being "binary"

[Peter Kropotkin]

I have been accused of being "binary" in my views...
and what exactly does that mean?

Binary: relating to, composed of, or involving two things...
noun: something having two parts... ''a binary star"

now we have a choice when creating.. we can hold to a view
about the many.. which is apparently what my critics want,
or we can concentrate on two possibilities...

the problem as I see it is this, when talking about multiple choices,
is that we become unfocused on what choices are the most likely...
in other words, given a dozen choices, which one is more likely?
it becomes a pick and choose game... and I can't as a thinker,
lay out all the possibilities for all those choices...
I have to weed out several choices to keep my post to
a readable level.. when offered a many choices,
how do we weed out all those choices into something
manageable?

and as an author, we are always weeding out choices,
for logistics purposes... when asked, is man good or evil?
the correct answer is both/neither... but logistical,
how would I make that point in a post, without
making the post several pages long? so one makes choices,

good vs evil.. is that binary? yep, but it keeps the argument
simpler and more manageable...is that annoying, yep,
but as the author, that is a choice I make to keep the argument
on track...

do third possibilities exists? yes, always, but that slows the argument down
and makes creating an argument much harder...as an writer,
who has written on philosophy websites like this for decades
and has written a book that was published online, I make
the choices that best fit what I am trying to say... and usually
binary choices, A or B, make the most sense in writing out
a thread or post like this...so I shall continue to be "binary"
when I write... and if that bothers you, oh well... not
my problem.... my problem is creating a thread or post,
that is readable and clear and coherent... and by my making
my choices "binary" I do just that....

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

Ironic for someone to describe your views as binary, as that's a very binary judgement to make. Means they consider people and their views as binary or not binary...

[Alexis Jacobi]

I use the term ‘binary thinking’ frequently. It is a euphemism and must be taken as such. But it also indicates a rigidity in thinking or perceiving that is over-rigid.

If dividing things into strict binaries and being inflexible in how one thinks about issues is defined as ‘bad’ or ‘insufficient’, the implication is that there may be better ways to think about things.

It is all far too easy to generalize through binary categories. Such for example as Left and Right in the political arena.

If perceiving that a binary division is recognized as negative (doesn’t produce good results) then the intimation is that the issue (of designation, of division) can and should be examined critically.

To notice a binary tendency in thinking is not evidence that one is a binary thinker. That does not follow.

[Peter Kropotkin]

as I have gone this far, I may as well bring up
my other choices.....

is there such a thing as "good vs evil?"
and my answer is surprisingly enough, no...
we see "good and evil" being two
distinct and separate things, but that is a simplistic
viewpoint.. binary as it were, for "good and evil"
are but two sides of the same coin and if further
examined, we can see that "good and evil" are in
fact the exact same thing...

we live in a "universe that is Spinozatic" that
is to say, everything is but one thing... atoms...
and the ancient question, how does change occurs?
and the answer is provided by science, in entropy...
going from order to disorder is how change occurs in
our particular universe... for my money, we are but
one thing and one thing only, atoms...which
means to me that there is no difference between such
disciplines as science, philosophy, physics, biology, chemistry
and psychology.... they are but branches of the exact same thing...
and to be strictly true, we don't even really have a "binary" choice...
but to help our understanding, I keep making binary choices when
in fact, that isn't even a reality...Camus once said, that the only true
choice we have is the act of suicide...technically, he is right...
in a universe make up with only one thing, atoms, all our
choices, are limited to this one thing we
are all made of, atoms... to be exact, we don't actually have
that thing we call freedom... and all of our various sciences,
physics, biology, evolution, thermodynamics, psychology,
are variations of a theme...the various possibilities of atoms...
and atoms are themselves limited by the rules of physics,
the rules of thermodynamics, the rules/laws of gravity...

