ecology of freedom
(1982) by murray bookchin – The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy
The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy is a 1982 book by the American libertarian socialist and ecologist Murray Bookchin, in which the author describes his concept of social ecology, the idea that ecological problems are caused by human social problems and can be solved only by reorganizing society along ecological and ethical lines. The book is considered Bookchin’s magnum opus, but it has also been criticized as utopian.
Bookchin is critical of the class-centered analysis of Marxism and simplistic anti-state forms of libertarianism and liberalism and wished to present what he saw was a more complex view of societies. Bookchin writes that, “My use of the word hierarchy in the subtitle of this work is meant to be provocative. There is a strong theoretical need to contrast hierarchy with the more widespread use of the words class and State; careless use of these terms can produce a dangerous simplification of social reality. To use the words hierarchy, class, and State interchangeably, as many social theorists do, is insidious and obscurantist. This practice, in the name of a “classless” or “libertarian” society, could easily conceal the existence of hierarchical relationships and a hierarchical sensibility, both of which – even in the absence of economic exploitation or political coercion – would serve to perpetuate unfreedom.”
Bookchin also points to an accumulation of hierarchical systems throughout history that has occurred up to contemporary societies which tends to determine the human collective and individual psyche, “The objective history of the social structure becomes internalized as a subjective history of the psychic structure. Heinous as my view may be to modern Freudians, it is not the discipline of work but the discipline of rule that demands the repression of internal nature. This repression then extends outward to external nature as a mere object of rule and later of exploitation. This mentality permeates our individual psyches in a cumulative form up to the present day––not merely as capitalism but as the vast history of hierarchical society from its inception.”
notes/quotes (reading 272 pf pdf from anarchist library):
environmental issues had developed in my mind as social issues, and problems of natural ecology had become problems of ‘social ecology’.. the subject was never to leave me.. by early 60s my views could be summarized in a fairly crisp formulation: the very notion of the domination of nature by man stems from the very real domination of human by human.. t
as one premise led to another it became clear that a highly coherent project was forming in my work: the need to explain the emergence of social hierarchy and domination and *to elucidate the means, sensibility, and practice that could yield a truly harmonious ecological society..t.. my book post scarcity anarchism (1971) pioneered this vision.. composed of essays dating from 64 it addressed itself more to hierarchy than to class.. to domination rather than exploitation, to liberatory institutions rather than mere abolition of the state.. to freedom rather than justice and pleasure rather than happiness.. ‘eco anarchism’
In it, Bookchin outlines the possible form anarchism might take under conditions of post-scarcity. One of Bookchin’s major works, its author’s radical thesis provoked controversy for being utopian in its faith in the liberatory potential of technology
as recently as 60s words like hierarchy and domination were rarely used.. marxists still spoke almost exclusively in terms of classes.. their concepts of oppression primarily confined to material exploitation, grinding poverty and unjust abuse of labor.. likewise.. orthodox anarchists place most of their emphasis on state as the ubiquitous source of social coercion.. society’s ‘original sin’ in marxian orthodoxy: private property.. in anarchist ortho: state..
during these years i concentrated on *how a truly free society, based on ecological principles, could mediate humanity’s relationship w nature.. as a result i began to explore the development of a new technology scaled to comprehensible human dimensions.. such a tech would include small solar and wind installations, organic gardens, and use of local ‘natural resources’ worked by decentralized communities.. this view quickly gave rise to another .. the need for direct democracy, for urban decentralization, for a high measure of self sufficiency for self empowerment based on communal forms of social life.. in short, the non authoritarian commune composed of communes
as i published these ideas over the years.. esp between 60s and 70s.. what began to trouble me was extent to which people tended to subvert their unity, coherence, and radical focus.. notions like decentralization and human scale for ie were deftly adopted w/o ref to solar and wind techniques or bio-agri practices that are their material underpinnings.. decent entered city planning as a mere stratagem for design.. alt tech became a narrow discipline increasingly confined to the academy and a new breed of technocrats.. in turn, each notion became divorced from a critical anal of society.. from a radical theory of social ecology..
it has become clear to me that it was the unity of my views.. their eco holism, not merely their individual components. that gave them a radical thrust.. that a society is decentralized.. that it uses solar/wind energy.. that it is farmed organically.. or that it reduces pollution.. none of these measures by itself or even in limited combo w others makes an eco society.. nor do piecemeal steps, however well intended.. even partially resolve problems that have reached a universal, global and catastrophic character.. if anything, partial ‘solutions’ serve merely as cosmetics to conceal the deep seated nature of the eco crisis.. they thereby deflect public attention and theoretical insight from an adequate understanding of the depth/scope of the necessary changes.. t
huge huge huge..
it was precisely this synthesis of ideas that i sought to achieve in the ecology of freedom.. and this synthesis had to be rooted in history.. only in this way could i hope to estab sense of genesis/continuity,.. that would give real meaning to my views.. the reconstructive utopina thinking that followed from my synthesis could then be based on the *realities of human experience.. change and reconstruction could **emerge from existing problems rather than wishful thinking and misty vagaries..
oi.. history ness is killing us.. ie: *all data non legit.. like data from whales in sea world.. so like you just mentioned.. keeping us distracted.. from the whole pic.. from legit potential/possibilities..
**emerging from existing problems is wishful/wasteful/energy-sucking thinking.. oi
to use words hierarchy, class and state interchangeably.. as many social theorists do, is insidious and obscurantist.. this practice.. in the name of a ‘classless’ or ‘libertarian’ society, could easily conceal the existence of hierarchical relationships and a hierarchical sensibility, both of which.. even in the absence of econ exploitation or political coercion.. would serve to perpetuate unfreedom.. t
and spot on to needing a means to undo our hierarchical listening
hierarchy and domination could easily continue to exist in a ‘classless’ or ‘stateless’ society.. *indeed classless but hierarchical societies exist today.. yet the people who live in them neither enjoy freedom, nor do they exercise control over their lives.. t
any form of m\a\p (but i don’t think *classless societies exist today..?)
i doubt that the word (hierarchy) can be encompassed by a form defn.. i view it historically and existentially as a complex system of command and obedience in which elites enjoy varying degrees of control over their subords w/o necessarily exploiting them.. such elites may completely lack any form of material wealth; they may even be dispossessed of it..
hier archy ness et al
hierarchy is not merely a social condition; it is also a state of consciousness.. a sensibility toward phenom at every level of personal/social experience.. early prelit societies (‘organic’ societies as i call them) existed in a family integrated and unified form based on kinship ties, age groups and sexual division of labor.. their high sense of internal unity and their egal outlook extend not only to each other but their relationship w nature.. views self not as lords of creation.. but as part of natural world.. neither above/below but w/in it
lit & num as colonialism et al
in organic societies the diff’s between individuals, age groups, sexes.. and between humanity and the natural manifold of living and nonliving phenom.. were seen as a ‘unity of diff’s’ or ‘unity of diversity’.. not as hierarchies.. their outlook was distinctly ecological, .. ecology knows no ‘king of beasts’ and no ‘lowly creature’.. (such terms come form our own hierarchical mentality)
until this phase of history/prehistory, the elders and males rarely exercised socially dominant roles because their civil sphere was simply not very important to the community.. markedly counterbalance by the enorm significance of the woman’s ‘domestic’ sphere.. household and childbearing responsibilities were much more important in early organic societies than politics and military affairs..
huge.. caring labor et al.. and whale mothers
also.. w all his history embed.. good to have dawn of everything (book) grasp of history.. ie: doe – room for happenstance‘s: The authors’ main claim, anyway, is not that early human beings were simply “more equal” or, as in the opposing myth, “more stupid and violent.” It’s that they were more everything – christman on doe
heinous as my view may be to modern freudians… it is not the discipline of work but the discipline of rule that demands the repression of internal nature.. this repression then extends outward to external nature as a mere object of rule and later of exploitation.. this mentality permeates our individual psyches in a cumulative form up to the present day.. not merely as capitalism but as the vast history of hierarchical society form its inceptions..
*unless we explore this history, which lives actively w/in us like earlier phases of our individual lives.. we will never be free of its hold.. t.. we may elim social injustice, but we will not achieve social freedom.. we may elim classes and exploitation, but we will not be spared form the trammels of hierarchy and domination.. we may exorcize the spirit of gain and accumulation form our psyches, but we will still be burdened by gnawing guilt, renunciation and a subtle belief in the ‘vices’ of sensuousness..
yeah.. i think *that is the hold.. obsessing with history ness.. it’s keeping us in sea world.. keeping us perpetuating tragedy of the non common.. i think the way to be free of any hold is to let go.. do a legit re\set.. begin again.. which we have the means for today.. we have the means for 8b people to leap.. to a nother way
happiness: satisfy needs of survival.. food, shelter, clothing and material security.. pleasure: satisfy needs of desires.. intellectual, esthetic, sensuous, playful ‘daydreams’.. the social quest for happiness, which so often seems liberating, tends to occur in ways that shrewdly devalue or repress the quest for pleasure.. t
this is non legit needs trumping/distracting legit needs.. perpetuating insatiation.. we need to org around legit needs via ie: oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
it is precisely in this utopistic *quest for pleasure, i believe, that humanity begins to gain its most sparkling glimpse of emancipation..t.. transcends justice into freedom.. realization of humanity’s potentialities in most creative form
and/or.. the means we can legit dance
*i’d call it non hierarchical listening
if i were asked to single out the one underlying contrast that permeates this book, it is the seeming conflict between the ‘realm of necessity’ and the ‘realm of freedom’.. the material conditions for freedom.. takes us back to aristotle’s politics.. the internal nature that society must *dominate to create the material conditions for freedom.. the free time and leisure to allow man to develop his potentialities and powers..
how could ‘natural’ nature be kept in tow w/o subjugating ‘human’ nature
rather.. if human nature set legit free.. natural nature is also free.. all a part of the same dance
my attempt.. to give meaning to the world of necessity (nature) in terms of the ability of the world of freedom(society) to colonize and liberate it.. my strategy is to reexamine the evolution and meaning of technology in a new ecological light.. i am led to a drastic reconsideration of the nature and structure of technics, of work, and of humanity’s metabolism w nature
the modern world has reduced reason to rationalization.. to a mere technique for achieving practical ends.. this book tries to recover this notion of an immanent world reason.. in my view reason exists in nature as the self organizing attributes of substance..
the title of this book, the ecology of freedom, is meant to express the reconciliation of nature and human society in a new ecological sensibility and a new ecological society.. a reharmonization of nature and humanity thru a reharmonization of human w human.. t
we live so completely *immersed in our present that it absorbs all our sensibilities and hence our very capacity to think of alt social forms..t thus i will continually return to **prelit sensibilities .. to explore their contrasts w later institutions, technics and forms of thinking in hierarchical societies..
**to me.. that would be not yet scrambled ness.. but that means new ish (because of rat cage birthing) w every baby.. rather than pre lit.. as in written/printed world.. which is still scrambled/immersed.. any form of m\a\p is scrambled/immersed.. blind to legit alts..
we are virtually incapable of dealing w a vast wealth of natural phenom that were *integrally part of their lives.. the **very structure or our language conspires against an understanding of their outlook
*those in ‘primitive/savage/pre-developed’ past.. but i’d say.. they didn’t even grok then integrality of the interconnectedness.. better than us.. yeah.. but not enough.. had already been compromised
i am eager to determine what can be recovered from that outlook and integrated in to our own..
don’t even need to go there.. not about finding whatever in deep past.. about finding fittingness et al.. w/in each person.. which.. is our means to leap.. since it’s already in each one of us.. don’t need to study/research history ness.. just need to listen deeper..
my detestation of a futurism so committed to the present that it cancels out futurity itself by denying anything new that is not an extrapolation of the existing society
1 – the concept of social ecology
the knowledge and physical instruments for promoting a harmonization of humanity w nature and of human w human are largely at hand or could easily be devised..t ie:.. small scale solar/wind energy devices.. efficient transportation, and energy saving shelters.. what we crucially lack is the consciousness and sensibility that will help us achieve such eminently desirable goals.. t
rather.. what we’re lacking is the grokking of legit needs.. if we org around those.. if we use tech as it could be to facil those.. all the other techs will just be part of the dance.. wind/solar et al.. secondary.. need human energies restored first..
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..
we cannot allow ourselves to be imprisoned w/in a mechanistic outlook and a dehumanizing tech.. with its shackles of alienation, competition, and a brute denial of humanity’s potentialities.. poetry and imagination must be integrated w science and tech .. is there a scientific discipline that allows for the indiscipline of fancy, imagination and artfulness?..t
yeah.. let’s call that science (scientific discipline is too much.. science is even too much.. words are too much.. to get at the freedom we need) .. maybe ie: cure ios city.. (org around legit needs)
we can no longer afford to remain captives to the tendency of the more traditional sciences to dissect phenom and examine their fragments.. we must combine them, relate them, and see them in their totality as well as their specificity
or rather.. let go of thinking we have to combine/relate or even to ‘see them in their totality/specificity’.. the dance doesn’t need us to see it.. just to be our part of it.. trying to combine/relate/see is still part\ial ness and that fragmentation is killing us .. keeping us in sea world.. for (blank)’s sake
i am mindful that many ecologically oriented individuals use ‘ecology’ and ‘environmentalism’ interchangeably.. here.. i’d like to draw a semantically convenient distinction.. by environ i propose a mechanistic, instrumental outlook that sees nature as a passive habitat composed of ‘objects’.. that must be rendered serviceable for human use.. reducing nature to a storage bin of ‘natural resources’..or ‘raw materials’.. cities become ‘urban resources’ inhabitants ‘human resources’.. if word resources leaps out so frequently from environmentalistic discussions of nature, cities, and people, an issue more important than mere word play is at stake..
environ as i use the term tends to view eco project for attaining a harmonious relationship between humanity an nature as a truce rather than a lasting equilibrium..
yeah that.. that’s how i see all the protest/refusal/defense as well.. maybe better.. but not lasting and not to our potential
environmentalism does not question the most basic premise of the present society.. notably that humanity must dominate nature.. rather.. it seeks to facil that notion by developing techniques for diminishing the hazards caused by the reckless despoliation of the environ
not only time sucking.. but not thriving/sustaining
social ecology, the discipline, has been beleaguered by self professed adherents who continually try to collapse all the phases of natural/human development int a universal *‘oneness’ (not wholeness), a yawning ‘night in which all cows are black’ if nothing else, our common use of the word species to denote the wealth of life around us should alert us to the fact of specificity of particularity.. the rich abundance of **differentiated beings/things that enter in to the very subject matter of natural ecology..
