i noticed that my hard copy and an online PDF have different texts, but i didn't study how much so overall. Am not even sure of the context and what is meant by: "a system of “all decision-making and executive powers” perpetuates “the world of separation”".
Peter, thanks for sharing the essay which conveyed to me how institutionalized the market/corporate personhood has become. And, "The essence of commodification is the transformation of unique individuality into generic form" fits the person becoming barcode graphic after the poem. And wrt "The commerce clause version of civil rights said no more than that those who have sufficient money to pay for what the market offers must be permitted to participate in that market. This is the "equality" of commodified human relations", astounding how they determine the 'playing field' justifying unfairness, poverty, etc., in effect blaming people b/c of their situation when it's the system itself. Also, since Mussolini's defn of fascism/corporatism was the merging of corporation and state, your essay adds layers to that discussion. And as you highlight at the end of the essay in different words, a far cry from "All My Relations is "constitutional protection for corporate persons within a description of society as a system of market relations."
Before reading your essay, what comes to mind is it's like real life science fiction, turning corporations into "people", then the actual people willingly commodifying their behaviors and subsequently themselves.
What started as my efforts to understand Navajo society resulted in a sharp re-evaluation of some basic U.S. legal concepts. I saw old cases in a new light such as the (in)famous 1819 case, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, where the U.S. Supreme Court said that a corporation is an immortal, “artifi- cial being” with legal rights. Chief Justice John Marshall (about whom we will learn much more later) offered the truly bizarre statement that a corpo- ration’s “immortality no more confers on it political power . . . than immor- tality would confer such power . . . on a natural person.”5
Marshall thus accomplished with the edict of law what Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein6 had tried to do only a year earlier—create a being by human ingenuity. One crucial difference between Dr. Frankenstein’s creation and the creation of the court is that the “monster” had feelings and thought about life; he expressed bewilderment at the notions of “laws” and “property” and even showed compassion for the colonial “discovery” of Native peoples!
I heard of the discovery of the American hemisphere and wept . . . over the hapless fate of its original inhabitants. . . . For a long time I could not con- ceive . . . why there were laws and governments; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased and I turned away with disgust and loathing. . . . The strange system of human society was explained to me. I heard of the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty, of rank, descent, and noble blood. . . .What did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination? These questions continually recurred, but I was unable to solve them.7
In sharp contrast to the monster’s feelings, as the Supreme Court empha- sized in 1886, “it is impossible to conceive of a corporation suffering an injury or reaping a benefit. . . .
Peter, from an interesting book of which i've only read bits, from 1992, translation 1994, The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord. From chapter "The Commodity As Spectacle": "... It was at this moment too that political economy established itself as at once the dominant science and the science of domination. The spectacle corresponds to the historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonization of social life."
thanks for the book reference... I had forgotten about Debord... and haven't read that, but have read related material about 'society of the spectacle'...
You're welcome. For me it's a challenging read, lots of short sections that make me stop and think. I got bogged down in the section about the proletariat, and then are quotables to ponder, e.g. "The unreal unity the spectacle proclaims masks the class division on which the real unity of the capitalist mode of production is based."
I resonate with your basic message with this addition: The land is not a national treasure. The land is a sentient living being - Gaia. She is a treasure to cherished, honored, loved.
Yes, thanks, and am aware of all that, and the point of the poetic rhyme was not labeling Earth as such, rather simply saying that IF She was respected as such then that would help to de-commodify. Also "sovereign" is a loaded word with negative connotations as defn shows "One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch."
I get you. I actually think putting Gaia in the hands of the distorted version of of sovereignty you point out - as a national treasure is equivalent to taking babies from indigenous families to be better raised by white families. If you look at the history of conservation it's full of racist, eugenicists who hate indigenous people. Look at the Sierra club for a typical example. Any word can be used in lots of ways. I understand how sovereign has been misused. To me it represents only sovereignty in the sense that we are all royal - divine. We each have a right to be in our own sovereign expression - whether as a truly free community that has self-determination (as opposed to suzerainty which is what the US/Canda/Australia express over indigenous communities/nations, and what Mongolia, then China has historically on and off asserted over Tibet. It is we who are not intentionally here to harm but find ourselves on Turtle island who, perhaps have right occupancy, but stewardship and title are rightfully of the Indigenous Nations, who know how better to care for the earth than the anglo.