now one might argue that we humans have ''free will"
ahhhhh, no... if everything is made up of atoms, the exact
same substance throughout the universe, then how much ''free will"
can we have, exactly? I can move my body, made up of atoms, to
the couch for a nap, or I can read a book or watch a movie, '
but so what? theose are pointless choices we have....
a cat or a dog can do the exact same thing we do, move to the couch
for a nap, walk to the kitchen for food, go outside, watch humans
beings watch tv....we have no more choices than a dog or a cat....
the major difference is that we think we have "free will"
whereas a dog or cat, can't even tell the difference between
"free will" or not "free will"

but one may say, but Kropotkin, all you are saying is that human beings
are nothing more than robots.. and yep.... now what?
we are nothing more than our programming.. which was given to
us by the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws
of gravity, the laws/rules of evolution...we travel from order to disorder..
and that is the entire plan of existence...going from order to disorder....
and what is another word for disorder? chaos... I read somewhere that
that the exact percentage of the universe is 80% order
and 20% disorder/chaos...Personally I think it is closer to 50-50,
but hay, that's me....

the entire point of human existence can be broken down into
working toward order or working towards disorder...
want bigger, stronger government, that is working towards order,
want anarchy or taking power away from the government,
that is disorder/chaos...if we have any choice in the universe,
that is pretty much it, do we go toward order or do we go towards
disorder/chaos?

Now one might whine, but Kropotkin, you are contradicting
yourself... and that, boys and girls, is disorder at work...

personally, I don't have a problem with disorder/chaos,
remember, former anarchist here...and recall too,
that we have but two choices in the universe,
we tend toward order or we tend towards disorder/chaos...
and we discover that we have only a binary choice in the universe..
to order or to disorder... and the rest of our free will claptrap
is just a faint to make us think we have some ''free will''...
but think about this... can you choose to avoid illness, old age,
suffering, and finally death? nope...
we can only work around these rather mandatory obligations
of the universe... did you have a choice to be born? or a choice
to grow older, or to become ill, or to suffer, or to grow old,
and do we have a choice in this matter of death?
So, what choices do you have, exactly?

Kropotkin...

[Alexis Jacobi]

When ‘binary thinking’ and ‘scatterbrained thinking’ occur — say for example at an Upper East Side cocktail soirée — I’d recommend a French Exit …..

[Peter Kropotkin]

to continue this thought, although technically,
it actually belongs elsewhere....

that the philosophical question of modern times, since Nietzsche,
has been this, on what grounds can we base ethics/morality given
a no-god universe.. as religion has been THE given truth to
what is moral and ethical, what if, what if there is no god,
and now what does that do to ethics/morality? it removes
the grounds/basis of ethics/morality.... and the entire question
of modern times has revolved around on what do we base our
ethics/morals on, if not on religious grounds?

since Nietzsche, we have every major philosopher try to create
an ethical/moral theory.. from Wittgenstein to Heidegger, to Sartre,
to Camus.. all of them have tried to work out an "universal" ethical/
moral theory... and all of them failed.... a rather resounding failure
at that.... but is an ''universal'' moral/ethical theory even possible,
given our no-god universe?

yes, if we think this through...

what is the bottom line in being human or even life?
that we must have, all life must have to exist, is
food, water, shelter, education, and in a human point of view,
health care.... that is bottom line stuff in existence....
we all must have those physical things to survive..
but we humans, we have other specialized needs,
we have emotional, psychological needs, we human beings
must have, must have in order to survive, are things like
love, a sense of belonging, esteem and safety/security...
these things are as essential as those physical needs of food
and water and shelter.....

and how do we best achieve those results of gaining those
essential needs? is it through disorder/chaos? not that I can tell,
but we can achieve those biological necessities through
order.... through an orderly government, through an
orderly society, through an orderly society...
if our primary needs in the universe is the gaining of
those primary physical needs and psychological needs,
then we must advocate for a orderly society/state/civilization....
to achieve those primary bodily and psychological needs,
we must create an orderly society, state, civilization...
thus we must have and work towards an orderly society,
state, civilization....

thus existence is predicated on us having an orderly society/state...
and so we can think about ethics/morals as being a drive toward
the creation of an orderly society/state...
what is ethical/moral? the working toward an orderly society/state
and anything that prevents or stops an orderly society/state is
unethical, immoral....