*one body ness.. not an all cows are black idea
**yeah that.. discrimination as equity et al
to explore these differentia, to examine the phases and interfaces that enter into their making .. is to make social ecology one of the most powerful disciplines from which to draw our critique of the present social order
oi.. let go.. let’s quit trying to critique and make social order and phases and development and powerful disciplines.. et al
social ecology seeks to unravel the forms and patterns of interrelationship that give intelligibility to a community..
history in fact is as important as form or structure.. *we are in a real sense everything that existed before us.. and in turn **we can eventually become vastly more than we are
our century has been afflicted by a plethora of totalitarian ideologies that, placing human beings in the service of history, have denied them a place in the service of their own humanity
but strange to 21? history as important as form or structure (not to me.. as important as cancer fits with this.. but not sure what he was meaning)
ecological wholeness is not an immutable homogeneity but rather the very opposite – a dynamic unity of diversity.. in nature, balance and harmony are achieved by every changing differentiation.. by ever expanding diversity.. eco stability, in effect, is a function not of simplicity and homogeneity but of complexity and variety.. the capacity of an ecosystem to retain its integrity depends not on the uniformity of the environ but on its diversity
a striking ie of this can be drawn from eco strategies for cultivating food.. farmers have met w disastrous results because of the conventional emphasis on single crop approaches to agri or monoculture.. w/o the mixed crops that provide.. mixed populations of plants/animals.. entire agri has been known to collapse.. benign insects become pests because their natural controls including birds and small mammals have been removed.. the soil, lacking earthworms, nitrogen fixing bacteria, and green manure in sufficient quantities is reduced to mere sand..
bush mono crop law et al
in reckless disregard for the complexity of nature.. the agri situation is crudely simplified (monocrop); its needs must now be satisfied by highly soluble synthetic fertilizers.. t.. that percolate into drinking water and by dangerous pesticides that remain as residues in food..
this is like the sea world situation for humans.. which in turn is for everything..
so this is why we need to org around legit needs.. first.. because when we try to control things for efficiency et al.. we end up organizing around assumed/bandaid needs that will never satisfy
if we assume that the thrust of natural evolution has been toward increasing complexity, that the colonization of the planet by life has been possible only as a result of biotic variety, a prudent rescaling of man’s hubris should call for caution in disturbing natural processes.. t
yeah that.. via any form of m\a\p
to assume that science commands this vast nexus of organic/inorganic interrelationships in all its details is worse than arrogance: it is sheer stupidity.. if unity in diversity forms one of the cardinal tenets of eco.. the wealth of biota that exists in a single acre of soil leads us to still another basic eco tenet: *the need to allow for a high degree of natural spontaneity.. thus a considerable among of leeway must be permitted for natural spontaneity.. i hardly mean that we must surrender ourselves to a mythical ‘nature’ that is beyond all **human comprehension and intervention.. charles elton: ‘the worlds’ future has to be managed, but this management would not be just like a game of chess.. but more like ***steering a boat’..
*high degree.. and leeway.. not enough.. the dance won’t dance.. it’s not dependent on our **comprehension and intervention.. it’s not dependent on any form of measuring/managing/***steering/controlling.. any form of m\a\p.. oi.. we gotta let go of that thinking.. of that control issue.. or we’ll never see legit spontaneity, and so we’ll never see legit free people.. and so we’ll never see/be the dance
on systems theory in eco circles.. can easily become an all encompassing, quantitative, reductionist theory of energetics if it acquires preeminence over qualitative descriptions fo ecosystems
oi.. it’s the thinking we have to describe things that is keeping us from wholeness.. from interconnectedness
having presented these caveats i must emphasize that ecosystem cannot be meaningfully described in hierarchical terms.. to rank species w/in an ecosystem is anthropomorphism at its crudest..
if we recognize that every ecosystem can also be viewed as food web, we can think of it as a circular, interlacing nexus.. rather than stratified pyramid w man at the apex.. what ordinarily puzzles anyone who sees food web diagrams for first time is the impossibility of discerning a point of entry into the nexus.. the web can be entered at any point and leads back to its point of departure w/o any apparent exist.. aside from the energy provided by sun/radiation.. they system to all appearances is closed.. knitted together in a network of interdependence.. a predator in the web is also prey..
but how in circular ness does spontaneity ness dance? (i don’t think it does/can)
that plants/animals continually adapt to unwittingly aid each other.. has opened an entirely new perspective on the nature of ecosystem stability and development.. t
the more complex the food web, the less unstable it will be if one or several species are removed.. hence, enorm significance must e given to interspecific diversity and complexity w/in system as a whole..
why do terms borrowed from human social hierarchies acquire such remarkable weight when plant-animal relations are described.. do ecosystems really have king/lowly/enslave/exploit ness?
the very promiscuity w which hier terms are used to org all differentia in nature is inconsistent.. a queen bee doesn’t know she is a queen.. et al.. the analogy between a beehive and a society, an analogy social theorists have often found too irresistible to avoid, is a striking commentary on the extent to which our visions of nature are shaped by self serving social interests
yes that.. exactly.. spot on.. ‘affected by research workers’.. gray research law.. et al..
but then he goes into his version of (?) proving/describing/comparing ness ie: baboon or gibbon..
let go.. it’s like you set it all free.. then caged it all back up again
such traits are evident enough in human society when we speak of ‘self perpetuating’ B’s and explore them w/o considering the individual b’s who compose them.. yet when we turn to nonhuman primates, what *people commonly recognize as hierarchy, status, domination are precisely the idio behaviorisms of individual animals.. the seemingly hier traits of many animals are more like variation in the links of a chain than org’d stratifications of the kind we find in human societies/institutions.. if acts do not constitute institutions and episodes do not constitute history, individual behavior traits do not form strata/classes.. how is ecology to avoid the analogic reasoning that has made so much of ethology and sociobio seem like specious projections of human society into nature? *are there any terms that provide a common meaning to unity in diversity, natural spontaneity, and non hierarchical relations in nature and society?
*need to set idio ness free .. perhaps via idiosyncratic jargon ness
do the self appointed scientists or ‘guardians’ of society know enough about the complex factors that make for social development to presume to control them? and even after the ‘adequate form of the human house’ has been discovered and given substantiality, how sure can we be of their disinterested sense of service? history is replete w accounts of miscalculation by leaders, parties, factions, ‘guardians’ and ‘vanguards’.. if nature is ‘blind’ society is equally ‘blind’ when it presumes to know itself completely.. t
ie: who knows (or realizes they don’t know) enough to create conditions for legit (non compromised) oikos.. that 8b people can access..
social change, particularly social revolution, tends to find its worst enemies in leaders whose wills supplant the spontaneous movements of the people..
but too.. legit revolution has to be for all of us.. ie: no enemies.. has to be for the inspectors of inspectors as well..
hubris in social revolution is as dangerous as it is in natural evolution and for the same reasons.. in both cases, the complexity of a situation, the limitations of time and place, and the prejudices that filter into what often merely appear as foresight conceal the multitude of particulars that are truer to reality than any ideological preconceptions and needs
ie: whalespeak blinding us to legit needs.. et al
the human community, at whatever level it comes to rest, remains incomplete until it achieves uninhibited volition and self consciousness, or what we call freedom.. a complete state, i should add, that is actually the point of departure for a new beginning.. how much human freedom rests on the stability of the natural ecosystem in which it is always embedded.. what it means in a larger philosophical sense beyond mere survival and what standards it evolves from its shared history w the entire world of life and its own social history are subjects for the rest of this book
w/in this highly complex context of ideas we must now try to transpose the nonhierarchical character of natural ecosystems to society.. what renders social ecology so important is that it offers no case whatsoever for hierarchy in nature and society; it decisively challenges the very function of hierarchy as a stabilizing or ordering principle in both realms.. the association of order as such w hierarchy is ruptured..t and this association is ruptured w/out rupturing the association of nature w society.. as sociology, in its well meaning opposition to sociobiology has been wont to do
although hierarchy does exist in present day society, it need not continue.. irrespective of its lack of meaning or reality for nature.. but the case against hierarchy is not contingent on its uniqueness as a social phenom.. because hierarchy threatens the existence of social life today, it cannot remain a social fact.. t.. because it threatens the integrity of organic nature, it will not continue to do so , given the harsh verdict of mute’ and ‘blind’ nature..
our continuity w non hierarchical nature suggests that a non hierarchical society is no less random than an ecosystem.. that freedom is more than the absence of constraint.. t
need: a means to undo our hierarchical listening
in fact, democracy as the apotheosis of social freedom has been sufficiently denatured, as benjamin r barber has emphasized to yield the gradual displacement of participation by representation.. where democracy in its classical form meant quite literally rule by the demos/plebes/people.. it now often seems to mean little more than elite rule sanctioned (thru the device of rep) by the people.. competing elites vie for the support of a public, whose popular sovereignty is reduced to the pathetic right to participate in choosing the tyrant who will rule it
we need to let go of any form of democratic admin
benjamin barber – and democracy as cancerous elitism et al
since the renaissance, the idea that knowledge lies locked w/in a mind closeted by its own supranatural limitations and insight has been the foundation of all our doubts about the very existence of a coherent constellation that can even be called nature.. this idea is the foundation for an antinaturalistic body of epistemological theories..
the claim of epistemology to adjudicate the validity fo knowledge as a formal and abstract inquiry has always been opposed by the claim of history to treat knowledge as problem of genesis, not merely of knowing in a formal and abstract sense..
an authentic epistemology is the physical anthropology of the mind, of the human brain, not the cultural clutter of history that obstructs our view of the brain’s genesis in nature and its evolution in society conceived as an unique elab of natural phenom..
nature is a perpetual kaleidoscope of changes and fecundity that resits hard and fast categorization.. mind can grasp the essence of this change but never all of its details.. yet it is precisely in matters of detail that human hubris proves to be most vulnerable.. t
on organic knowledge .. in establishing a more advanced interface w nature, will it be possible to achieve a new balance between humanity and nature by sensitively tailoring our agri practices, urban areas, and techs to the natural req’s of a region and its ecosystems?.. can we hope to ‘manage’ the natural environ by a drastic decentralization of agri, which will make it possible to cultivate land as though it were a garden balanced by diversified fauna and flora
kiss the ground (doc) et al
what tech will be required to achieve these goals and avoid further pollution of the earth.. what institutions will be required to create a new public sphere, what social relations to foster a new eco sensibility, what forms of work to render human practice playful and creative.. what sizes and populations of communities to scale life to human dimensions controllable by all? .. the answers we provide to these question have a direct bearing on whether humanity can survive on the planet
not about being controllable.. just about getting to all the scales.. everyday
in this confluence of social and ecological crises, we can no longer afford to be unimaginative; we can no longer afford to do w/o utopian thinking.. t
the crisis are too serious and the possibilities too sweeping to be resolved by customary modes of thought.. the very sensibilities that produced these crises in the first place.. t
need to try/trust the seemingly impossible.. ie: org around legit needs
on french students may-june uprising of 68 ‘be practical.. do the impossible’.. gen that faces next century can add the more solemn injunction: ‘if we don’t do the impossible, we will be faced w the unthinkable’
on wisdom of one eyed man.. more acute but one sided.. truth achieves exactness, predictability and above all, manipulability: it become science in the customary sense of the term.. but science as we know it today is the fragmented one sided vision of a one eyed god.. whose vantage point entails domination and antagonism, not coequality and harmony..
yeah.. i think when we think in terms of truth, exactness, predictability, manipulability, aka science in customary sense or as we know it today.. we’re dealing with cancer.. non legit ness.. whalespeak
humanity has passed thru a long history of one sidedness and of a social condition that has always contained the potential of destruction, despite its creative achievements in tech.. the great project of our time must be to open the other eye: to see all sidedly and wholly, to heal/transcend the cleavage between humanity and nature that came w early wisdom
nor can we deceive ourselves that the reopened eye will be focused on the visions/myths of primordial peoples.. our capacity for freedom.. runs deeper .. we have established a broader material basis for free time, play, security, perception and sensuousness.. a material potentiality for broader domains of freedom and humanness .. than humanity in a primordial bond w nature could possibly achieve
oi.. actually runs deeper than this para.. not about material security in order to be free.. more about ie: graeber stop at enough law.. we have no idea what legit free people would be like.. what they would render irrelevant s.. ie: perhaps security, perception as intellect ness rather than not yet scrambled ness.. et al
but we cannot remove our bonds unless we know them.. a legacy of domination permeates our thinking, values, emotions.. history dominates us all the more when we are ignorant of it.. the historic unconscious must be made conscious.. the langue of freedom becomes interchangeable w that of domination.. this confusion has been the tragic fate of modern socialism.. a doctrine that has been bled of all its generous ideals.. thus, *the past must be dissected in order to exorcise it and to **acquire a new integrity of vision.. we must reexamine the cleavages that separated humanity from nature, and the splits w/in the human community that originally produced this cleavage, if the concept of wholeness is to become intelligible and the reopened eye to glimpse a fresh image of freedom..