Alicia, am all for Original Nations caregiving the land. With regard to your statement "I actually think putting Gaia in the hands of the distorted version of of sovereignty you point out - as a national treasure is equivalent to taking babies from indigenous families to be better raised by white families", again to mention, what am doing with a poetic rhyme posed as question is trying to get mostly Americans to consider that land IS a "treasure" and as with some old buildings and specific habitats, the declaration as a "national treasure" might help to protect but am not advocating that the US have more control than they already, mostly destructively have over lands. So maybe your answer to the poem question is 'God forbid as a national treasure', ok, and that's a whole nuther discussion. Also, i understand your association with "sovereign" yet since we're mincing words here, 1) divine, nice, yet a root of "royal" refers to "kings" whose "sovereignty" typically fits with the following from Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee-Lenape), “7 major concepts that hold society together all flip back to domination: civilization, sovereignty, state, dominion, property, empire, ascendancy.” (Doctrine of Discovery, the Domination Code” www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EBno7CiSfU )
If all people could only have the semantic issues we have, I bet we could work stuff out for all way win grassroots soulutions quickly! :) <3 Blessings and peace!
Alicia (at first i didn't post this via "reply, so in case u missed), i appreciated you "liked" my recent comment yet am not clear what you mean by "If all people could only have the semantic issues we have".
I mean that you and I hold the same core values and we have different reactions to different words - you are triggered by my use of sovereignty and I am triggered by your use of the term national treasures - but we each are triggered by these words based on our shared values, not by a true difference of opinion on core issues. We both are empathic people who want good things for life. We both think Turtle Island should be stewarded more by native nations/peoples and less by a government of usurpation. d'Errico talks about the different words and how they are ALL problematic but the point is to understanding how we are using them, rather than trash them out of hand. So for me, I associate "national treasure" as something very decisively belonging to the United States Government. Yet for you this is meant poetically and ind a spirit of inclusivity for those who think within certain ideas. For you sovereignty carries the baggage of the uses where it has been used to exercise Suzerainty. Yet for the word carries a sacred connotation that that also equally honors the sovereignty of others, individually or group. I use it as in I am sovereign over my own body, my own birth, my choices about what goes in my body, whether sexually or health/vaccine. I use it to understand what God gave me in the freedom to explore consciousness. I use to it understand a community or groups freedom to be, to exist WITHOUT being dominated. Yet each of these terms we each are triggered by have both a beautiful and a contorted meaning. If we can see this, there need not be problems between us, nor animosity, but an understanding of shared goodwill and different language preferences due to our individual visceral-psychic sense of meaning, beyond mere rationality. This can allow us to be sensitive to one another without compromising the language that is authentic to us where we feel it is important to us.
...or as individuals in terms of the many issues that are up right now regarding freedom to be ones sovereign divine self in expression without exploitation, coercion, force, co-opting etc.
i noticed that my hard copy and an online PDF have different texts, but i didn't study how much so overall. Am not even sure of the context and what is meant by: "a system of “all decision-making and executive powers” perpetuates “the world of separation”".
Alicia, i appreciated you "liked" my recent comment yet am not clear what you mean by "If all people could only have the semantic issues we have".
Peter, i don't think so. Thanks!, from the title it's obvious why you sent. After i read, will comment.....
Glad it clicked, Steven. I, ahem, figured that tax day a good day to post it.
Mankh - did I ever send you my essay?
