via nika dubrovsky‘s fb and twitter share of article – Inventing anarchy: The Liberation Language of the Brothers Gordins: https://akrateia.info/izobretaia-bezvlastie-osvoboditelnyi-iazyk-bratev-gordinykh/
The anarchist Gordin Brothers invented (1919) an all-human language designed to construct a sociopolitical reality.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/nikadubrovsky/status/1426117879087386627
notes/quotes from article:
anti-statist leftists understand anarchy as a form of anarchy as the highest form of order, when human communication does not need a governing principle, when it is not the system of social and political institutions (from religion to the state) that is the source of order, but people themselves are each other in their direct communication..t with a friend.
huge.. huge.. what we need is a means to get back/to this non hierarchical listening
How is the language of communication possible in the supposed world of anarchy as the highest degree of order? Cybernetics, no matter what definition we now use, necessarily implies two concepts: control and language. In the most abstract sense of the word, cybernetics studies the laws of control processes and the language through which these processes can be described, and even better – controlled. If this is so, then any communication presupposes not only language, but also a certain form of control, i.e. external supervisory authority..t
language as control/enclosure et al
In the XIX century. A. Ampere, speaking about cybernetics, believed that the state should be such a controlling authority… With the development of socialist socio-political thought, as well as with the evolution of cybernetics itself, *the concept of self-government was increasingly strengthened in the intellectual culture. We now see self-government institutions everywhere: in the structure of municipal services, in the idea of political federalism, in the automation of many segments of the digital economy. But is any self-government as a concept realized in life as anarchy? Can modern city municipalities be considered powerless in their own right? Anarchists offered the *most radical view of self-government precisely as a form of anarchy..t
*i don’t think we’ve yet seen legit self governance.. in all the anarch isms we’ve tried
anarch\ism.. fragments of an anarchist anthropology.. mes on anarchy and democracy.. internet as anarchist.. moxie on anarchism.. kevin on anarchism w/o adj.. graeber anarchism law.. enlightened anarchy.. et al
To implement their idea of a world powerless society, built on the principles of solidarity, freedom and equality, they often proposed not only a revolutionary transformation of the socio-economic and political sphere, but also sociocultural, communicative, responsible for *how people can interact with each other..t
*this is huge.. this is (to me) indeed the piece that has been missing.. and the piece we can now do/be.. ie: tech as it could be.. to augment our interconnectedness
Brothers Gordin AO language project can rightly be called the most daring and radical attempt to invent anarchy through philosophical and linguistic reflection
? not sure we’ll get there thru reflection/linguisticness.. et al
It is difficult to say when the very idea arose to combine the project of an artificial spoken language with the liberating hammer of the revolution.. Probably, it was the study of languages and the desire for freedom that became the defining circumstances in the difficult path of the brothers to the invention of the AO language.. It is not known exactly which of the brothers proposed the idea of *an artificial “liberating” language, but.. it should be admitted that researchers often stated the very fact that the Gordins invented the AO language, but rarely talked about what it is, how it can be spoken, and in general, how it is connected with the idea of the liberation of humanity.
*perhaps idiosyncratic jargon ness as language of freedom.. beyond tower of babel.. rumi words law.. lanier beyond words law.. et al
In 1919 V.L. Gordin creates the first edition of the AO language, in 1924 – the second. In 1927, being presented at the First World Exhibition of Interplanetary Vehicles and Mechanisms, the AO language is designated as “space”. This does not mean communication with aliens, but the fact that this is the language of humanity, conquering space. To use national languages in this global business means to build a new “Tower of Babel”, to disunite humanity, to remain within the framework of the culture of patriarchy and violence.
yeah.. rather.. to not try to build that tower in the first place.. but disperse the languages more.. even w/in a person.. changing daily.. so more like discrimination as equity.. the more diverse/changing/undefinable.. the more alive/humane.. et al.. let go of all the hoop jumping.. try self-talk as data.. and try tech as it could be
1\ The first task of the AO language , therefore, is the unification of humanity . . t
again.. more like discrimination as equity..
The guarantee of the possibility of unification is the mastery of the AO language by all mankind. For this, for the sake of ease of assimilation, AO manages with a *minimum number of sounds and signs..t, and also introduces combinatorics as a way of creating linguistic expressions. Sounds in AO must correspond to concepts – thus an attempt is made to bridge the gap between sign and meaning.This overcoming is the guarantee of the possibility of the language working to change the world, its “magic”, “technical” essence. The gap between sign and meaning is bridged in the utopian “country of Anarchy” by the Gordins brothers, where the imagination creates freely, practically without encountering any resistance from the transformed “matter”. This is the ideal that the language of AO leads to. The language of “pure” concepts is also, according to V.L. Gordin is the “real” language of humanity. Different natural languages are simply different forms of expressing the same content – concepts and judgments. The language of AO refers to this fundamental principle, which also contributes to the unification of mankind.
*yeah .. see.. that’s the opposite of what we want/need (then goes into section of all the rules/maths of this new liberating language).. so.. lit & num as colonialism.. let go brothers.. let’s try discrimination to the limite of infinity as equity..