*well.. maybe.. ie: in order to find legit basic needs.. but 8b don’t have to do that.. because the **vision is already in each one of us.. we just need a means to reshell us all .. and then trust that
2 – the outlook of organic society
on comparing selves to prelit society.. values differ.. ie: solidarity w natural world.. visualized people in terms of uniqueness rather than ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’.. not better/worse.. simply dissimilar.. variety was prized w/in larger tapestry of community as a priceless ingredient of communal unity
all good things for sure but don’t think we ever were like that .. ie’s in dawn of everything (book) et al
in the various organic societies where this outlook still prevails.. notions such as ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ do not exist.. they are implicit in the very outlook itself.. they are not placed in juxtaposition to ‘ineq’ and unfreedom’.. these notions lack definability.. as dorothy lee observed.. ‘often no linguistic mech for comparison.. what we find is absolute respect for all individuals irrespective of age/sex’
absence of coercive/domineering values in organic cultures perhaps best illustrated by syntax of wintu indians.. people lee studied very closely.. she notes that terms commonly expressive of coercion in modern languages are arranged in wintu syntax to denote coop behavior instead.. ie: mother doesn’t ‘take’ a baby into the shade.. she goes w it.. a chief doesn’t ‘rule’ his people.. he stands w them.. not ‘i have a sister/son’ lee observes ‘to live with is the usual way in which they express what we call possession
from the outset of life, coercion in dealing w children is so notably rare in most prelit communities that western observers are often astonished by the gentleness w which so called primitives deal w the most intractable of their young.. yet in prelit communities the parents are not ‘permissive’.. they simply respect the personality fo their children, much as they do that of the adults in their communities.. the whole camp.. et al
your own song ness et al
so he (ihalmiut eskimo boy) plays, and learns, under no shadow of parental disapproval.. and under no restraint of fear
but primary to both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of usufruct, the freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely by virtue of the fact that they are using them.. such resources belong to the user as long as they are being used.. function, in effect, replaces our hallowed concept of possession.. not merely as a loan or even ‘mutual aid’.. but as an unconscious emphasis on use itself.. on need that is free of psychological entanglements w proprietorship, work and even reciprocity.. t
huge.. sans all the red flags
communal property, once property itself has become a category of consciousness, already marks the first step toward private property.. just as reciprocity, once it too becomes a category of consciousness, marks the first step toward exchange..
there may have been a period in humanity’s early development when interest had not yet emerged to replace complementarity, the disinterested willingness to pool needed things and needed services.. there was a time .. wandering into remote reaches of arctic.. encounter ‘the pure, true eskimos.. the eskimos who knew not how to lie’.. and hence to manipulate, to calculate, to project a private interest beyond social need.. here, community attained a completeness to exquisite and artless that needed things and services fit together in a lovely mosaic w a haunting personality of its own
if we would just let go enough.. trust enough.. to org around legit needs
we should not disdain these almost utopian glimpses of humanity’s potentialities.. pre lit peoples that still lack an ‘i’ w which to replace a ‘we’ are not deficient in individuality as much as they are rich in community.. coop.. is more than just a cement between members of the group; it is an organic melding of id’s that w/o losing individual uniqueness, retains and foster the unity of consociation.. contract, forced into this wholeness, serves merely to subvert it turning an unthinking sense of responsibility into a calculating nexus of aid and an unconscious sense of collectivity into a preening sense of mutuality.. as for reciprocity, so often cited as the highest evocation fo collectivity, we shall see that it is more significant in forming alliances between groups than in fostering internal solidarity w/in them..
usufruct in short, differs qualitatively from the quid pro quo of reciprocity, exchange and mutual aid.. all of which are trapped w/in history’s demeaning account books w their ‘just’ ratios and their ‘honest’ balance sheets.. t
caught in this limited sphere of calc, consociation is always tainted by the rationality of arithmetic.. the human spirit can never transcend a quantitative world of ‘fair dealing’ between canny egos whose ideology of interest barely conceals a mean spirited proclivity for acquisition.. to be sure, social forces were to fracture the human collectivity by introducing contractual ties and cultivating the ego’s most acquisitive impulses..
of math and men et al
insofar as the guileless peoples of organic societies held to the values of usufruct in an unconscious manner, they remained terribly vulnerable to the lure, often the harsh imposition, of an emerging contractual world.. rarely is history notable for its capacity to select/preserve the most virtuous traits of humanity.. but there is still no reason why hope, reinforced by consciousness and redolent w ancestral memories, may not linger w/in us as an awareness of what humanity has been in the past and what it can become in the future..
rather.. what is already on each heart..
let’s org around that
this development (men hunt/hierarchy women gather/integrity) as we shall see, was to come from a male envy that must be carefully unravelled
binary ness et al
woman responsibilities in sheltering, feeding and raising the young visibly outweigh the man’s usefulness in discharging these all important functions..
even things as such do not suffice, for they suggest a system of accounts and ratios that stand at odds w organic society’s practice of usufruct.. hence before things can become gifts .. i leave aside their alter debasement into commodities.. they first become symbols.. what initially counts for early prelit peoples is not a thing’s usefulness in the econ of organic society but its symbolism as the physical embodiment of reciprocity, of a willingness to enter into mutual obligation..
oi oi oi
that this civil sphere was free of coercion and command is indicated by our evidence of ‘authority’ in the fe organic societies that have survived european acculturation.. what we flippantly call ‘leadership’ in organic societies often turns out to be guidance, lacking the usual accoutrements of command.. its ‘power is functional rather than political.. chiefs, where they authentically exist and are not the mere creation of the colonizer’s mind, have no true authority in a coercive sense.. they are advisors, teachers, consultants.. esteemed for their experience and wisdom.. whatever ‘power ‘they do have is usually confined to highly delimited tasks such as the coord of hunts and war expeditions..
oh my.. totally coercion.. voluntary compliance et al..
our entire language is permeated by historically charged euphemisms that acquire a reified life of their own.. obedience displaces allegiance, command.. coord, power.. wisdom, acquisition.. giving, commodities.. gifts,.. while these changes are real enough historically w the rise of hierarchy, class property.. they become grossly misleading when they extent their sovereignty to language as such and stake out their claim to the totality of life..
oi.. all the language as control/enclosure..
the reader should realize that by interpreting the same material differently, one could show that organic society was egotistical, competitive, aggressive, hierarchical, and beleaguered by all the anxieties that plague ‘civilized’ humanity.. et al
on egalitarian outlook.. 10 000 yrs ago.. nomadic bands of h/g’s began to deelop a crude system of horticulture and settle down in small villages.. where they engaged in mixed farming.. horticulture/gardening.. probably initiated by women.. fromm called matricentric.. began to shift social imagery from male hunter to female food gatherer.. from predator to procreator.. today one would want to replace some of mumford’s words, such as his sweeping use of ‘agri’ which men were to extend beyond woman’s discovery of gardening into the mass production of food/animals..
finally, we cannot ignore the fact that woman’s foraging activities helped awaken in humanity an acute sense of place, of oikos
mother love in contrast to the conditional love associated w patriarchy.. erich fromm on woman’s love.. compared w that of the judgmental patriarch who provides love as a reward of the child’s performance and fulfillment of its duties ‘is not dependent on any moral or social obligation to be carried out by the child; there is not even an obligation to return her love‘.. this unconditional love.. w/o expectation of any filial reward, yields the total deobjectification of person that makes humanness its own end rather than a tool of hierarchy and classes..
3 – the emergence of hierarchy
the breakdown of neolithic village society marks a decisive turning point in development of humanity.. emergence of towns, cities, empires.. collective control supplanted by elitist control.. assemblies/councils by state Bs
not until the emergence of capitalism did the peasant village and its cultural repertory disappear as the locus of rural life.. a fact that will be of considerable importance when we consider humanity’s legacy of freedom
so if dawn of everything everything ness true.. not of considerable/deep importance to legit freedom
what we need toward that (legit freedom).. is to org around legit needs
thus, given the leisure time to think/admin society, these elites could create science, enlarge the entire sphere of human knowledge and sophisticate human culture..
to resolve the problem of natural scarcity..
oi.. scarcity not natural.. graeber stop at enough law et al
for the factors that have shaped our own history are deeply embedded in our sensibilities as the bad habits of the past.. habits that we will have to cope w if we are to avoid the dark side of the future that lies before us
in asking these questions, i am deliberately reversing the way in which victorian social theorists have typically oriented such inquiries.. and i am asking not if the notion of dominating nature gave rise to the domination of human by human but rather if the domination of human by human gave rise to the notion of dominating nature..
our contemp commitment to the ‘logic of history’ in its typically economistic form has made it difficult to provide serious and meaningful account of the explosive clashes between tradition and innovation that must have occurred throughout history.. we have made both past/future captive to the same belief in economic and technical inexorability that we have imposed on the present.. hence we have been serving up the present as the history of the past.. a typically economistic history that slights the need for far reaching changes in lifestyle,.. t.. wants, sexual status, definitions fo freedom and communal relations..
how easily we can slip into a conventional historical stance can be seen from recent fervent controversies around the meaning given to the concept of scarcity.. it has become rather fashionable to describe scarcity simply as a function of needs so that the fewer our needs and the smaller our tool kit the more ‘abundant’ even ‘affluent’ nature becomes.. by emphasizing material affluence per se in terms of needs and resources, this functional approach to scarcity subtly capitulates to the very economistic stance it is meant to correct..t it merely recreates from hunter gatherer viewpoint a calculus of resources and wants that bourgeois viewpoint imparts to social theory during the last century..
we need to org around legit needs
a society that has enlarged the cultural goals of human life may generate material scarcity even when the technical conditions exist for achieving out right superfluity in the means of life..
the issue of scarcity is not merely a matter of quantity or even of kind; it can also be a socially contradictory hypostatization of need as such.. so wants are no longer related to humanity’s sense of its real needs.. t
the issue of scarcity is not merely a matter of quantity or even of kind; it can also be a socially contradictory hypostatization of need as such.. so wants are no longer related to humanity’s sense of its real needs..
huge huge huge
imagine if we just focused on that.. getting back/to that grokability of legit needs
both commodities and needs acquire a blind life of their own; they assume a fetishized form, an irrational dimension, that seems to determine the destiny of the people who produce/consume them.. marx’s famous notion of the ‘fetishization of commodities’ finds its parallel in a ‘fetishization of needs’.. governed by an ubiquitous market.. by a universal competition not only between commodities but also between the creation of needs.. t
they become blind in the same sense that production of commodities becomes blind.. it reveals a fatal flaw in the autonomy and spontaneity of the individual to control the conditions of his/her own life..
to break the grip of ‘fetishization of needs’ to dispel it, is to recover the freedom of choice, .. t.. a project that is tied to the freedom of the self to choose.. the words freedom and choice must be emphasized: they exist cojointly and are tied to the ideal of he autonomous individual who is possible only in a free society.. in a truly free society, however, needs would be formed by consciousness and by choice, not simply by environment and tool kits
i think we have that wrong as well.. (which has to do with us not org ing around legit needs) .. i think choice/decision-making.. is unmooring us.. not about choosing between things.. so having more things to choice from is freedom.. it’s about not having to choose.. but rather being free enough to listen to and trust itch-in-the-soul.. every day.. ie: imagine if we ness..
the problems of needs and scarcity, in short, must be seen as a problem of selectivity – of choice
oi.. that’s part of what has created the whole scarcity idea.. thinking life is about choice rather than itch-in-the-soul (which takes choice beyond infinity.. otherwise still spinach or rock ness to whatever degree.. as long as in sea world)
freedom from scarcity or post scarcity must be seen in this light if it is to have any liberatory meaning.. the concept presupposes that individuals have *the material possibility of choosing what they need.. t
*material possibility makes little diff if don’t know/grok legit needs..
if the object of capitalism or socialism is to increase needs, the object of anarchism is to increase choice
oi to anarchism then.. focus on choice (rather than itch) is killing us.. let go
it is not industrial productivity that creates mutilated use values but social irrationality that creates mutilated users
rather.. the fact that we’re in sea world and have no idea what legit free people are like.. what they need.. et al
the history of white bread in the anthro of needs, for ie, is a metaphor for the extent to which tastes associate w gentility.. not w physical well being and survival are turned into the needs of the lowly as compellingly, in the fetishism of needs, as the very means of survival..
both the culture and the technics of modern capitalism have united to produce crises not of scarcity but of abundance.. or at least, the expectation of abundance.. all chit chat about ‘diminishing resources’ aside.. abundance, all the more because it is being denied for structural econ reason s rather than natural ones.. still orchestrate the popular culture of present day society.. then on savages heroic claw and fang in jungle to modern consumers of market society in malls.. et al
to ‘disembed’ selves from shopping mall.. may require more powerful agents than ethics.. may require a superfluity of goods so immense in quantity that the prevailing fetishism of needs will have to be dispelled on its own terms..
sound like weinberger too big misc law et al
organic societies.. even the most egal.. are not homogenous social groups.. each member is defined by certain everyday roles based on sex, age, lineage.. even before material surpluses began to increase significantly, the roles each individual played began to change from egal relationships into elites based increasingly on systems of obedience and commands.. who were these elites.. what was basis of privileges?
unless these notion are carefully examined and the truths separated from the untruths, we are likely to carry an archaic legacy of domination into whatever social future awaits us
oi.. it’s the examining and the thinking there are distinctions and truths.. that are keeping us from legit freedom.. that are keeping the legacy of domination in place
and this research (word for word native comment so no bias) is not a kind which can be completed in a day or two.. the fact is that male biases toward women almost consistently color what little research has been done on this touchy subject.. ie: even though deny it.. believe women are physically weak so dependent on men et al
goes on and on on that subject alone of comparing men to women.. reaffirming the need to let go of history ness and research ness.. rather.. just set people free and trust legit free hearts.. otherwise.. if we keep naval gazing at history..end up like this shows.. flapping about all the great reasons/defenses for why ‘that history’ isn’t so.. oi.. energy suck
for not only hunting, but also defense and later war are part of the males’ division of labor.. the social sphere emerged not only as an elab of the role in the division of labor; it also tended to assimilate his temperament as a hunter, a guardian and eventually as a warrior
oi.. whalespeak.. not activities/focus of legit free people.. we have no idea..
*the male, in a hunting community, is a specialist in violence.. from earliest days of his childhood, hie id’s w such ‘masculine’ traits as courage, strength, seal assertiveness, decisiveness and athleticism.. **traits necessary for the welfare of the community
*as precursor for math as violence – mid page ref – graeber violence/quantification law et al
oi.. **for the welfare (perhaps) of sea world (on whales not killing if legit free)
not only is the young mind shaped by the adults, as must necessarily be the case in all societies, but it is shaped to respect the wisdom of the actuals, if not their authority.. the harsh initiation ceremonies that many prelit communities inflict on adolescent boys may well have the purpose of using pain to ‘brand’ the elders’ wisdom on young minds..but i would also suggest it ‘brands’ a sense of their authority as well..
turkish movies et al.. oi
he (shaman) professionalizes power.. makes power the privilege of an elect few.. his vatic personality essentially expresses the insecurity of the individual on the scale of a social neurosis.. if the male hunter is a specialist in violence, and the woman food gatherer a specialist in nurture, the shaman is a specialist in fear.. perhaps more significant than this distinction is the fact that the shaman is the incipient state personified.. professionals in political manipulation..
hierarchy and domination remain captive to the blood oath until an entirely new social terrain can be established to support class relations and the systematic exploitation of human by human.. we must fix this preclass, indeed, preeconomic, period in social development clearly in our minds because the vast ideological corpus of ‘modernity’ – capitalism – has been designed in large part to veil it from our vision.. even such notions as primitive communism, matriarchy, and social equality, so widely celebrated by radial anthros and theorists, play a mystifying role in perpetuating this veil instead of removing it.. lurking w/in the notion of primitive communism is the insidious concept of a ‘stingy nature’ of a ‘natural scarcity’ that dictates communal relations.. as though a communal sharing of things is exogenous (external) to humanity and must be imposed by *survival needs .. t.. to overcome an ‘innate’ human egoism.. that ‘modernity’ so often id’s w ‘selfhood’.. primitive communism also contains the concept of property, however ‘communal’ in character, that ids selfhood w ownership..
oh my.. rather than *legit needs
finally, ‘matriarchy’ the rule of society by women instead of men, merely alters the nature of rule; it does not lead to its abolition..’matriarchy’ merely changes the gender of domination and thereby perpetuates domination as such.. t
need to org around legit needs rather than around defense/protest/renaming
by veiling the primordial blood oath that constrains the development of hierarchy/domination into class society, econ exploitation and property, the class critique merely replaces the constraints of kinship w the constraints of economics instead of transcending both to a higher realm of freedom.. it reconstitutes bourgeois right by leaving property unchallenged by usufruct, rule unchallenged by non hierarchical relationships, and scarcity unchallenged by an abundance from which an ethical selectivity of needs can be derived.. t
it is important to remember that class society is not the creation of humanity as a whole.. in its most ruthless form, it is the ‘achievement’ of that numerically small proportion of ‘advanced people’.. t
only now.. after our own ‘pagan idols’ such as nucleonics, bio warfare, and mass culture have humiliated us sufficiently, can we begin to see that non european cultures may have followed complex social paths that were often more elegant and knowledgeable than our own..
