"Man Stands Here. Nature Doesn't Actually Stand Over There."

Yellow Mullein

 Good Morning, Comrade. Hope our masters aren't too desperate for profit today. In the context of Power and Authority as they relate to the living system we all belong to can we say that the "Living System We Belong To" has Power and Authority. Do we need to think of Power and Authority as products of our minds, products of human intelligence and should we begin to think of intelligence as "how a system or a creature manages the world they have their existence in."

 The front row has always defined intelligence as an exclusive human asset, measured by credentials, logic, and the ability to impose straight lines onto the world. For them, intelligence is an extractive tool—a weapon used to out-think, dominate, and manufacture "increase."

 But your definition completely flips the hierarchy. If intelligence is how a system manages its existence within its world, then human beings are currently looking like the most profoundly stupid species on the planet. We are poisoning the well we drink from.

 Under your definition, a forest is an intelligence network. It manages its existence through mycelial threads under the dirt, sharing sugars, warning neighbors of pests, and balancing the soil. A beaver pond is intelligence; it regulates water flow to ensure systemic stability.

All About Me

Day Lily More Lemon

 Godday Comrade. I'm thinking a lot about rich people with particular reference to an Australian Billionaire who is supporting a Right Wing nut. The Nut is called Hanson and the Billionaire whose family business is in the extraction of Iron Ore business is called Gina Reinhart. Some of the novels in the Twentith Century had some part of this theme you we have variously talked about this way "We have to look to constructs that treat stability not as a launching pad for expansion, but as the goal itself." I can think of the Glass Bead Game and there was another one, my memory of it is weak so forgive me, but it was I think about a society that prized craftsmanship and every year something would be chosen as top of the heap, the rest discarded. Beyond his "Empire of the Sun" J.G. Ballard went on to write some stories about the sheer monotony of a world where nothing much changed. And even in Empire of the Sun there was a thread that saw struggle, or reclaiming the past as somehow insufficient. A man called Peter Otai who was in the Oboti, the first independent Uganda administration once suggested that he felt that independence had come too easily to the Uganda People. They hadn't struggled enough. It would seem to me that struggle and victory is an inadequate measure of Power and Authority and yet Power and Authority does seem to accrue to having lots of money, no matter how that money was aquired. I would like to think this a paradox. I understand that in every respect Liberal Democracy is thought of as a paradox.

The Myths of Greatness

Day Lily with solstice morning Frog

We have looked at the Great Man Theory, denigrated it as British Idealism supporting the Victorian notion of Rule Britannia, a nasty little justification rather than a sensible view of History. In the process, comrade, we have increasingly isolated the Back Row as a sense of Being that justifies withdrawal from the group.

Well, Comrade, in the early hours of this morning a solstice occurred. Our planet paused on one of its axis and then switched direction. In my mind it's uphill to Mid-winter here in the Northern hemisphere.

 And yes from the Porch, this day looks long, very warm, peaceful and full of small biting insects some of them able to fly, others proficient in the fine art of leaping.

 I can fully understand how in the early and mostly savage days of the Industrial Revolution and the rise and fall of empires that revolution produced, how some disgruntled and concerned elements of the middle and upper class elites looked to a working class they called The Proletariate, after the commoners of Rome, to find a hope beyond a poem by Wordsworth bemoaning climate change.

My own suspicion is that catastrophy may be the true instrument of progress. The current philosophy of an ever expanding economy will reach a confrontation with the equivalent of the Sea People who ravished the Eastern Mediterranean. The Iteso had a story about how years ago the highly disruptive Kulabuntu came from the north moved quickly south eating people as they went. As a child you would be warned and advised to behave otherwise the Kulabuntu would eat you. A story, a myth, and I have spelled it wrong but the point I think is that we as a species are designed around stability and increase.

 Our stability is based on an ability to adabt quickly through changing social constructs giving us the necessary confidence to find cohesion. It's the understanding of increase in our being that makes actual change very, very difficult. We people are fundamentally a successful invasive species.

 One element of the Back-Row's relationship with the back-row greasy pole might be to look for and identify the roots of those social constructs that offer a cohesion without the increase demanded from current social constucts summed up by the phrase "go forth and multiply" the comedians sometimes make hay from.

 This I think you might agree our earth demands an understanding from us of the Very opposite of the Great Man Theory.

Thomas Carlyle and his Imperial Myth

Day Lily 4

 If a noun becomes completely motionless, if the social structure becomes too heavy, rigid, and frozen, it becomes a prison. It turns into the dead, bureaucratic Potestas (power) of the Headmaster's Office or the corporate metric. The dictionary becomes a cage for the language, and the university becomes a factory for the front row.

 Thomas Carlyle was preaching to the Frontest of Front Rows. He wanted history to be a biography of heroes. Lightning bolt men, always men, who shape the world through the force of their supernatural and very special will. This Carlyle was born in Scotland, he died in London, England in 1881 when he was 85. His end time was mourned by the front rows of Victorian England, but incredibly, his memory has lingered on into the 21st Century where his theory will insist that it's not Society that shapes men, it's the biology of a few Great Men that shape society. The Great Society, Thomas Carlyle argued in 1840, allowed Great Men by encouraging, persuading, insisting us commoners submit to Front Row excellence. 

 Let's talk The Enclosure. When the Frontest of Front Rows says, "Submit to us because we are Excellent" we are right to suggest that what they are actually saying is "Submit to us because our grandfathers fenced off the woodlands and pasture."