The score from 1 to 5 is the degree of perfection. The percent sign “%” (h) is the opposite of “5” (the highest manifestation of something), a partial that reminds us that “we are dealing here only with shares.” The algebraic extraction of the root “√” (and) shows that the “invention of a new property” is the “extraction” of the essence of a thing.. Using the above rules, you can make up such words as X5X (alya) – to do, X + 5X (alya) – to improve, X – X5 (alya) – to process, X√5X (ailya) – to build. Each term in this case consists of signs, each of which at the same time has a symbolic meaning, similar to the semantics of some Asian languages, where hieroglyphs are present.
oi.. of math and men.. not of freedom
Gordins brothers generally loved the five-membered structure. Here it is necessary to turn to their literary heritage, especially to the key work – the utopia “Country of Anarchy” . It can be assumed that five consonants, counting from one to five, structuring the alphabet of AO, correspond to the five heroes of this work, the Five *Oppressed (I, Worker, Woman, Oppressed Nation and Youth)
thinking.. yeah sure.. give the oppressed a seat at the table.. but they’re still oppressed.. because.. public consensus (ie: on this one language w 5 membered structure.. et al) always oppresses someone(s)
The language in the country of Anarchy has been transformed, there is no imperative mood and the form of an order in it. The person “asks” the object to do something, and does not force it to obey his will. ..
“Land of Anarchy” people still use “natural” language, but it is obvious that switching to the AO language, which resembles a programming language, would fit perfectly into this picture. If it were simultaneously used both for “programming” objects-biomechanisms, and for communication between people, the stage of translation from human into machine language, which is present in modern systems with voice control, would disappear. Such translation means a gap, an inequality, a disconnection, the need for translation work on the part of machines. The use of AO allows us to *overcome this.
more.. to *think/assume we have overcome it.. and more to the point.. overcoming translation might even be irrelevant.. if all the people are legit free.. and non hierarchical listening is legit happening.. people in a space would grok each other because of how/why they gathered.. (ie: imagine if we).. rather than trying to grok each other after they were gathered/invited by some external force/coercion
2\ The second task of the AO language is liberation.. t
we have no idea what legit free\dom is like.. we’re too engrained in whalespeak.. so we keep saying ‘liberation/freedom’.. while not legit free.. and so perpetuating sea world/tragedy of the non common.. et al
if the ao language were legit about liberation.. there wouldn’t be all the maths/rules..
first of these aspects is that the AO language is cleared of the imperative mood. On it, in principle, you cannot give an order. Moreover, it cannot be used to speak directly about power, submission, violence, even in a negative way.. the search for causes and origins, an appeal to the past, not the future. In the world of a bright anarchic future, there is no place for explanations through reasons and questions “why?” In fact, this means that there is no room for explanations at all. Therefore, the Oppressed, visiting a utopian country in the “Land of Anarchy”, do not understand anything – but their guide does not seek to explain something to them, but calls for abandoning the vicious practice of seeking explanations. Man’s task is creativity, not “fruitless” understanding.
partly resonating here.. ie: need to let go of intellect ness.. as well as any form of m\a\p
But if the language of Khlebnikov is, first of all, poetry, elements, free word formation, the language of AO presupposes rather strict rules, which cannot be exceeded in word creation. On the one hand, this is dictated by the interests of communication – in a language that assumes absolute freedom of word formation, it will be very difficult to communicate. But, on the other hand, this is evidence of the structuredness of creativity as imagined by the Gordins brothers.
yeah.. i think we have that wrong.. i think the reason it seems difficult to communicate (takes a lot of work ness) is because we’re trying to do it in sea world
we need to let go of that – hard won order ness
Moreover, after the grammatical classification of the world, Gordin within the AO makes a classification by opposites and a classification by the spheres of being and science. Thus, the AO language is presented as a classifier language, a catalog language.
grammatical classification et al.. killing us.. let go
marsh label law et al
The AO language is technical, both in the sense that a new world is created through it, and in the fact that it is a technique in itself, a human invention with a clear structure. If in everyday life technology is understood as a means, then among the Gordins brothers it is valuable in itself, it is the goal, it is creativity.
what we need is communication sans clear structure.. sans goals..
The Gordins brothers in almost all their works urge to abandon traditional oppositions, traditional oppositions (matter and idea, science and religion, villages and cities, capitalists and the proletariat, etc., etc.), to go beyond them. But to go out not into nothing, but into an immanently structured creative act. *Thus, freedom, anarchy, anarchy already contain order and structure.
*if so.. then it’s an order/structure we haven’t yet imagined.. or may never be able to see clearly.. like the not yet scrambled ness of a child.. in that unscrambled ness.. one wouldn’t be seeking clarity/understanding/order/structure.. they’d just be swimming
AO follows the principles of ultimate versatility and maximum ease of use.
not ease of use.. not ultimate versatility.. with all those rules/maths et al.. oi
Although V.L. Gordin insisted on using the strict rules of grammar developed by him, in no text did he speak about the completeness of the language he created. Probably JSC as an invention should be understood as broadly as possible..
we have no idea what .. as broadly as possible means.. we’re too blinded by naming the colour ness.. et al
The brothers Gordins believed in freedom and self-government, but what is freedom, no matter how self-governing a process where each participant is endowed with the *status of an inventor?
again.. if we were all legit free.. ideas like *status would be irrelevant