4 – epistemologies of rule
by emphasizing the ‘guilt’ of the human ‘wrong doer’..t.. and the ‘displeasure’ of the deities, the priestly corp could acquire and immunity to failure that the shaman had always lacked.. tech failure shifted from priestly corp to a fallen humanity that had to atone for its moral frailties.. sacrifices et al.. institutionalized.. go hand in hand w early cities.. whose foci were always the temple.. its priestly quarters, its storehouses, craft shops, and the dwellings of its artisans and bureaucracies.. urban life began w an altar, not simply a market place.. and probably w walls that were meant to define sacred space from the natural, not simply as defensive palisades
lit & num as colonialism et al
the priestly corp had cunningly created a radically new social and ideological dispensation – indeed, a new way of mentalizing rule..t the projection of the priestly corp into an all too real pantheon of social domination and material exploitation..
the communal whole, which had once been at the disposition of the community as a whole, was not placed at the disposition of the deified ‘one’ .. who in the very role of personifying the community and its unity had turned it into an obedient congregation ruled by a priestly elite.. t
the priesthood has the power of ideology – by no means insignificant, but a power that relies on persuasion and conviction.. the warrior has the power of coercion – one that relies on the more compelling effects of physical prowess, weaponry and violence.. while the interest of the priestly corp and the military society intertwine, at times quite intimately, they often unravel and oppose each other..
as i have argued for years, the state is not merely a constellation of bureaucratic and coercive institutions.. it is also a state of mind, an instilled mentality for ordering reality..
the state, in the authentically finished, historically complete form we find today, could have emerged only after traditional societies, customs, and sensibilities were so thoroughly reworked to accord w domination that humanity lost all sense of contact w the organic society from which it originated
fear has to be learned; it is a social experience – as is hatred..
deeyah khan‘s docs.. et al
it is precisely when the subject is most self centered that he knows himself the least.. and it is to the extent he discovers himself that he places himself in the universe..
rather.. any form of knowing ness is the blinder.. not the self center ness (ue and bbl et al) as in itch-in-the-soul as spontaneous guide.. it’s the knowing ness of any form that messes with the dance.. .. what we need: nys ness..
early humanity could have never survived w/o being (in piaget’s sense) ‘a thing among things, and event among events’.. social darwinism aside, creatures specialized in the powerful neurophysical capacity to mentalize and conceptualize, to plan and calculate would have destroyed themselves in a hobbesian war of all against all.. *had reason w its capacity for calculation, been used to divide and destroy rather than unite and create, the very human quality of humanity would have turned upon itself and the species immolated itself ages ago.. long before it devised its armamentarium of modern weaponry
oi.. oh my.. *all already happened.. sea world = not us = death.. degree makes no diff
mimesis, in turn, was to be reduced to a strategy for producing social conformity and homogeneity.. but the ritual of the word in the form of incantations and work songs reminds us of a more primordial sensibility based on mutual recognition and shared rationality
that hallowed process called reason, of generalization and classification, appears very early in an involuted and contradictory form: the fictive manip of nature begins w the real manip of humanity.. although the shaman’s efforts to give greater coherence to the world will become social power that confers upon humanity greater control over the external world.. the shaman and more precisely his successor .. the priest.. initially divides this world to manip it..
as society slowly develop toward hierarchy and then into class structures, so too do the deities..
as long as the world is under the sway of shamanistic and more significantly priestly mediation, it tends to remain embedded in a religious matrix.. nor doe sit ever free itself of the mythopoeic and religious as long as human dominates human.. social division are obscured by myth and mythology: even the warrior-chieftain tries to validate his social status by becoming a priest or a deity. authoritarian social forces are made to appear as natural forces, like the deities that personify or seem to manipulate them
equally as significant, people too are caught in a nexus of human domination.. biblical power is the mana that all masters can use against their slaves: ruler against ruled, man against woman, the elders against the young.. hence we need have no difficulty in understanding why the hebrew bible becomes a universalized document: the supreme code of the state, school, workshop, body politic, and family.. it is mana that has acquired metaphysical trappings which make it virtually invulnerable to the incredulity an increasingly secularized world brings to the mana of the warrior chieftain, divine king, and domestic patriarch.. ‘hebrew thought did not entirely overcome mythopoeic thought’ observe the frankforts.. ‘it created in fact a new myth.. the myth of the will of god’.. yet more than myth is involved in yahweh’s injunctions.. behind the stories, episodes and history that the hebrew bible contains is a nascent philosophical apriorism that links human sovereignty w aggressive behavior.. the perpetuation of hierarchy, in effect, appears as a matter of human survival in the face of inexorable forces
lit & num as colonialism et al
w the greeks, the epistemology of rule is transformed form a moral principle, based on faith, into an ethical principle, based on reason.. although mythopoeic thought is never absent from the hellenic cultural legacy, it either takes on a highly intellectualized form or is preempted by mind or nous.. the greek realm of reason is not focused on supernature; its authentic locus is the polis or the so called city state
w/in these poleis.. a new dualism emerged: home, or oikos, and the agora (a marketplace which in time transformed into highly variegated civic center) were counterposed to each other.. the agora, more broadly the polis itself ‘was the sphere of freedom’ as hannah arendt has noted.. echoing the motif of aristotle’s politics.. to the extent that home and polis were related to each other, it was a matter of coarse that the mastering of the necessities of life in the household was the condition for freedom of the polis.. what all greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polis life.. took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm.. that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenom, characteristic of the private household org, and that force/violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity – for instance, by ruling over slaves – and to become free.. because *all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of the world.. t
oh my.. need: org around legit needs for it to be *all
these epistemological dualisms between necessity and freedom.. rested on such sweeping assumptions about nature, work, individuality, reason, woman, freedom and technics that it would require a separate work to deal w them adequately.. i offer cursory exam of some..w particular ref to western legacy of domination.. and leave their implications to a later study
to begin.. greek rationality did not quite foster a rejection of nature.. a nature tamed by man, notably the orderly fields of agri and the sacred groves of the deities was a pleasing desideratum.. nature in this form was infused w reason and sculpted by human creativity.. what the greeks thoroughly feared and resisted was wild, untamed nature.. it was beyond the realm of order.. neither reason nor necessity could find a home in the tangle of the unbridled forest and its perils..
some believe that getting wealth is the object of household management and the whole idea of their lives is they ought either to increase money w/o limit or not lose it..
and none of us are free if even just one of us is chained in that thought/thinking
but in the hellenic mind, order always had to resist disorder.. kosmos to resist chaos.. this imagery is essential in achieving any understanding of how the greeks.. and every european ruling class that was to follow the decline of the polis.. were to think about the human condition.. the predominant note in hellenic thought was always a hierarchical org of reality.. it was always stated in rational and secular terms.. but we cannot forget that chaos had a very mundane/earthy form of a large population of slaves, foreigners, women, unruly freedmen who were placed in inferior (or no) status w/in the polis..
the principal architects of greece’s hierarchical epistemology – plato and aristotle – had a long philosophical pedigree rooted in pre socratic nature philosophy.. how to account for domination of literally half of the polis, its women/slaves?.. how to deny civl/political rights to the alien residents and freedmen who literally infested the polis and provided for its most essential day to day services?.. these question shad to be resolved on rational terms, w/o recourse to myths that opened the door to chaos and its dark past
need a means to undo our hierarchical listening
plato’s strategy was .. diff individual capacities stem from diff souls.. the few who are equipped to rule .. are born w gold (philosopher rulers) and silver (warrior) souls.. bronze/iron (farmers, craftsmen, merchants).. the republic is thus essentially authoritarian.. in some respects, totalitarian.. the philosopher rulers are free to blatantly ( or ‘nobly’ in plato’s words) lie to the entire populace in the interests of social unity and purge the polis of ‘ignoble’ ideas/lit..
plato removed oikos from life of ruling class and replaced it w a form of domestic communism.. shifted the realm of necessity.. to the shoulders of the commoners..
gare enslavement law et al
what must be emphasized here is that plato’s rationality is ruthlessly even cynically or playfully, hierarchical.. the polis, if it was to survive, from plato’s viewpoint, had to yield to he ‘cruelty of reason’ and follow the full logic of domination.. w/o hierarchy and domination there can be no kosmos/order..
for aristotle the greeks have been endowed by geography, climate and their innate intellectual qualities to rule not only the barbarians but also slaves and women.. both of whom are prepolitical and benefit profoundly by the higher mental faculties of their male masters.. *given the woman’s and slave’s inferior rationality, their inability to formulate policies and meaningful courses of behavior, they no less than the master, benefit form his superior rationality and his capacity to give them direction and govern their non rational behavior.. slavery and patriarchy, in effect are seen as the gifts of reason , not its chains..
*inhumane qualities.. (so again.. this is whalespeak).. that now we are spending our energies on trying to gain rights to.. oi..
despite their differences, plato and aristotle elab’d social theories w a consistency and logic that must have seemed impeccable to many of their successors.. ie: despite its sever class orientation.. into ‘scientific socialism’.. et al
most important of all, the two thinkers, indeed hellenic thought as whole, universalized hierarchy as rational.. perhaps democratic when possible, often totalitarian when necessary.. gave modern social thought its authentic foundations..
need: means to undo our hierarchical listening
the legacy of domination thus develops as a manip of primordial institutions and sensibilities against each other.. but the story of this betrayal does not end w these institutional and subjective changes.. it reaches further into the core of the psyche by internalizing hierarchy and domination as eternal traits of human nature.. self regulation.. based on guilt.. only then can the ruled by brought into full complicity w their oppression and exploitation.. t.. forging w/in themselves the state that commands more by the power of the inner voice of repentance than the power of mobilized physical violence
structural violence et al
each (freud and marx) has absolved ‘civilization’ specifically its western form, from its very real guilt in formulating a reality principle based on rule.. by making self repression (freud) and self discipline (marx) the historic knout for achieving mastery over nature.. they have made domination an indispensable phase or moment in the dialectic of civilization.. the mastery of human by human, both internally and externally, has actually begun to erode selfhood itself.. ‘civilization’ is ‘advancing’ not so much on the back of humanity but, eerily enough, w/o it.. t
jensen civilization law et al
the notion that the human brain.. higher more complex cerebral components that must modify, repress, or discipline the raw impulses of the lower animalistic brain to avoid behavior and social disorder is patently ideological.. its genesis in hellenic dualism is obvious.. that we have layered brains that perform many function unthinkingly is doubtlessly neurologically sounds.. but to impute to specific layers social functions that are distinctly biased by hierarchical and class interests; to create an all embracing term like ‘civilization’ that incorporates these interests into a biology of the mind.. to foster.. a victorian hypostatization (treating abstract as if real) of work, renunciation, guilt, sublimation and discipline in the service of industrial production and profitable surpluses.. all of this is to anchor the shibboleths of yahweh’s will and hellenic repressive rationality in evolution and anatomy..
a human nature does exist, but it seems to consist of proclivities and potentialities that became *increasingly defined by the instillation of social needs..t.. the sexual instinct becomes an object of repression when society overstimulates it and concomitantly frustrates what it has exaggerated in the first place.. or, of course, when society just blocks the adequate satisfaction of minimal biosexual needs.. even pleasure, conceived as the fulfillment of desire or as a broad ‘principle’ is socially conditioned.. if immediate gratification is frustrated by the natural world itself, no renunciatory apparatus is required to ‘repress’ this ‘need’.. the ‘need’ if it exists at all, simply cannot be fulfilled, and what is most human about human nature is that human beings can know this harsh fact..