let us take an example and work it out....
violence, such as a fist fight in the street...
that become "immoral'' ''unethical'' because it
creates chaos, disorder... and thus by that standard or
definition, is wrong...
but if we work out our differences in peace, that enables
or helps us create a orderly/ethical society...

thus ethics/morals are really what creates an orderly society/state...
and anything that creates disorder or chaos is unethical, immoral....
seen this way, we have created a universal ethical/moral theory.....
and what matters is whether we are working towards an orderly
society/state and that is moral/ethical or are we working towards
disorder/chaos and that is unethical, immoral....

but Kropotkin, how do we know if we are creating an orderly
society/state? order has a flow to it... we can see anywhere
we work, play or just hang out at.... order is very much
a state of flow... disorder/chaos slows down or even stops that flow...
think about a song that flows and then think about a song that is
being constantly interrupted... the song that flows, that is order
and the song being interrupted is disorder/chaos...

the real division in the universe now is not good vs evil,
but do we go toward order or do we go towards disorder and chaos?

and that is the real division in the universe... order vs disorder...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so let us follow through this point of existence and the
point/meaning of existence is to create and hold to
an orderly society/state/culture/civilization....
and that order help us get our physical/mental/psychological
needs better than being in a state of disorder/or chaos....

we can achieve our basic needs through an orderly society
better than within a disorderly society...
and achieving our needs is really a bottom line thing...
for if we don't achieve our needs, we die.. and it is a fact,
a fact that human beings that don't reach or achieve their
psychological needs die sooner or even die.. babies who
don't get love within the first year of life, die... love is
an essential factor in our very existence.. we must love and be loved,
to continue our existence....
and the basic fundamental way to achieve love, is through
an orderly society/state/culture....
and it is hard to find love and keep love when one is fighting
the basic battle of existence, which is finding food, water,
shelter, an education and health care...while living in an
disorder/chaotic universe....we can only reach our basic needs
in an orderly universe... and we are not really human beings if we
don't reach our psychological needs...that of love, of safety/security,
of being esteemed, of belonging... psychological damage is just
as damaging as physical damage...just as physical damage still
shows on our bodies, psychological damage still exists in our souls
and within our psyche... it never goes away...

and within an orderly, safe universe, we are better able to find
both our physical needs and our psychological needs...
thus the reason that we must hold to an ethical/moral theory
that makes good vs evil as being one of reaching order or trying for
disorder/chaos... order is good, disorder/chaos is evil...
that is basically what our ethical/moral theory should be.....

the basic idea is that entropy is our guide to what is good or
what is evil in our society/state...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

Ironic for someone to describe your views as binary, as that's a very binary judgement to make. Means they consider people and their views as binary or not binary...

So, if I think a car is red, is that a binary judgment? Red or not-red. I guess so. But actually you're right. There are degrees of binariness.

But actually my concern with PK is that it's pure binary, and it's idiosyncratic binary, unjustified binary. Or, as I said in that other thread, 'his binary classification.' Apart from the Conservatives, evil, Liberals Good, binary thinking, he manages to think that conservatives are all about disorder, in another thread, and liberals are all about order. I think 'his binary thinking' there is really quite limited. He also manages to imply/state that order is good and disorder is bad, period. Some people consider freedom as disorder. In fact both liberals and conservatives (and all the other groups left out of this schema) tend to have demands for order that the other side(s) doesn't like.
Toss in that He happily mindreads conservatives, as an entire group, and he often does this instead of actually dealing with their arguments, and I think 'his binary classifications' are problematic.

Note this also: He is responding here, in a new thread, to a criticism I made in yet another thread. In that other thread I reacted to his binary classification on a specific issue. As I did on the judgments around disorder/order in another thread. I am not sure if I mentioned binary there, but it was yet another example of his binary classification. That one is just silly, I think.

