was the accommodating quality of the colonized spaces that was making it appear as if they were. Thus, the notion of ‘restoring control’ is an illusion. Attempts to do so may not only be futile but may induce a parallel to diode mode in a semiconductor, creating more and larger ‘no-go’ zones. In other words, initiatives to ‘restore control’ could end up being suicide missions.