*we need to stop re\defining ‘social needs’ of sea world.. rather than org-ing around legit needs..
total ie of sea world ness.. which leads to in-satiation .. inability to grok enough ness.. et al
the pleasure principle is formed by the reality principle.. the two are simply not distinguishable from each other to the extent that they are in hierarchical and class societies.. hence, they barely exist as separate principles and the antagonism between them is virtually meaningless.. the receptive sensibility, so characteristic of organic society, has yet to be subverted by the demanding, aggressive attitude that provides ‘civilization’ w its rationale of repressive reason and institutions..t
historically.. the formulation of moral precepts is initially the work of the prophet and priest; later.. in its more sophisticated forms, as ethics.. it is the realm of the philosopher and political thinker.. .. to say that social transgression are ‘bad’ and that obedience to society’s mores is ‘good’ is quite diff form saying that one behavior upholds harmony of group and that another disrupts it.. what makes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ particularly significant is that they are evidence of the subtle introjection os social codes into the individual’s psyche: that enormously powerful product of socialization.. a new cognizance of the good and the virtuous..
socrates supposed to law et al
hierarchy, class and ultimately the state penetrate the very integument of the human psyche and establish w/in it unreflective internal powers of coercion and constraint.. in this respect, they achieve a ‘sanitizing’ authority that no institution or ideology can hope to command.. by using guilt and self blame, the inner state can control behavior long before fear of the coercive powers of the state have to be invoked.. self blame in effect, becomes self fear.. the introjection of social coercion in the form of insecurity, anxiety and guilt.. t.. it assumes the form not only of a social trauma, notably, as class conflict, but also of psychic trauma in the form of guilt, renunciation and insecurity.. the natural home of humanity, bot borrow bloch’s terminology, which promotes usufruct, complementarity and sharing, is degraded into a hobbeisan world of all against all.. while the civilized home of humanity which fosters rivalry, egotism and possessiveness, is viewed as a judea hellenic world of morality, intellect, and creativity.. reshuffling of pleasure and reality principles thus validates triumph of domination, elitism and epistemology of rule.. humanity is reduced..
oh my huge
shame has no place in this freudian universe.. only guilt.. ‘civ’ whose ends this specious ‘reality principle’ is meant to serve, turns out to be precisely the class and exploitative society unique to western capitalism.. a ‘civ’ of unadorned domination and social privilege..
it is not nature that fosters an unruly psychic animality w its appetite for immediate gratification, but a hierarchical ‘reality principle’ .. and epistemology of rule.. one that rests on domination and exploitation.. the brutish mob.. exists on the summits of ‘civ’.. not at its base..
jensen civilization law et al
5 – the legacy of domination
the hierarchical origins of morality occur in the early and classical forms of family org.. in the moral authority claimed by its male head.. the bible provides ample evidence of the sovereignty enjoyed by the patriarch in dealing w his wives and children.. to put it bluntly, they were his chattels, like the animals that made up his herds.. his power over them lacked all restraint but that evoked by compassion and by the feeling of immortality he derived from the living products of his loins.. the demanding characteristics of father-love in contrast to the selfless characteristics of mother-love. rep the male’s resolution of his quarrel w eternity..
oh my.. esp in sync with nika & silvia on divorce
on paternal authority claimed by greeks.. as rational/ethical .. not a divine sanction.. initially the head of household occupied an almost regal position to other members of fam.. as e r dodds observed: ‘over his children his authority unlimited: he is free to infanticide in infancy and expulsion from community in manhood.. ‘
the greeks patriarch’s commanding positions over the private lives of his wards was to be sharply attenuated by the state.. which was to stake out its own claims over young males whom it needed for bureaucrats and soldiers..
period of transition .. into ‘civilizations’.. strong patriarchal invaders overwhelm settled often matricentric cultures.. male oriented fam structures formed the basic social elements of the community and starkly imprinted wide ranging values on social life.. indeed.. they helped prep the moral underpinnings of political institutions and the state.. ironically, the very structures by which they were to be ultimately absorbed.. even before social classes emerged and priesthood established quasi political temple despotisms over society.. the patriarch embodied in a social form the very system of authority that the state later embodied in political form..t.. in next ch we’ll examine tension between patriarch fam and state that gave rise to idea of justice and ethics.. – *a dialectic in which the father was transformed from a tyrant into a judge and later from a judge into a teacher.. t
*oh my oh my oh my.. any form of people telling other people what to do
but patriarchal morality reduces woman not merely to a generalize hegelian other who must be opposed, negated, and contained, .. it particularizes this otherness into a specific hatred of her inquisitiveness, of her probing subjectivity and curiosity.. t
sounds much like supposed to’s of school/work to a 5 yr old
and the need to get back to ie: curiosity over decision making et al
her power of prevision.. a gnawing sense of inferiority and incompleteness stamps every aspect of the newly emergent male morality: evil abounds everywhere, pleasure and the senses are deceptive, and the chaos that always threatens to engulf the kosmos must be constantly warded off lest nature reclaim ‘civ’.. ironically three is no denial here of woman’s subjectivity but a shrieking fear of her latent powers and the possibility that they may be stirred back into life again..
hence, patriarchal morality must bring her into complicity w the male’s ever tremulous image of her inferiority.. she must be taught to view her posture of renunciation, modesty and obedience as the intrinsic attributes of her subjectivity, in short, *her total negation as a personality.. it is utterly impossible to understand why meaningless wars, male boastfulness, exaggerated political rituals and preposterous elab of civil institutions engulf so many diff, even tribal, societies w/o recognizing how much these phenomena are affirmations for male activity and expressions of his ‘supremacy’.. his increasing denigration of woman and his transposition of otherness.. generate a hostile ambience in society.. a meanness of spirit, a craving for recognition, an aggressive appetite, and a terrifying exaggeration of cruelty.. that is to render man increasingly prone to the victimization of his own kind.. the slave is the male incarnation of the long-enslaved woman: a mere object to be possessed and used by the canons of patriarchal morality.. the structuring of otherness antagonistically, which hegel celebrated as first steps toward self id.. becomes an epistemology that devaluates humanity into an aggregate of mere objects, a psychological regression that ultimately leads to the arrogant conception of human beings as the mere embodiment of labor..
*brown belonging law et al
as victim and aggressor, woman and man are thus brought into blind complicity w a moral system that denies their human nature and ultimately the integrity of external nature as well.. the moral constraints imposed by patriarchy and finally by class rule remain a constant affront to human rationality..
no longer can social and personal contradiction be revolved by means of discourse.. all that remains is recourse to the threat of brute violence.. it (precapitalist society) candidly admitted that coercion was its ultimate defence against social and popular unrest..
m of care where nika talks of this.. via david et al
clearly a distinction must first be made between social coercion and social influence.. despite their similarities, the two are not identical: weber’s charismatic leader at the beginnings of history is hardly the same as an impersonal bureaucracy near its end.. the first is personal; the second institutional.. hierarchical relationships based on personality are loose, ad hoc, easily disassembled.. B relationships by contrast are notoriously rigid, sclerotic, and intentionally divested of all personality .. they tend to be self perpetuating and self expansive.. as mere instruments of rule, B structure are quintessentially hierarchical; indeed they are the political expressions of objective power
first line.. un true to me.. seems same song.. unless later.. getting at art-ists and bot-ists ness of hierarchy ness? i don’t know.. because i don’t think we’ve yet had/seen any of that true art ist ness.. so again.. to me.. same song
to call these activities ‘governmental’ rather than administrative’ and to see in them evidence of a fully developed state rather than political function of the most rudimentary kind is not mere word play. it reflects conceptual confusion at its worst.. in political ideologies of all types, the abuse of terms like govt and admin turn the state into the template for a free society, however much its function are reduced to a min
the athenian ideal of citizenship.. society incarnated into an assembled community of free individuals.. the entire athenian system was org’d to obstruct political professionalism, to prevent the emergence of B, and to perpetuate an active citizenry as a matter of design. we may rightly fault this democracy for denying power to slaves, women and resident aliens, who formed the great majority of the population.. but these traits were not unique to athens..
oh my.. not free
a very thin line separates the practice of direct democracy from direct action.. the former is institutionalized and self disciplined; the latter is episodic and often highly spontaneous
if it could be shown that direcat action as a form of self admin serves to stablizie society, not reduce it to chaotic shambles, teh state would be placed in teh dock of hisotry as a force for violence and domiantion
a few important question remain.. under what conditions can direct action be institutionalized as a direct democracy.. what kind of citizen.. forms true basis for a direct democracy.. competent f2f manner.. for delegation and B of decision making.. re empowerment of individual and attempt to achieve agreement by dialogue and reason for the monopoly of power and violence
asian village.. capacity to resist invasive econ and political forces.. neighborhoods, extended families, strong traditions and small family owned retail trade.. maintained its own non bourgeois refuge from the demands of a purely capitalistic society.. in home and family (admittedly patricentric and parochial), in town or neighborhood, .. a socialization process that instilled traditional verities of decency, hospitality and service, society still preserved a communal refuge of its own from the atomizing forces of the market econ
how is this refuge et al? if patriarchal? or matri (see below).. oi
by id of present century.. large scale market operations had colonized every aspect of social/personal life.. buyer seller relationship.. very core of market.. became the all pervasive sub for human relationships at the most molecular lever of social/personal life.. to dissolve all traditional standards of community and consociation, to subordinate needs of body politic to egoistic concerns..
capitalism/market et al.. just a tool of patri (of any form of people telling other people what to do).. colonization/destruction/cancer.. was already
the transition from gift to commodity could yield the disintegration of the community into a market place.. the consanguinal or ethical union between people into rivalry and aggressive egotism..
same song.. already disintegrated/rivalrous et al
(on the malls and parking lots penetrating life).. the inorganic returns not only to industry and marketplace; it calcifies and dehumanizes the most intimate relationships between people in the *presumably invulnerable world of the bedroom and nursery.. t
the massive dissolution of personal/social ties that comes w the return of the inorganic transforms the extended family into the nuclear family and finally delivers the individual over to the purveyors of the singles’ bars.. t
w hollowing of community by market system.. loss of structure, articulation, form.. we witness following of personality itself.. vibrant social relations eroded by mass market.. was possible because he or she was rooted in a fairly rounded and complete community
when was that ever complete/rounded/shalom?
inorganic nature that replaces organic that humans once viewed so reverently..
the therapies that seek to adjust organic beings to inorganic conditions merely produce lifeless, inorganic, and depersonalized automata..t
the therapies that seek to adjust organic beings to inorganic conditions merely produce lifeless, inorganic, and depersonalized automata
the myth that our society is more complex than earlier culture requires short shrift; our complexity is strictly technical, not cultural; our effluvium of ‘individuality’ is more neurotic and psychopathic, not more unique or or intricate..
huge ie of dawn of everything (book) ness..
what has largely replace the sinews tha held community and personality together is an all encompassing, coldly depersonalizing B.. the agency and the bureaucrat have become the subs for the family, the town, the neighborhood.. the personal support structure of peoples in crisis.. personality has become congruent w the various docs, licenses and records that define one’s place in the world.. more sacred than such docs as passports, which are the archaic tokens of citizenship, a motor vehicle license literally validates one’s id, and a credit card becomes the worldwide coinage of exchange
always had B and contracts et al.. even in home.. because it has to be for all (otherwise B and sea world et al) and it was never all.. even/esp in home.. this is why oikos ness is so huge
never had legit oikos..
the legacy of domination thus culminates in the growing together of the state and society – and with it a *dissolution of the family, community, **mutual aid, and social commitment.. the ***superego is no longer formed by the father or even by domineering social institutions; it is formed by the faceless people who preside over the records of birth/death of religious affiliation and ed pedigree of ‘mental health’ and psych proclivities, of vocational training and job acquisition, of marriage and divorce certificates, of credit ratings and bank accounts; in short, of the endless array of licensees, test, contacts, grades, and personality traits that define the status of the individual in society..
**part of the cancer..
we keep trying to find beginnings.. things to point fingers at.. to justify ourselves..
this is so huge.. and goes with garden-enough ness..
it doesn’t matter who did/what first.. for one reason.. we have no idea.. patri or matri.. eve telling adam to eat could say matri.. god trusted us to choose (or is that thinking it as well.. because alive ness not about choice of spinach or rock et al.. but about curiosity/itch-in-the-soul).. but we didn’t trust each other.. we keep telling each other what to do for whatever reason..
but any form of people telling other people what to do is killing us.. keeping us from us
what to choose from is a from of that.. eve to adam is form of that.. so then adam seeks belonging .. some means to validate self.. (when legit belonging is being self ie: brown belonging law et al).. in some form of patri/contract/B/licence/market/capitalism/jihadi/white right.. et al
6 – justice – equal and exact
the *notion of ‘freedom’ does not seem to exist in organic society. as we saw earlier, the word is simply meaningless to many prelit peoples.. lacking any institutionalized structure of domination, **they have no way of defining a condition that is still intrinsically part of their social lives.. a condition into which they grow w/o the elab hierarchical and later class structure of the lat neolithic and of ‘civilization’.. as ‘freedom’ and ‘domination’ are not in tension w each other, they lack contrast and definition.. but the very lack of distinction between ‘freedom’ and ‘domination’ leaves organic society unguarded against hierarchy and class rule..
**rather.. they have no inclination to
to be expelled from the garden of eden can be regarded, as hegel was to say, as an importan condition for its return.. but on a level that is informed w a sophistication that can resolve the paradoxes of paradise
oi.. thinking that sophistication ness is part of the cancer.. keeping us from ‘paradise’ (us)
between these two extremes, religious and anarchic movement develop a more balanced, although equally generous, vision of utopia that combines sharing w self discipline, freedom w coordination and joy w responsibility
too many red flags.. limiting us
coherence finally requires that we try to bring together the threads of these shared histories.. natural and social.. into a whole that unites differentia into a meaningful ensemble, one that also removes hierarchy from our sense of meaning and releases spontaneity as an informed and creative nisus
need to let go of history ness and informing spontaneity ness.. and removal of things.. sucks all our energies..
we can never return to the setting in which these ideas were formed.. nor should we try.. it is enough that we understand the diffs between earlier times/ideas and our own, ultimately we must create our own context for ideas and discern older contexts from which they emerged.. not to repeat them.. to put it bluntly, freedom has no ‘founding fathers’ only free thinkers and practitioners.. if it has such ‘fathers’ it would also be direly in need of morticians to inter it, for that which is ‘founded’ must always answer to the claims of mortality
? not sure i’m getting this.. but makes me think of history ness as keeping us chained/limited/unfree
the *20th cent has made a mockery of the word (freedom).. freedom.. an unstated **reality in many prelit cultures.. was still burdened by constraints.. closely related to early community’s material ***conditions of life
(explaining why hunting, agri, war were givens).. constraint, normally guided by public opinion, custom and shame, was inevitable in the early social development of humanity. not as a matter of will, authority, or exercise of power, but because it was unavoidable
freedom abandons the very notion of ‘right’ as such and ‘inscribes on its banners: from each .. to each’.. equality is inextricably tied to freedom as the recognition of ineq
zeus story tracing equivalence back to its ‘natural’ origins: ‘.. now equiv itself has become a fetish.. ..there should be no assault upon justice, but justice does not result in freedom’
justitia’s rule of equality – of equivalence – reverses principle.. she turns the *equality of unequals into the ineq of equals..
in more general terms,, ‘the proletarian demand for equality’ is a demand for the ‘injustice’ of an egal society.. it rejects the rule of equiv .. the equality of unequals.. stormy battles for justice.. for the rule of equiv..
the notion of a humanity in which all human beings are considered united by a common genesis was still largely alien
nationality: human et al
the agents for the new juridical disposition in the rights of the city dwellers were the strangers.. who often serviced the city w craft or commercial skills.. they were helped by the oppressed generally who could hope to escape the whimsies and insults of arbitrary rule only by inscribing their rights/duties in an inviolable codified form.. justitia.. is in large part the goddess of the social/ethnic outsider.. her rule of equiv honors the plea for equity which must be clearly defined in a written legal code.. thus justitia must be armed not only w a sword but the ‘legal tablets’ that define rights and duties, security and safety, rewards and punishments..
so rule of equiv leading to B and perpetuated by aliens/oppressed because only way to be safe?