Instead of responding to me in either of those threads, he starts a new thread, keeps the discussion at a very high level of abstraction and doesn't really deal with any points made.

good vs evil.. is that binary? yep, but it keeps the argument
simpler and more manageable...is that annoying, yep,
but as the author, that is a choice I make to keep the argument
on track...

I can only imagine a conservative thinking similarly about LGBTQ+ and all that unmanageable complexity, while also mulling over good and evil. The irony being that PK is very much like the religious right. (oh, that's yet another issue. He's binary about liberals vs. conservatives in that he thinks conservatives all think like the religious right does)

PK as far as I can tell doesn't quite respond to people. That is, when he actually posts as if responding to people. Much of the time he's not interested in interacting with other people's ideas. He's here to lecture and he's told me that I and other critics cannot recognize the greatness in his posts nor understand him. He made it clear that he is, yet another, very high level philosopher, destined to be recognized later in history. I exaggerate not.

In any case, even VA will respond in-thread, even if he also simultaneously starts a new thread.

I should be grateful that my post created a minor ripple in the musings of a great mind and know my place.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Ironic for someone to describe your views as binary, as that's a very binary judgement to make. Means they consider people and their views as binary or not binary...

So, if I think a car is red, is that a binary judgment? Red or not-red. I guess so. But actually you're right. There are degrees of binariness.

But actually my concern with PK is that it's pure binary, and it's idiosyncratic binary, unjustified binary. Or, as I said in that other thread, 'his binary classification.' Apart from the Conservatives, evil, Liberals Good, binary thinking, he manages to think that conservatives are all about disorder, in another thread, and liberals are all about order. I think 'his binary thinking' there is really quite limited. He also manages to imply/state that order is good and disorder is bad, period. Some people consider freedom as disorder. In fact both liberals and conservatives (and all the other groups left out of this schema) tend to have demands for order that the other side(s) doesn't like.
Toss in that He happily mindreads conservatives, as an entire group, and he often does this instead of actually dealing with their arguments, and I think 'his binary classifications' are problematic.

Note this also: He is responding here, in a new thread, to a criticism I made in yet another thread. In that other thread I reacted to his binary classification on a specific issue. As I did on the judgments around disorder/order in another thread. I am not sure if I mentioned binary there, but it was yet another example of his binary classification. That one is just silly, I think.

Instead of responding to me in either of those threads, he starts a new thread, keeps the discussion at a very high level of abstraction and doesn't really deal with any points made.

good vs evil.. is that binary? yep, but it keeps the argument
simpler and more manageable...is that annoying, yep,
but as the author, that is a choice I make to keep the argument
on track...

I can only imagine a conservative thinking similarly about LGBTQ+ and all that unmanageable complexity, while also mulling over good and evil. The irony being that PK is very much like the religious right. (oh, that's yet another issue. He's binary about liberals vs. conservatives in that he thinks conservatives all think like the religious right does)

PK as far as I can tell doesn't quite respond to people. That is, when he actually posts as if responding to people. Much of the time he's not interested in interacting with other people's ideas. He's here to lecture and he's told me that I and other critics cannot recognize the greatness in his posts nor understand him. He made it clear that he is, yet another, very high level philosopher, destined to be recognized later in history. I exaggerate not.

In any case, even VA will respond in-thread, even if he also simultaneously starts a new thread.

I should be grateful that my post created a minor ripple in the musings of a great mind and know my place.

K: and I plead guilty to every single charge.. now what?

I don't interact with others, I don't respond to others, does
that make me a "bad" person?