Corporate Personality and Human Commodification
https://people.umass.edu/derrico/corporateperson.html
Peter, thanks for sharing the essay which conveyed to me how institutionalized the market/corporate personhood has become. And, "The essence of commodification is the transformation of unique individuality into generic form" fits the person becoming barcode graphic after the poem. And wrt "The commerce clause version of civil rights said no more than that those who have sufficient money to pay for what the market offers must be permitted to participate in that market. This is the "equality" of commodified human relations", astounding how they determine the 'playing field' justifying unfairness, poverty, etc., in effect blaming people b/c of their situation when it's the system itself. Also, since Mussolini's defn of fascism/corporatism was the merging of corporation and state, your essay adds layers to that discussion. And as you highlight at the end of the essay in different words, a far cry from "All My Relations is "constitutional protection for corporate persons within a description of society as a system of market relations."
Before reading your essay, what comes to mind is it's like real life science fiction, turning corporations into "people", then the actual people willingly commodifying their behaviors and subsequently themselves.
yes... Here's an excerpt from my book (page 3):
What started as my efforts to understand Navajo society resulted in a sharp re-evaluation of some basic U.S. legal concepts. I saw old cases in a new light such as the (in)famous 1819 case, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, where the U.S. Supreme Court said that a corporation is an immortal, “artifi- cial being” with legal rights. Chief Justice John Marshall (about whom we will learn much more later) offered the truly bizarre statement that a corpo- ration’s “immortality no more confers on it political power . . . than immor- tality would confer such power . . . on a natural person.”5
Marshall thus accomplished with the edict of law what Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein6 had tried to do only a year earlier—create a being by human ingenuity. One crucial difference between Dr. Frankenstein’s creation and the creation of the court is that the “monster” had feelings and thought about life; he expressed bewilderment at the notions of “laws” and “property” and even showed compassion for the colonial “discovery” of Native peoples!
I heard of the discovery of the American hemisphere and wept . . . over the hapless fate of its original inhabitants. . . . For a long time I could not con- ceive . . . why there were laws and governments; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased and I turned away with disgust and loathing. . . . The strange system of human society was explained to me. I heard of the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty, of rank, descent, and noble blood. . . .What did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination? These questions continually recurred, but I was unable to solve them.7
In sharp contrast to the monster’s feelings, as the Supreme Court empha- sized in 1886, “it is impossible to conceive of a corporation suffering an injury or reaping a benefit. . . .
Peter, from an interesting book of which i've only read bits, from 1992, translation 1994, The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord. From chapter "The Commodity As Spectacle": "... It was at this moment too that political economy established itself as at once the dominant science and the science of domination. The spectacle corresponds to the historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonization of social life."
thanks for the book reference... I had forgotten about Debord... and haven't read that, but have read related material about 'society of the spectacle'...
You're welcome. For me it's a challenging read, lots of short sections that make me stop and think. I got bogged down in the section about the proletariat, and then are quotables to ponder, e.g. "The unreal unity the spectacle proclaims masks the class division on which the real unity of the capitalist mode of production is based."
Lots of provocative insights... until I reached #116, et seq. ... where I made this note:
strangely incoherent and utopian …
a system of “all decision-making and executive powers” perpetuates “the world of separation”
his critical perspective has imploded …
Thanks, Peter. Amazing how the topic of immortality gets into stuff and ironic considering planned obsolescence; those people want it both ways.
I resonate with your basic message with this addition: The land is not a national treasure. The land is a sentient living being - Gaia. She is a treasure to cherished, honored, loved.
We are not a commodity
We are part of her body
In our own, also, we have sovereignty
She is ensouled
We are too
We are living within her body
And we are not a commodity
Nor is she
We are one with every tree
The in and out breath
Of carbon dioxide
Oxygen
Symbiotic
Breath of life
Breath of life
Ruoch
Spirit
Mattering into the soil
Mycelium
Stars and stardust
We must
Remember our divinity
To honor all
As sacred
No one - not me, not you, not the other
Nor the Great Mother
Or Sky Grandmother
Is a Commodity
We are One InterUniversal Body
In Joy
We Rise
Yes, thanks, and am aware of all that, and the point of the poetic rhyme was not labeling Earth as such, rather simply saying that IF She was respected as such then that would help to de-commodify. Also "sovereign" is a loaded word with negative connotations as defn shows "One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch."