m of care – dec 20 – and quotes on fear of starving et al
aristotle was an alien resident
for first time in humanity’s evolution from animality to society an immense population of highly disparate strangers were brought together.. and granted equal access to laws.. may well be that caracalla was as eager to enlarge tax bases ad to prop up its sagging sense of communality
the relatively free citizen of the classical city state, the medieval commune, and the modern nation state was initially formed by severing the young male from an archaic body of kinship relationships
from a tyrant, the patriarch became a judge and relied on guilt, not merely fear, to assert his authority.. t
the state itself takes its revenge on the very insolent creature it helps to create: the ‘world citizen’ who is now helpless under the overbearing power of a centralized imperial apparatus and its B minions
the subjugation of human by human, which the greeks had fatalistically accepted as the basis for a cultivated leisure class, was not celebrated as a common human enterprise to bring nature under human control..
the fascinating reworking of christian eschatology from a spiritual project into an economic one is fundamental to an understanding of liberal ideology in all its variants.. and to marxian socialism..
even the apparent chaos that market society intro’d into the guild, village, and fam structure that formed the bass of the preindustrial worlds was seen as the surface effects of a hidden lawfulness in which individual self interest, by seeking its own *ends, served the common good.. this liberal ideology persisted into later 20th cnet.. church, academy, media
7 – legacy of freedom
what then of freedom.. of the equality of unequals
discrimination as equity ness again
the classical world is preoccupied w justice, fair dealings, individual liberty and enfranchisement of the outsider in the world city, rather than w freedom’s equality of unequals..
augustine denounced political authority ‘political power is coercion, even in origins and purpose’.. for human to dominate human is ‘unnatural’
no doctrine could kindle more fervent hopes among the oppressed, only to dash them to the ground when the clerical and civil powers periodically combined to repress subversive sects and radical popular movements
in effect, compensation for inequalities had been denatured into privilege (so equality of inequalities twisted in support of the few)
to be sure the oppressed or the morally inspired did not always heed this fate that the ruling classes of antiquity imparted to history; plebians and slaves could rise in great insurrectionary conflicts.. .. but rarely were domination and slavery brought into question.. the slave’s dream of freedom.. was to turn the slave master int a slave.. vengeance, not hope, was the poor man’s notion of settling his accounts w his oppressor
this is (non legit) seat at the table ness (we have no idea what we want .. because in rat cage.. so lash out and take the heroin.. play the us & them game.. et al).. to me creative refusal and any form of democratic admin is like this..
christianity by contrast offered a diff vision.. authority, laws, domination and servitude were explained by the need to restrain a ‘fallen humanity’ .. sin.. had been released by woman’s ‘accursed curiosity’.. but redemption and its abolition of authority, laws, domination and servitude lay in the offing.. the christian clergy retained and activistic stance toward absolution and brought the flock into motion to fight sin.. as the needs of the church hierarchy required.. hence, to look back to the garden of eden was actually to look forward to its recovery .. not to bemoan its disappearance
the oppressed believe the garden of eden was still on earth n not in heaven.. in the outrageously heretical medieval image of such a garden the ‘land of cokaygne”.. place of a bountiful maternal natural world.. not an austere paternal deity.. the utterly anarchic 14th cent version of this ‘some place’ broadly satirized the christian heaven…. like maternal love, gives freely of its fruits to a denied and deserving humanity.. by contrast, cokaygne has ‘rivers great and fine of oil, milk, honey and wines’.. food is bountiful; eternal day replaces night, peace replaces strife, and ‘all is common to young and old, ‘.. notable for lack of any tech means to achieve its bounty.. more importantly there is no toil.. no compulsory exertion, no need to master oneself or others for labor.. created not by humanity.. its arts or its institutions.. but by nature which gives freely.. hence no need exists for institutions and restrictions of any kind or for hierarchy and domination.. inhabitants may live w/o placing constraint on desires.. peace, harmony and freedom in most absolute sense are predicated on material superfluity..
sounds like garden-enough ness which i’m thinking is possible to get back/to
again .. findings:
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people
(still in cokaygne vision) people require no protection or rule; .. no war conflict or violence.. pleasure and reality in perfect congruence.. hence no conceivable tensions need disturb the security and peace of cokaygne.. pleasure is the rule, abundance enables desire to replace mere need.. because *every wish can be fulfilled w/o exertion or technical strategies..
*bits sound like takes a lot of work ness.. but compromised.. because we have no idea what legit needs (wishes) are.. which perpetuates our obsession of and intoxication in myth of tragedy and lord et al
cokaygne further implies a view of human nature that is benign rather than conceive in sin.. humanity is afflicted not because it has eaten of the fruit but because it has eaten of the bitter root of scarcity.. *scarcity is not the penalty of sin but rather its cause.. given a level of abundance that removes this bitter root, individuals have no need to dominate, manipulate, or empower themselves at the expense of others..t.. the appetite for power and desire to inflict harm are removed by nature’s sheer fecundity
*sounds like m of care – dec 20 – from doe ch 7.. talking about our fears (of starvation) and need to focus on survival when conditions are dire.. make us not us.. scarcity of (to me) non legit (deepest) needs
so.. hari rat park law
i wish to emphasize that cokaygne is a consumerist concept of freedom, involving no labor technics or canons of productivity.. this concept is woven thru the broad popular movements of history for centuries.. recovered by heretical elites.. by the ‘elect’ who acknowledge no authority or denial of pleasure other than that dictated by their own ‘inner light’.. allowing unrestrained freedom to consume this vision of freedom acquires a distinctly utopian form
guessing he means utopian ness as bad here.. to that.. this sounds like how we’ve let forms of m\a\p compromise/violentize ideas like ‘communism’.. meaning.. so much here is right on (to me)..
in contrast to these consumerist concepts.. also emergence of productivist concepts of freedom.. ie: reconciliation of human w human supplied not by nature but by ‘man’ himself.. utopias of plenty created by his labor and consciousness. . org ing via producer oriented ends.. a tech rationalization.. nature seen as ungiving and intractable to human goals.. ineq will be overcome by a humane, loving denial of the means of life by fortunate individuals for the less fortunate.. everyone works as best as he/she can to create a common fund of goods that is parceled out according to authentically valid needs.. t
here marcion uncannily opposes ‘justness’ or justice to ‘goodness’.. which by a mere fraction of a step forward, could yield the concept of ‘freeness’.. this remarkable antithesis between a calculating, petty ‘justness’ and a generous overflowing ‘goodness’ expresses one of the most remarkable insights in the legacy of freedom..
ultimately the denial of justice for ‘goodness’ and of repression for freedom provide a more secure common ground for the humanistic utopians of the modern world and the gnostics of the ancient world than their dizzying idiosyncrasies would lead us to believe..
herein lies *the great power of imagination that has vitalized radical movements for centuries: a ‘world tuned upside down’ that has been the goal of great anarchic movements, from the ancient world to the french student radicals of 1968
*i think imagination of legit free people would be diff than that.. perhaps our focus on turning things (as they are) upside down (like creative refusal and any form of democratic admin).. is distracting us.. keeping us from.. us.. from legit freedom/imagination.. perhaps what we need is rather.. a more revolution in reverse (as i grok it).. where we just start everyday a new (in a legit rat park).. so that our daily focus is ie: itch-in-8b-souls.. rather than what we need to turn upside down or fight/protest against..
gnosticism’s appeal to defiance as an ‘obligation’ is a program for everyday life.. the gnostic experience is not locked into episodic rituals and ceremonies; gnosis is expected to transfigure every detail of one’s encounter w reality.. to create transmundane reality of ‘goodness’ that is close to a communion with the true god.. the very *spontaneity it fosters in the self is the correlate of a permanent state of *desire rather than mere need, of a passionate perception of the world rather than one deadened by custom, routine and predictability..
if these creative.. esthetic aspects of the radical gnostic ‘programs’ are depicted accurately then the closing centuries of antiquity anticipated a more universal secular impulse to freedom than a strictly religious interp of gnosticism would lead us to believe.. what gnosticism seems to imply is a colonization o f every aspect of human experience by desire..
(on entry of christian heretics.. not tolerant of religious dogma.. had no love for enemies).. but they were non conformists.. their hatred of authority often greatly exceeded their hatred of official religious dogma.. nonconformity intro’d long tradition of fiery dispute over ecclesiastical structure.. the church policy raised stormy questions and finally rebellions around the right of the king to head the church.. the right oof the bishops to control congregations and the freedom fo the congregation.. indeed of each member.. to answer to no authority whatever beyond the claims of his/her *‘inner voice’
by spawning nonconformity, heretical conventicles and issues of authority over person and belief, christianity created not merely a centralized authoritarian papacy but also its very antithesis: a quasireligious anarchism
w exception of the paris commune of 1871, which exploded as an anarchic confederal image of decentralized communes.. european socialism had decorated itself w republican trappings at best and dictatorial ones at world.. the party.. christian heretics.. completely secular in character but no less small, intimate, and decentralized, it persisted w/in the spanish anarchist movement as the ‘affinity group’.. from spain it spread throughout the world w the recent growth of libertarian orgs, acquiring the names of ‘collective, commune, coop’.. w the emergence of the new left in the 60s.. by contrast.. the party was simply a mirror image of the nation state, and its fortunes were completely tied to the state’s development..
oi and ?
8 – from saints to sellers
to understand the legacy of freedom as it was lived, not only thought, we must immerse our ideas in the rich flux of reality and sort out their authenticity in the earthy experiences of the oppressed..
contract and moral precept still floated on a primordial quicksand that required many centuries of ‘civilization’ before it could fully harden into class rule and become solidly internalized as guilt, renunciation and a fear of the ‘chaotic’ impulses that raged in the unconscious of the oppressed..
apostolic christianity advances a vision of the earliest community of believers .. communal sharing.. communism.. had all things in common.. one heart/soul..
if we take this description literally.. (and no reason we shouldn’t).. first believers practiced not merely communism but usufruct (right to enjoy use of property as long as don’t damage et al)
but not legit freedom.. ie: next para.. thou shalt ness et al
the church was more than a large property owner.. and its wealth not simply an affront to the christian commitment to poverty.. it was also a massive hierarchical structure.. the reality and symbol of overbearing authority.. the church’s claim it would bridge chasm it had opened between the ordinary individual and the deity was an affront to christianity’s gospel of inwardness.. implicit recognition of the accessibility of each soul to god.. clerics/priests.. viewed selves as brokers between humanity and deity..
anticlericalism had a grossly underrated anarchic dimension.. trying to remove the clergy from its function as humanity’s delegate to the spiritual kingdom.. all the anticlerical movements of the time were striking a blow against the notion of representation itself and its denial of the individual’s competence to manage his/her spiritual affairs.. the church in effect, gave no recognition to the congregation’s claims to competence.. it had a kingdom not a community; a state, not a polis.. led to insurrections/unrest..
all human authority would be replaced by a community of free people in which ‘none shall be subject to another’.. t
gerard winstanley.. leader of the diggers.. agrarian communists who in 1649 tried to cultivate the ‘free’ or waste lands near london.. these experiments which were conceived as an ‘exemplary’ effort to promote communal ideas were ignored in their day.. what really swept digger movement into historical accounts fo radical movements was winstanley’s pamphlets.. long after he passed
Winstanley published a pamphlet called The New Law of Righteousness. The basis of this work came from the Book of Acts, chapter two, verses 44 and 45: “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Winstanley argued that
protestant reformation: Winstanley and German Protestant revolutionary Thomas Müntzer both supported anarchism. Libertarian socialist scholar Murray Bookchin: “In the modern world, anarchism first appeared as a movement of the peasantry and yeomanry against declining feudal institutions. In Germany its foremost spokesman during the Peasant Wars was Thomas Müntzer; in England, Gerrard Winstanley, a leading participant in the Digger movement. The concepts held by Müntzer and Winstanley were superbly attuned to the needs of their time – a historical period when the majority of the population lived in the countryside and when the most militant revolutionary forces came from an agrarian world. It would be painfully academic to argue whether Müntzer and Winstanley could have achieved their ideals. What is of real importance is that they spoke to their time; their anarchist concepts followed naturally from the rural society that furnished the bands of the peasant armies in Germany and the New Model in England.
‘winstanley was nota military communist like the taborites; he was a committed pacifist.. hostile to any notion of anthropomorphic deity.. his naturalism brings him close to enlightenment social theory ‘to know secrets of nature is to know works of god’.. he emphasized need not only for ‘communal property’ but perhaps even for usufruct.. he declares ‘to all mankind w/o exception‘.. these words are not merely brave but also deeply felt.. reason is the ‘great creator’ that ‘made the earth a common treasure’ and anarchy (in the literal sense of ‘no rule’) was its earliest disposition.. for ‘not one word was spoken in the beginning that one branch of mankind should rule over another‘.. t
this outlook (pantheism virtue.. one w/goodness) stands in marked contrast to both gnostic and christian dualism and in face, leads to spinoza’s later, more judaic concept of a unifying ‘godly’ substance..
a radical ethical doctrine – or an ‘amoral’ one in the gnostic sense .. there surely was.. it was based on the ‘belief that the individual christian is *justified by the holy spirit dwelling w/in him and that **it is from w/in.. rather than from the institutional church.. that all grace proceeds’.. accordingly, acolytes of the free spirit are in a state of grace, very much like the gnostic pneumatics’ irrespective of their behavior .. ‘can perform a sinful act w/o being in sin and as long as acts w intention of following the will of the spirit.. action is good’
*not sure this isn’t a red flag.. if legit free.. this wouldn’t be even a passing thought.. but am thinking that thinking it is a compromise to legit freedom.. ‘need to be marked as good/right’ et al
what is your name? i am called nameless wildness.. where does your insight lead to? into untrammelled freedom.. when a man lives according to all his caprices w/o distinguishing between god and self and w/o before or after
‘civilization’ had created a new character structure.. a new internal discipline for containing the spirit: a ‘reality principle’ that denied the integrity of the passions, spontaneity and desire.. if gnosis or knowledge was to guid human behavior and bring heaven to earth, it had to be reinforced by a psychic ‘battering ram’ that could demolish the individual’s ‘civilized’ (that is, carefully policed) character structure..t duel between the ‘divine spark’ in the individual and the mundane integument (tough protective outer layer) that concealed it
these broader needs.. indeed; this view of need itself.. cannot be reduced to mere ‘superstructural’ ideologies w/o forcing the mentality of a market society on a largely manorial one..t high tech on artisanship.. industrial on domestic.. atomized labor on communal system of production based on guilds
capitalism reflects the authentic economization of society.. by an econ that has absorbed every issue into a material system of needs and technics.. ‘freedom’ often means little more than the effective coordination of humanity in the achievement of economic ends.. to discuss human emancipation meaningfully, one now had to exorcize the demons of material denial.. a new system of ‘scarcity‘ largely created by the market system.. and the nature of tech development.. freedom is now completely entangled w econ.. a liberated life w the notion of ‘scarce resources’ t.. ..utopia w technics
ie: free to pick spinach or rock distracting us.. keeping us from us
i do not mean that tech issues can be subs for ethical discourse and relations.. but placed in proper context they can actually help to reverse the ‘economization ‘ of social life.. t
yeah that.. but not for the market/needs just mentioned.. can’t use it for any form of m\a\p..