I exists with my own environment...
of childhood indoctrinations and education
and beliefs that were forced on me by my parents,
state, schools, media and church...and I spent many
years overcoming that education/indoctrinations...
and here I stand... I can do no other...
but my way of reacting to what happens here and in fact, in person,
is part and parcel of my own particular circumstances...

two things stand out, one I have no social skills of any kind...
I am that idiot that make social blunders all the time..
I didn't have a girlfriend until I was 23... and that
happens when one doesn't have any social skills..
the second thing is I was born with a severe hearing loss...
I went to a school for the deaf as a kid.. I didn't last long
for reasons that are not quite clear to me.... I was 4 and don't
even remember this... and today, I am deaf....
I don't interact with others for the simple reason, I can't hear them...
I have no friends, I don't even have a phone number of anyone to call,
as a friend... my cell phone has just work numbers and family members,
and that's it...and I am ok with this.. it is what it is...
I read and write and think, that is what I do on my days off...
I don't drink anymore, I don't go to bars anymore, I simply stay
home and that's it...and the same holds true for me on websites
like this... I don't interact with people... it holds no interest for me...
to muck about the weeds in regard to my or anyone else's philosophy,
has no appeal for me... as I am not writing to "improve" my positions,
or to impress anyone or to even interact with anyone.. I write for me
to work out my own beliefs and idea's....all I will do is work out
what I hold to be true.. thus I will post a thread and move on...
I rarely ever revisit a thread once I have posted it...
I don't expect anyone to even answer it... silence has been
my philosophical friend since I started writing on websites
like this, over 20 years ago...

and do I believe that I am a great philosopher? yep...
I do...and why? for the exact same reason Heidegger
thought he was a great philosopher.... he said, ''all I do
is ask questions'' and that is all I do... ask questions...
I have no answers....and we follow in the footsteps of
Socrates... and you may attack me on any one of several different
grounds and you know what? I don't care...and you may even carry
out a campaign to "cancel" me, and say, I rock on....I will still
write even if no one here reads me.... that is ok...
I write for me.. and not for you or anyone else here....

you may say, but Kropotkin, you are contradicting yourself and make no sense..
I don't need to make sense or to have you understand me...or even interact
with you.... I am Kropotkin... (in my best groot voice)

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: and I plead guilty to every single charge.. now what?

We'll see.

I don't interact with others, I don't respond to others, does
that make me a "bad" person?

Does not interacting with others make you a bad person? No. Nor does interacting make one a good person. It's a lot more complicated than that for me.

two things stand out, one I have no social skills of any kind...
I am that idiot that make social blunders all the time..

I make them semi-regularly.

I didn't have a girlfriend until I was 23... and that
happens when one doesn't have any social skills..

It sure can.

the second thing is I was born with a severe hearing loss...
I went to a school for the deaf as a kid.. I didn't last long
for reasons that are not quite clear to me.... I was 4 and don't
even remember this... and today, I am deaf....
I don't interact with others for the simple reason, I can't hear them...

And presumably you never got sign language? Or there's no deaf community near you if you did?
But of course here, hearing is not an issue. IOW it seems like you are saying you don't interact because of the past and because of your deafness. And you say this in response to me saying you don't (usually) respond here. In the present, and where hearing is not an issue. Perhaps you have merely gotten used to something, that sometimes it seems you have described as unpleasant for you. There's no reason this must continue. If you prefer it well, then you prefer. But then what went on in the past, is what happened then.

I have no friends, I don't even have a phone number of anyone to call,
as a friend...

Sorry to hear that.
I am not quite sure what not being able to hear has to do with happens here online, but perhaps that will become clearer below.

my cell phone has just work numbers and family members,
and that's it...and I am ok with this.. it is what it is...
I read and write and think, that is what I do on my days off...
I don't drink anymore, I don't go to bars anymore, I simply stay
home and that's it...and the same holds true for me on websites
like this... I don't interact with people... it holds no interest for me...

So, it's not just the deafness, you're not interested in interacting with people?

to muck about the weeds in regard to my or anyone else's philosophy,
has no appeal for me...

OK, though you could classify it as mucking about in the rich soil.

as I am not writing to "improve" my positions,
or to impress anyone or to even interact with anyone.

Which means it's a one way interaction.

. I write for me
to work out my own beliefs and idea's.

If you are writing for you, you could do that just in Word files. I can't see this as anything but writing for yourself and others.

...all I will do is work out
what I hold to be true.

That can be done in interaction with others. There is one toolset when one reads no feedback - one way interaction - another if you do read feedback - as it seems you did here - and yet another if a complicated interaction takes place. Clearly you have a preference for restricting the ways of learning from what you right to mainly the first.
thus I will post a thread and move on...