I get you. I actually think putting Gaia in the hands of the distorted version of of sovereignty you point out - as a national treasure is equivalent to taking babies from indigenous families to be better raised by white families. If you look at the history of conservation it's full of racist, eugenicists who hate indigenous people. Look at the Sierra club for a typical example. Any word can be used in lots of ways. I understand how sovereign has been misused. To me it represents only sovereignty in the sense that we are all royal - divine. We each have a right to be in our own sovereign expression - whether as a truly free community that has self-determination (as opposed to suzerainty which is what the US/Canda/Australia express over indigenous communities/nations, and what Mongolia, then China has historically on and off asserted over Tibet. It is we who are not intentionally here to harm but find ourselves on Turtle island who, perhaps have right occupancy, but stewardship and title are rightfully of the Indigenous Nations, who know how better to care for the earth than the anglo.
Alicia, am all for Original Nations caregiving the land. With regard to your statement "I actually think putting Gaia in the hands of the distorted version of of sovereignty you point out - as a national treasure is equivalent to taking babies from indigenous families to be better raised by white families", again to mention, what am doing with a poetic rhyme posed as question is trying to get mostly Americans to consider that land IS a "treasure" and as with some old buildings and specific habitats, the declaration as a "national treasure" might help to protect but am not advocating that the US have more control than they already, mostly destructively have over lands. So maybe your answer to the poem question is 'God forbid as a national treasure', ok, and that's a whole nuther discussion. Also, i understand your association with "sovereign" yet since we're mincing words here, 1) divine, nice, yet a root of "royal" refers to "kings" whose "sovereignty" typically fits with the following from Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee-Lenape), “7 major concepts that hold society together all flip back to domination: civilization, sovereignty, state, dominion, property, empire, ascendancy.” (Doctrine of Discovery, the Domination Code” www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EBno7CiSfU )
If all people could only have the semantic issues we have, I bet we could work stuff out for all way win grassroots soulutions quickly! :) <3 Blessings and peace!
Alicia (at first i didn't post this via "reply, so in case u missed), i appreciated you "liked" my recent comment yet am not clear what you mean by "If all people could only have the semantic issues we have".
I mean that you and I hold the same core values and we have different reactions to different words - you are triggered by my use of sovereignty and I am triggered by your use of the term national treasures - but we each are triggered by these words based on our shared values, not by a true difference of opinion on core issues. We both are empathic people who want good things for life. We both think Turtle Island should be stewarded more by native nations/peoples and less by a government of usurpation. d'Errico talks about the different words and how they are ALL problematic but the point is to understanding how we are using them, rather than trash them out of hand. So for me, I associate "national treasure" as something very decisively belonging to the United States Government. Yet for you this is meant poetically and ind a spirit of inclusivity for those who think within certain ideas. For you sovereignty carries the baggage of the uses where it has been used to exercise Suzerainty. Yet for the word carries a sacred connotation that that also equally honors the sovereignty of others, individually or group. I use it as in I am sovereign over my own body, my own birth, my choices about what goes in my body, whether sexually or health/vaccine. I use it to understand what God gave me in the freedom to explore consciousness. I use to it understand a community or groups freedom to be, to exist WITHOUT being dominated. Yet each of these terms we each are triggered by have both a beautiful and a contorted meaning. If we can see this, there need not be problems between us, nor animosity, but an understanding of shared goodwill and different language preferences due to our individual visceral-psychic sense of meaning, beyond mere rationality. This can allow us to be sensitive to one another without compromising the language that is authentic to us where we feel it is important to us.
...or as individuals in terms of the many issues that are up right now regarding freedom to be ones sovereign divine self in expression without exploitation, coercion, force, co-opting etc.
Bravo, Mankh! So true, so true.
Thx, Caryl!
Wow! Just what I needed to see this morning! Thanks