every appeal of human consciousness.. is an appeal to the creativity of mind and an experssion of belief in human virtue.. marx the ‘materialist’.. hegel ‘the idealist’ kropotkin the ‘ecologist’ and fourier the ‘utopian’ have all embarked on the same voyage of hope: a belief in the powers of human reason to attain a free society..
the material dispensation that capitalism has created for the future is itself a ‘freedom’.. a freedom not merely to choose the kinds of goods society should produce.. but to choose from among the extravagant often irrational array of needs that capitalism has created.. in light of the freedom to choose products and needs.. one can envision a higher ideal of freedom.. on that *removes the taints of economism and restores the ethical basis of past times.. infused w the option opened by tech achievement.. potentially at least, we are faced w the **broadest conception of freedom known thus far: the autonomous individual’s freedom to shape material life in a form that is neither ascetic nor hedonistic, but a blend of the best of both.. one that is ecological national and artistic.. ***how can society now produce a sufficiency of goods for everyone (rather than an elite) and provide the individual the freedom to chose among needs as well as products..t.. w/in the material realm this is the **most complete form of human autonomy we can ever hope to achieve.. both as an expression of rational criteria for ****making choices and of the rational competence of the individual to do so ..t indeed.. if we can believe in the competence of free individuals to determine policy in the civil realm..we can also believe in the ****competence of free individuals to determine their needs in the material realm as well..t once capitalism came into world and tainted it w a ‘sense of *****scarcity‘..
this is what’s really messing with us.. ie: *doesn’t do this.. so we perpetuate the cancer.. **can’t be.. we have no idea what legit needs are.. so ***this is the wrong question.. and a huge distraction and energy suck.. perpetuating tragedy of the non common.. ****i don’t think we’re made for making choices/decisions.. what we need is to listen to and focus on daily curiosity over decision making et al.. curiosity as detox
*****yeah that.. but didn’t just start w ‘capitalism’.. from the get go.. part of sea world mentality
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..
9 – 2 images of tech
we are deeply riven by a great sense of promise about tech innovation.. and by a thorough sense of disenchantment w its results.. t
even ww1 which witnessed massive use of new tech to slaughter millions of people.. did not dispel tech mythos.. only in 2nd did we begin to witness chilling doubts.. nuclear weaponry, perhaps more than any single factor, created a popular fear of ‘technics run wild’.. the 60s began to exhibit a pronouncedly anti technical bias between high or hard techs.. (nuclear/agri vs solar/wind)
tech focus shifts from subject to object.. from producer to product.. from creator to created
problem not so much what we’re focusing on.. rather that we’re focusing on either (cancerous).. rather than dancing..
on shifting to mass production/efficiency .. intensification of labor process and can dispense w actually ‘thinking’ it.. .. horkheimer: ‘advantage of maths lies in just this ‘intellectual economy’.. complex operations carried out w/o intellectual acts upon which math/symbols are based.. such mechanization essential to expansion of industry.. ‘
long before mass manufacture .. there has already been widespread destruction of community life
yeah that.. starting with missing pieces.. from the get go.. not so much back in time.. but beginning of birth and not yet scrambled ness.. (which gives hope.. not having to figure out what worked before in history.. just trust 8b people have it in them now.. just need spaces of permission.. et al.. to uncover.. and then trust that)
in the following chapter i shall show more thoroughly that is tis neither technical change nor marx’s ‘production relations’ that changed society, but rather an immanent dialectic w/in given societies themselves, *where org’d coercion was not directly involved
*?coercion has always been involved.. voluntary compliance et al
workplace little more than a penal institution.. must pay penalty in form of mindless labor.. aside from earnings it generates, labor is normally alien to human fulfillments.. rewards one acquires by submitting to a work discipline.. incentives for submission.. rather than for the freedom that should accompany creativity and self fulfillment.. we commonly are ‘paid’ for supinely working on our knees, not for heroically standing on our feet..
marx’s spider and bee.. famous comparison between the unconscious activity of the animal and the conscious activity of human beings.. worst architect from best be.. architect raise structure in imagination before he erects it in realty.. he realizes a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi and to which he must subordinate his will
yeah.. see.. this is a compromised imagination.. not flexible enough to be legit.. it’s like kilpi work law – solving other people’s problems.. since we’re not ourselves.. but other people.. has to do w that commitments ness vs the it is me ness
the apparent ‘innocence’ of this description is highly deceptive.. even the process of design by today’s architects has become stereotyped.. mindless labor is not merely a result of mechanization.. it is the calculated and deliberate product of subordination and control..
i doubt he’s talking this deep.. but (to me) it’s beyond subordination and control.. has to do with brown belonging law and maté trump law.. we’re not even us to begin with.. and the commitment ness of design et al perpetuates that
the terms i have emphasized in this passage (quote) reveal the extent to which marx’s own imagination is completely tainted by promethean.. design images that seemingly prefigure the ‘use values’ he seeks to ‘liberate’ from the ‘death sleep’ of nature.. despite marx’s fervent references to petty’s concept of ‘marriage’ between nature and labor, there is no authentic marriage other than a coercive patriarchy that sees the wedding compact as a license form yahweh to place all of reality under the iron will of the male elders..
the concepts reared by the human imagination in productive activity, as distinguished form the instinctive drives of the spider and bee are never socially neutral..
aka: never not manufacturing consent/imagination
from very outset of the design process.. the technical imagination is potentially problematical .. the mind and certainly the technical imagination, short of attaining the self consciousness.. remain highly vulnerable not only to society’s on going barrage of cultural stimuli, but also the very imagery that forms the language of the imagination itself..t an irreducible technical ground, a modus operandi that acquires the neutrality and rigor of scientific lawfulness..
the imagery of modern technical design has its origins in the epistemologies of rule; it has been formed over a long period of time by our very specific way of ‘knowing’ the *world.. a way that finds its ultimate apotheosis in industrial agri, mass production and B
aka: sea world
hence use value as the materialization of desire and concrete labor as the materialization of play were excluded from the realm of econ discourse.. they were left to the utopian imagination (particularly the anarchic realm of fantasy as typified by fourier) for elaboration..political econ had lost its artfulness.. its adepts became a body of ‘worldly thinkers’ whose world in fact was defined by the parameters of bourgeois ideology
by its very plasticity, abstract labor render human activity interchangeable, the rotation of industrial tasks possible, the use of machinery flexibility.. its capacity to flow thru the veins of industry as mere undifferentiated human energy renders the manip and reduction of the working day possible, concurrently, the expansion fo the ‘realm of freedom’ at the expense of the ‘realm of necessity’.. if marx’s communism was mean tot be a ‘society of artists’ he was not prepared to recognize that the colors on their canvases might be limited to varying tints of gray..
organic society’s image of the world contrasts radially in almost every detail w marxian, scientistic, and frankly bourgeois notions of matter labor, nature, and technics.. indeed the very structure of the technical imagination it brings to bear upon experience.. the tech imagination of organic society.. no subject/object placed in opposition.. nor did a linear sequence of events follow.. rather.. an organic whole.. which more closely approximated a gestative, reproductive activity that the abstract exercise of human powers we denote as ‘labor’ or ‘work’.. labor time, much less ‘abstract labor’ conceptually unformulatable.. labor had no meaning beyond its concreteness as a sensuous activity.. the vast world of phenom.. like land.. which were priceless (to use our limping terminology) and beyond the equations of exchange..
how much this orientation toward the labor process permeated the sensuous outlook of prelit communities is fully revealed by anthro and mythological data.. no less than agri, other productive activities.. were viewed as sacrosanct that involved a highly sexualized activity between human workers and a feminine earth: ‘very early we are confronted w notion that ores ‘grow’ in belly of earth after manner of embryos.. metallurgy thus takes on the character of obstetrics.. miner and metal worker intervene in the unfolding of subterranean embryology: they accelerate the rhythm of he growth of ores, they collab in the work of nature and assist it to give birth more rapidly.. in a word man, w his various techniques, gradually take the place of time: his labours replace the work of time‘..
oh my.. sounds like nika’s tweets yesterday
I believe this is a good news:
“Cancer cells will often have certain surface markers that the rest of the cells in your body don’t have,” says Blakney. “You can train your immune system to recognise and kill those cells
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/nikadubrovsky/status/1476172584987287553
… just like you can train your immune system to recognise and kill a virus: it’s the same idea, you just figure out what proteins are on the surface of your tumour cells and use that as a vaccine”. 2/
mrna vaccines to immune system as labour to time
to speak as marx does of worker’s ‘appropriation’ of ‘nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants’ is to assume that there is no developmental synchronicity between human ‘wants and natural ‘wants’.. a sharp disjunction is thereby crated between society, humanity and ‘needs’ on the one side and nature, the nonhuman living world and ecological ends on the other..
the fact that the natural world is orderly (at least on a scale that renders modern sci and engineering possible) has long suggested the intellectually captivating possibility that there is a logic/rationality.. to reality that may well be latent w meaning.. for some 3 centuries now, a scientific vision of reality has been solidly structured around the presupposition that we can interpret reality’s orderliness in the form of a sci logic, rigorously answerable to such rationally demanding systems as maths.. but no assumption or even suggestion has been made that logic and reason inheres in the world itself.. science, in effect has been permitted to live a lie.. it has presupposed, w astonishing success, that nature is orderly and that this order lends itself to rational interp by the human mind.. ultimately science has lived this lie primarily to avoid the most unavoidable pitfall of metaphysics.. that an orderly world that is also rational may be regarded as a meaningful world.. science in effect has become a temple built on the foundation of seemingly animistic and metaphysical ‘ruins’ w/o which it would sink into the watery morass of its own contradictions..
the ‘wisdom of the body’ like the wisdom of the mind.. speaks in a variety of languages.. we many never decipher .. but we know they exist in the varied pulsations of our bodies.. in the beat of our hearts.. a veritable ‘music of the spheres’ resonates w/in each living form and between it and other living forms..
but let us not deceive ourselves that science has chosen its way on the basis of presuppositions that are *stronger or more certain than those of other ways of knowing..
the *great bulk of humanity is not even remotely near an understanding of its potentialities, much less an intuitive grasp of the elements and form of their realization.. a humanity unfulfilled is not a humanity at all except in the narrowest biosocial sense of the term..
need: means to undo our hierarchical listening so we can get back to the dance of and ue.. ‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch in 8b souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to connect/coord us.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for .. the energy of 8b alive people
indeed, in this condition a humanity unfulfilled is more fearsome than any living being.. for it has enough of that mentality called mere ‘intelligence’ to assemble all the conditions for the destruction of life on the planet
because.. khan filling the gaps law et al
behind its (horse) verbal muteness lies a wealth of sensibility that the rider must explore if the horse is to achieve its own capacity for perfection.. if its potentialities are to be realized
the design imagination of our times must be capable of encompassing this flow, this dialectic .. not to cut across it w wanton arrogance and dogmatic self confidence..
all these developments.. do not negate the presuppositions and insights of conventional science.. they simply question science’s claims to universality
just a perspective of one side of elephant (who is in sea world)
to put the issue quite directly.. the how of things is inadequate unless it can be illuminated by the why.. events that lack coherence of ethical meaning are merely random.. they are alien not only to science but also to nature.. for even more than the proverbial ‘vacuum’ *nature abhors the incoherence of disorganization, the lack of meaning that comes w disorder..
*? i don’t agree with this.. not sure how he got to this from prior pages.. carhart-harris entropy law et al
10 – the social matrix of tech
unfortunately a preoccupation w technical size, scale, and even artistry deflects our attention away from the most significant problems of technics.. notably.. its ties w the ideals and social structures of freedom.. t
initially, a libertarian is distinguished from an authoritarian in technics by more than just the scale of production, the kind or size of implements or even the way in which labor is org’d.. important as those may be.. perhaps the most crucial reason for what produces this distinction is the emergence of an institutional technics: the priestly corp; the slowly emerging Bs that surround it; later the monarchies and military forces that preempt it; indeed, the very belief systems that validate the entire hierarchical structure and provide the authoritarian core of an authoritarian technics.. lavish material surpluses did not produce hierarchies and ruling classes; rather, hierarchies and ruling classes produced lavish material surpluses.. mumford may be perfectly correct in observing that one of the earliest machines to appear in history was not an inanimate ensemble of tech components but a highly animate ‘megamachine’ of masses human beings whose large scale, coordinated labor reared the huge public works and mortuaries of early ‘civilization’s.. but the growing religions and secular Bs were even more technically authoritarian..
however.. theese Bs’ most signal achievemetn was nto the coord and rationalization of this newly developed human machine; it was the effectiveness w which they reduced their animate subjects, ther vast armies of peasants and slaves, to uttely inanimate objects..
labor and the laborer suffered not merely under the whip of material exploitation but even more under the whip of spiritual degradation.. early hierarchies and ruling classes staked out their claims to sovereignty not only by a process of elevation but also by a process of debasement.. the vast armies of corvee labor that drag huge stones blocks along the banks fo the nile to build pyramids provided an image not just of an oppressed humanity, but of dehumanized beasts.. ultimately of inanimate objects upon whom their foremen and rulers could exercise their sense of power.. for the many to become less was to make the few become more
to speak of ‘appropriate techs’ ‘convivial tools’ and ‘voluntary simplicity’ w/o radically challenging the political ‘techs’ the media ‘tools’ and the B ‘complexities’ that have turned these concepts into elitist ‘art forms’ is to completely betray their revolutionary promise as a challenge to the existing social structure.. what renders buck fuller’s ‘spaceship’ mentality and design mentality of the ‘how to do it ‘ catalogues.. of the ‘appropriate tech movement’ particularly unsavory is their readiness to make ‘pragmatic’ compromises w the political techs of govt agencies that nourish the very techs they profess to oppose..
the most important feature of technics in a preindustrial societal complex is the extent to which it ordinarily is adaptive rather than innovative.. where a culture is rich in social structure, where it enjoys a wealth of human relationship, communal responsibilities and a shared body of mutual concerns, it tends to elab a new technical ensemble rather than ‘develop’ it.. controlled by the constraints of usufruct, complementarity, the irreducible minimum and dis-accumulation, early societies tended to elab technics w considerable prudence and w a keen sensitivity for the extent to which it could be integrated into existing social institutions..