I rarely ever revisit a thread once I have posted it...
I don't expect anyone to even answer it... silence has been
my philosophical friend since I started writing on websites
like this, over 20 years ago...

It sounds like you are using a forum as, for example, a blog.

and do I believe that I am a great philosopher? yep...
I do...and why? for the exact same reason Heidegger
thought he was a great philosopher.... he said, ''all I do
is ask questions'' and that is all I do... ask questions...
I have no answers

You do ask questions. Perhaps more than many here. But you also make a lot of statements.
If what makes someone great is only asking questions, you don't meet the criteria. But then, Heidegger doesn't restrict himself to questions either. It might not be so binary being a great philosopher.

....and we follow in the footsteps of
Socrates... and you may attack me on any one of several different
grounds and you know what? I don't care...and you may even carry
out a campaign to "cancel" me,

Well, I am on the Left and my peers seem to have that habit these days. But I can't imagine how I could cancel you, not that I have that interest.

and say, I rock on....I will still
write even if no one here reads me.... that is ok...
I write for me.. and not for you or anyone else here....

Well, again, if you are only writing for you, it's odd that you post it in a forum, given what forum means and that people will and do read your stuff. And given your lack of interest in interaction, there are formats online that fit are intended for that kind of thing.

you may say, but Kropotkin, you are contradicting yourself and make no sense..

Yes, I think you are contradicting yourself, but again, I don't think it's so binary. You can contradict yourself in a post and also make some sense.

I don't need to make sense or to have you understand me

It might not be something you need. It can often be something that people want. I am pretty sure every great philosopher wanted to make sense. With some I think it rises to a need.

...or even interact
with you.... I am Kropotkin... (in my best groot voice)

Yes, I was pretty convinced by your behavior that you saw little need, not no need, to interact with me or others.

I'm sorry to hear about your hard times growing up. I've heard some of it before, but not connected as it is here with your current behavior. It seems like you are saying that part of the reason you don't want to interact is because you haven't had much experience with it, given your deafness, and also perhaps that the way you were treated by others, makes you not inclined.

I can certainly understand that. What happened in the past doesn't have to continue. IOW as part of a response to your not responding to people here, you cite a past of isolation and lack of interaction. If that's what you prefer, well, that's what you prefer. But just because the past was that way does not necessarily mandate that it continue. And it seemed, when you wrote about this elsewhere, that you experienced this as unpleasant.

And here we are in a non-aural interaction.
Socrates was in constant interaction with other people when he worked out his ideas.
Heidegger had friends, some professionals in his field and related fields.

Of course you don't have to interact with other people, but since you mentioned them, I'm pointing it out.

Anyway...you'll do what you do. You don't care that I have responded as I did. Noted.

I see no reason to limit the learning tools around finding out what you think is true. But obviously it's your choice.

And, yes, I think there's something off about your binary classifications. I think they make your writing less true.

But, got it. You have no interest in learning from interacting with what I wrote.

But then, I already got used to that.

So, I write for others and myself in your threads.

EDIT: given that you haven't interacted much with people, you might want to mull over the possibility that you're not in the best position to mindread them. And you can of course focus on their behavior and assertions and arguments.

[Agent Smith]

"Why does the feti, an animal found only in the Babal forest, never drink from waterholes that have dwe grass growing around it?" asked the professor, a smug I-know-this-and-you-don't look on his face. Silence. "Well, my speciality is the feti, an animal regarded by the S'ata people as a channel between them and the Great Spirit Moao. It's the apex predator in its domain which spans the Babal Green Belt. A very, very, short introduction of course. Coming to my question, the dwe grass flowers only in May through July. This is as big as hints get. Did anyone deduce the answer?" the professor teased. Silence. "No one?" the professor pressed on. Silence. "Not to worry ladies, gents. I've asked this question countless times and no one has ever, not once, figured it out," the professor went on, with that same look but with twice the intensity. "Why don't you tell us professor. The suspense is killing us," came a voice, jokingly/seriously no one could tell, from the crowd, A few giggles and a stray guffaw broke the silence. "I would sir, whoever and wherever you are, but the this question is what's known in erotetics as a Salter question. Does anyone know what a Salter question is?" the professor inquired, but his demeanor had changed, he looked nervous and if someone had a binoculars on him they would've seen he was sweating, profusely. Silence. "Good," the professor looked relieved, very relieved, too relieved??? Hanky to forehead, wet hanky, wet, wet hanky.

Binary cognition, if that's what this is about, is quite clearly an indicator; a mouse is a mouse but also can, in the right circumstances, be a ... a ... whathaveyou.

[Flannel Jesus]

Ironic for someone to describe your views as binary, as that's a very binary judgement to make. Means they consider people and their views as binary or not binary...

So, if I think a car is red, is that a binary judgment? Red or not-red. I guess so. But actually you're right. There are degrees of binariness.

But actually my concern with PK is that it's pure binary, and it's idiosyncratic binary, unjustified binary.

Sure, I can get that it can be a valid criticism, even if there's a layer of irony to it.

False dichotomies, or a failure to distinguish between more relevant options in a given scenario. Like what's happening with the Moon thread, where Einstein's realism and Carroll's realism are both treated as equal by a dude, when in fact in the context we're discussing, there's a notable difference.

[Peter Kropotkin]

and in a binary universe, where your only real choice is
to order or to disorder, how do metaphysical concerns fit into this?
if everything is, as I have said it is, one substance which is atoms,
and Spinoza was correct, does that mean that one substance,
atoms, is god or some other metaphysical object? I don't see
how....everything in the universe is connected, by being atoms....
dissemble everything down to its core pieces and all that is left,
is atoms... we are the exact same thing as tree's or dog's or the planet
Earth and the stars...just slightly different arrangement of atoms,
creates everything but still just atoms...

and the dominant reason atoms change form, is the forces
of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or in humans or
any other living thing, the laws of evolution...
these forces are how atoms change and become something different,
entropy is one of the primary forces of change in the universe...
the trend to order or to disorder.... and we can engage with
morality/ethics based on this tendency of atoms to order or
to disorder/chaos... order is good and disorder is bad....
and how so Kropotkin? Because within disorder and chaos,
it is hard to get our essential necessities like food, water,
education, shelter, health care..... the lives of the poor
and downtrodden is more chaotic, it tends toward disorder,
I know, I have been poor... the wealthy tend to have a much
more orderly life, the wealth one has pushes one toward order,
because in disorder, one is more likely to lose that wealth... order
allows a person to keep what they have... look at wealthier
communities.. they tend to be far more structured and ordered...
and then look at poorer cities, they tend to be disordered
and chaotic...I live in a small wealthy city on the San Francisco
Peninsula, it is a very ordered place...and traveling to say,
San Francisco, that is a very disordered, chaotic city...
a city where one thinks, almost anything can happen
and in my city, rarely does anything happen.. we have
very few murders, more likely to have crimes like vandalism
because of bored youth, or car break in, then any actual
crimes like muggings or robberies... I live in a very
organized city... and most American's live in various
degrees of organized cities.. because our cities are
built to be like Disneyland...very organized and
structured.. visit third world cities/countries, and I have,
and they are very unorganized, very chaotic...
they tend to disorganization and chaos and because of
that disorganization and chaos, for whatever reason,
they tend to be poorer..... wealth can be used as a
mechanism to create order whereas the lack of wealth,
can discourage or prevent order.....

so the value of money, and perhaps the only real value of money,
is this tendency of wealth to create order... money has little value
on its own, and so how does this impact us on a daily basis?
if we understand that wealth can be used to create order,
then we can think of income inequality, the vast wealth
that a few individuals have, and the vast majority of people
don't have, which means that the wealth needed to create
order isn't in the hands of the government... it is in the hands of
the wealthy elite and that means that income inequality promotes
disorder in a country, state or city...that wealth stays with
the wealthy elite and never transfers to the rest of the population
or into cities.. thus creating disorder....unless we tax the shit
out of the wealthy, that income becomes dead money to the
state/society... and dead money cannot be used to gain or
promote order, and in fact, this dead money helps create
disorder within our lives...this is an argument for taxes
to be used to fund the state, which is another way of
saying to create order instead of disorder, we must tax
companies, individuals, churches, to help create order by
the use of wealth within cities...and this is why European
cities tend to be more organized than American cities..
the tax rates are higher in Europe which allows them to
use that money to create order....

and that is why northern Europe tends to be more organized
then southern Europe, northern Europe is wealthier than
southern Europe...

so in order to create order, to have a more stable government/
cities, we must have much more equality in taxation, as taxation
can be used to create order within cities.. so allowing the rich to
escape taxes simply increase the disorder within that space, be
it a city, large or small, and within a state or nation....
conservatives scream about how this country is ''going to hell
in a handbasket'' one of the answers to that is the use
of wealth to create order within a society/state...and that wealth
can only be gained by taxes... thus lower taxes only promotes
disorder and chaos within a state/nation...

let us look at this line in the declaration of independence...

".... that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness"

and the pursuit of our ''rights"" can only be achieved within
a state/country that tends to promote order vs a state
that is tending to disorder.. how are we to pursue rights
in a disordered state? and this is not much different than what
Hobbes called, " a state of Nature" in which disorder in
life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
that is a classic definition of a disordered state....

the American dream is actually a dream about an ordered state,
and not about a disordered/chaotic state.... and how do we make
an ordered state happen? I just told you....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

order is good and disorder is bad....

This is a problematic, I go so far as to say false, simplification.
Monocultures are more orderly than diverse cultures. Multicultural society is less ordered. Why because you have people doing different things at differnet times, in different clothing, with different music with....and so on.
There is more order in a tree farm than a forest. A tree farm with rows of, say, Christmas trees as opposed to, say, a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. Which is better?
Freedom in a society allows for less order. People do a wider variety of things. Fascism and Communism can have much more order via restricting freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to protest, freedom to publish, perhaps only state approved films and tv shows, all representing the values of the regime.
Monastic life can be extremely ordered but few want it or thrive in it.
Children can be rigidly controlled and have little adult extremely ordered lives or they can be allow to, yes, engage in play, often in their own unsupervised subcultures, with rollplaying and invented games and cross class and racial social groups.

Now I recognize that disorder can also be bad and order can also be good. But I think it is just silly to label them the way Peter did in two need little boxes.

The earth would be vastly more ordered with out life. Rather than this ever changing readjusting complicated shifting mass of complicated species interaction.
Humans need both and there have been trends towards allowing humans greater disorder or freedom. In fact it has traditionally been conservatives who have viewed disorder the problem and have called for law and order and more boundaries and clear sex roles and segregation and under the of prioritization of their idea of character controls on sex and emotional expression. More in love with prison and all the control and order entailed than the messier rehabilitation or attempts to reform society.

This is ironic given that PK views conservatives as bad and liberals as good, but liberals (I mean, look at the name) have generally had greater tolerance for disorder or freedom or variety or diversity. Though even that is oversimplification.

Theocracies want and create greater order...at cost I think PK would dislike.

Disorder is generally a pejorative word, so the deck is stacked. But if we shift the words from high control to low control, or government control vs. freedom, the issue gets much more complicated.

And sure, kids, for example need order. They need to know where parents are, when food is coming, where stuff is in the house.

I am not arguing that the opposite is true that disorder is good and order is bad.

Just that PK's schema is oversimplified and here to a degree that I think is false. And I think this is a pattern in his thinking. He wants complicated things narrowed down and oversimplified with good here and bad there in two opposed discrete boxes.

A trait he shares with the religious right.

[Flannel Jesus]

The most ordered situation is for nothing to exist, or for everything to exist in a sorted pile, something like that. Order sucks.

Disorder does too.

The sweet spot is in between.