*ordinarily the ability of technics to alter a societal structure significantly was the exception.. tech innovation occurred in response to major climatic changes or to violent invasions that often transformed the invader as much as the invaded.. even when the ‘superstructure’ of a society changed considerably or acquired a highly dynamic character the ‘structure’ of the society changed little or not at all..t.. the ‘riddle fo the unchangeability of asian societies’ as marx was to call it..is in fact the solution to the entire puzzle of the interaction of society w technics.. where technics.. B, priestly and dynastic as well as tools, machines and new forms of labor.. encroached upon the social life of tribes/villages.. the latter tended to bifurcate the former ad stolidly develop a life/dynamic of its own.. the real powers of the asian village to resist tech invasions or to assimilate them to their social forms lay not in a fixed ‘systematic division of labor’ as marx believed.. its powers of resistance lay in the intensity of indian family life, in the high degree of care, mutualism, courtesy, and human amenities that villagers shared as cultural norms, in the rituals that surrounded personal/social life, in the profound sense of rootedness in a communal group, and in the deep sense of meaning these cultural elabs imparted to the community
*not any legit significant changes to date
from time immemorial, hierarchies and classes have used shifts in emphasis to reverse social relations from systems of freedom to those of rule, w/o dropping a single term from the vocab of organic society..t.. ironically, this cunning on the part of the rulers indicates the extent to which the community valued its egalitarian and complementarian traditions
but innovation there surely was (in rome).. not in the instruments of production but in the instruments of admin.. t
but what the peasantry acquired in the form of buffers to nature’s uncertainties they may have more than lost in the onerous toil that was exacted from them for often frivolous monumental works.. not can we be very sure, unlike archaes of a generation ago.. that the highly centralized regimes of the old world (and new) greatly enhanced the coord and effectiveness of alluvial irrigations systems..a carefully tended network of trenches canals and pools had appeared in arid areas long before the ‘high civilizations’ of antiquity surfaced..
historically this unholy trinity of intensification, abstraction and objectification weighted more heavily on humanity as a malignant verdict of social development than did theology’s myth of original sin.. no ‘revolution’ in tools and machines was needed to produce this affliction.. it stemmed primarily form the elab of hierarchy into crystalized warrior elites.. later.. this technics of admin was to acquire a highly industrial character and find its most striking expression in the modern factory system
early factory intro’d no sweeping tech dispensation.. sinning weaving dyeing were still performed w all machines that cottagers used in homes .. till century or so later.. but a new technics had supplanted the old: the technics of supervision..t .. w its heartless intensification of the labor process.. its conscienceless intro of fear and insecurity.. and its debasing forms of supervisory behavior.. buying people not products
i refer not merely to the internal dialectic of hierarchy that yields a legacy of domination in the forms of gerontocracies, priestly corps, patriarchy and warrior chieftains.. i am equally concerned w eht civil sphere of the male, who produces rationalized ceremonial and military systems as compensatory mechs for his own ambivalent status in organic society.. he is less fulfilled in a domestic society where woman forms the core of authentic social activity than in a civil society.. his very id is at stake in world where production/reproduction are centered around woman.. rearing of young, org of home.. whether he ‘envies’ matricentricity or not is irrelevant; he must evolve an id of his own which may reach its most warped expression in warfare, arrogance and subjugation
perhaps most important ideological factor to foster the development of capitalism was christianity.. w its strong emphasis on individuation.. it high regard for the redemptive role of labor.. the thomas edisons and henry fords of the world are not great individuals.. but they are surely grasping egos.. vulgar caricatures of the biblical ‘angry men’..
for there was no need to preach a gospel of work to highly impoverished agrarian communities that desperately needed the tech wisdom of knowledgable and disciplined monastic orders
the word ethic .. not invented by bourgeoisie or ruling classes.. ironically.. traced back to the socially underprivileged themselves.. the virtues (attributes of toil) of poverty for the meek.. who will find treasure in heaven .. while the arrogant will pay in hell for their sinful ‘heaven’ on earth
the dissociation fo working from works.. the lingering concrete use values of things in a world that has largely reduced them to exchange values is the hidden romance buried w/in the warped life of the commodity
organic society.. elders still enjoyed considerable social prestige.. a technical reciprocity.. division of labor that served as a fixed plan and basis for action.. social world based on consensus, ideological agreement, shared customs and a commonality of religious beliefs
tempting to focus description fo tech and accounts of tech innovation on large scale works.. this shadow has obscured technics of peasants and artisans at ‘base’ of society.. networks in small towns.. a complete history of tech, et al.. has yet to be written from standpoint of the so called commoners, just as has a complete history of women, ethnic minorities and the oppressed generally..
only modern capitalism could seriously subvert *this ancient sensibility and system of tech integration.. we gravely mistake c’s historically destructive role if we fail to see that it subverted a more fundamental dimension of the traditional social ensemble: the integrity of the human community.. replaced the extended fam, the guild, ..
the recent emphasis on ‘limits to growth’ and ‘appropriate tech’ is riddled by same ambiguities that have imparts a conflicting sense of promise and fear to ‘high tech’.. i must emphasize again that terms like small, soft, convivial, appropriate remain utterly vacuous adjectives unless they are radically integrated w emancipatory social structures and communitarian goals.. a small, soft, convivial, appropriate tech design will no more transform an authoritarian society .. than will a reduction in the realm of necessity of the working week enhance or enlarge the realm of freedom..
c has tainted the classical notion of living well by fostering an irrational dread of material scarcity.. by establishing quantitative criteria for the good life.. it has dissolved the ethical implication of limit.. equating living well w living affluently.. c has made it extremely difficult to demo that freedom is more closely id’d w personal autonomy that w affluence.. w empowerment over life than w empowerment over things..
post scarcity does not mean mindless affluence; rather, it means a sufficiency of tech development that *leaves individuals free to select their needs autonomously and to obtain the means to satisfy them.. the existing technics.. can render **more than a sufficiency of goods to meet everyone’s reasonable needs
*huge part of problem.. selecting from spinach or rock.. rather than listening for legit needs..
**yeah to enough ness.. but can’t be for reasonable needs.. we need to org around legit needs.. or it won’t work
what must me demo’d.. is that this affluence can ultimately be made available to all.. but should be desirable to none.. *it is a betrayal of the entire message of social ecology to ask the world’s poor to deny themselves access to the **necessities of life on grounds that involve long range problems of ecological dislocation.. claims of natural shortages in materials.. while saying nothing at all about the artificial scarcity ***engineered by corp capitalism
***perpetuated by.. already engineered from the get go of sea world
the task of advancing humanity’s *right to choose from among alts, particularly institutional ones, that may yet offer us a rational, humanistic and ecological trajectory **has not yet been fulfilled by hight/low tech.. high tech must be permitted to exhaust its precious claims as the token of social progress and human well being.. all the more to render the development of eco alts ***a matter of choice rather than the product of a cynical necessity
how can it help lift the ‘muteness’ of nature.. a problematical concept we have imposed on ourselves.. by opening our own ears to its voice?
a world that has been systematically educated out of our bodies and innate experiences.. a solar house that symbolizes ability to diminish energy costs may be a monument to financial cunning, but it is as blind and deadened ecologically as cheap plumbing.. it still deals w nature merely as natural resources ..t.. and exhibits the sensitivity of a concerned engineer.. not an ecologically sensitive individual.. an attractive organic garden may be nutritional ‘investment’ over quality of food in shopping mall.. but insofar as food cultivator is preoccupied only w nutritional value of food .. organic gardening becomes a mere technical strategem for ‘foodwise’ consumption.. not a testament to a once hallowed intercourse w nature..
such commonplace attitudes are very revealing.. they indicate that we have forgotten how to be organisms.. that we have lost any sense of belonging to the natural community around us.. we regain a new sense of communication w an entire biotic world that inorganic machines have blocked from our vision.. t
the best designs of solar .. windmills.. gardens.. greenhouse.. bioshelters.. tree culture.. solar villages.. will be little more than new designs.. nor will they challenge in any significant way the system of hierarchy and domination ..t
11 – the ambiguities of freedom
these 3 great pathways/tools for achieving human freedom: reason, science, and technics.. no longer enjoy their high status.. triune is meaningless unless he three are reevaluated and restructures so that each o’es latent liberatory side is rescued and its oppressive side clearly revealed. to return to irrationality, superstition and material primitivism is no more desirable that to defer to the value free and elitist rationalism, scientism and technocratic sensibility that prevail today..
on reason.. presumably it is by virtue of our rationality that we are unique in the ‘mute’ world around us and can achieve our ‘mastery’ over it.. the enlightenment’s generous commitment to reason.. its vast faith in the human enterprise as the outcome of thought and ed
this blindness to large areas of experience is not merely the product of formal ed; it is the result of an unrelenting training that begins at infancy and carries thru the entire length of a lifetime..t
the devolution of reason from an inherent feature of reality into an efficient technique of control yields the dissolution of objective reason itself.. domination and freedom become interchangeable terms in a common project of subjugating nature and humanity.. each of which is used as the excuse to validate the control of one by the other..
the image of a humanity that has achieved the degree of productivity and admin that enables it to be free is modeled strictly on an industrial ‘paradigm’ of mastery and discipline.. humanity has enmeshed itself in a ubiquitous system of domination .. nowhere has history redeemed its promise of freedom and autonomy.. t
part\ial ness is keeping us there
the nature we normally ‘create‘ today is highly conditioned by the social imperatives of our time.. t
hari rat park law.. need a legit park
here humanity would neither give/take.. it would actually participate w nature in creating new levels of diversity and form that are part of a more heightened sense of humanness and naturalness.. the use of nature as ‘natural resources’ a usage that seems unavoidable to the ‘purposive rational mind’.. would be diminished.. eliminated.. bay an ecological technics that would not only enrich the flow between nature/humanity.. but also sensitize humanity to the creativity of nature.. the pacification of nature does not consist in tis domestication.. very much is lost when ‘wildness; (a stupid word if there ever was one) is removed so completely from nature that it ceases to be a ‘token of scarcity, suffering and want’..
like our cattle, poultry, pets, crops.. we too have lost our wildness in a ‘pacified’ world that is overly administered and highly rationalized..
what we tragically lack today.. primarily because instrumentalism tyrannizes our bodily apparatus.. is the ability to sense the wealth of subjectivity inherent in ourselves and in the nonhuman world around us.. to some extent.. this wealth reaches us thru art, fantasy, play intuition, creativity, sexuality and early in our lives, in those sensibilities of childhood an youth from which adulthood and the norms of ‘maturity’ wean us in the years that follow..
once regarded as the herald of enlightenment science is no w increasingly seen as a strictly instrumental system of control.. its use as a means of social manip and its role in restricting human freedom now parallel in every detail to its use as a means of natural manip.. sci no longer enjoys a reputation as a means of ‘knowing’.. but as a means of domination.. beyond a form of knowing to claim the entire realm of knowledge as such..
(kuhn) has been sharply criticized for his tendency to view the logic of ‘sci revolutions’ as being guided by ‘techniques of persuasion’ rather than by proof, by psychological and social factors rather than by the test of objective studies of reality
the idea of domination had been an on going practice in the form of human domination.. of a humanity conceived by its rulers as ‘natural resources’ or ‘means of production’.. form the inception of ‘civilization’ itself.. we do a grave injustice to the authentic history of ‘sci method’ when we forget that before science established its lab to control nature.. the state had established its palaces and barracks to control humanity.. inspiration from domination of human by human before it made the domination of nature central to its ideals and functions
it should be seen more as a graded process, as an emerging process of self realization than as as series of physic displacements..
makes me think of the energy sucking of creative refusal et al..
but this battle was not won w/o a severe penalty.. to free the human mind from the trammels of religion .. humanity was enslaved to the powers of science.. a new organon replaced the old.. science joined hands w technics to reinforce the mastery of human over human by enslaving humanity to the same dark, mythic world of domination that it once had ideologically opposed.. science itself had now become a theology.. beginning in 19th cent humanity has become increasingly instrumentalized, objectivized, and economized..
if the emerging factory system stunted its human ‘operatives’.. if it shortened their lives appallingly, fostering pandemics like tb and cholera.. the new english manufacturing class advanced no weighty ethical imperatives for the human disasters it produced, beyond some hazy commitment to ‘progress;..
the emergence of the factory raised even more thundering problems.. visitors to england during first half of 19th cent returned to homelands w horrendous accounts of the filth, disease, demoralization of the working class that accompanied the new industrial system.. ‘heaps of dung, rubble from buildings, putrid stagnant pools.. noise of furnaces.. whistle of steam.. vast structures.. black smoke..’
although lowell’s textile tech belongs to beginnings of the industrial system.. its obsessive concern w surveillance and discipline was eerily in advance of its time.. it reveals w startling clarity the implications of the factory as a unique form of social org.. lowell did not merely exploit its workers; it sought to totally recondition them.. t
management ceased to be a form of admin and literally became a way of life..t as it turned out.. it was nto the hideous squalor of a manchester that placed a lasting imprint on the industrial age but the clinical sophistication of B disempowerment and media manip.. what is most chilling about the ambiguities of freedom of reason, science and technics is that we now take their existence for granted.. taught to regard them as part of the human conditions..
in many respects, *‘civilization’ involves a massive enterprise to undo the impact of maternal care nurture, and modes of thought on the character structure of the offspring.. the imagery of growing up has actually come to mean growing away from a maternal, domestic world of mutual support , concern and love into one made shapeless, unfeeling and harsh.. to accommodate humanity to war, exploitation, political obedience ..t.. and rule involves the undoing not only of human ‘first nature’ as and animal but also of human ‘second nature’ as a child who lives in dependency and protective custody under the eyes and in the arms of its mother.. what we so facilely call ‘maturity’ is not ordinarily an ethically desirable process of growth and humanization.. to become an ‘autonomous’ ‘perceptive’ ‘experienced’ and ‘competent’ adult involves terms that historically possess very mixed meanings.. **the child’s growth away form the values of a caring mother toward autonomy and independence becomes a cultural travesty and a psychological disaster when it results in a youth’s degrading dependency upon the caprices of an egotistical and unfeeling taskmaster.. t
huge huge huge
fromm’s evocation of ‘mother love’ as a spontaneous, unconditional sentiment of caring, free from any reciprocating obligations by the child.. yields more than the total deobjectification of person that i emphasized earlier..
on mother love and passivity and sentimentality.. symbiosis does not deny the existence of a harmful parasitism that can destroy its host.. .. *the ability to manip nature and to function actively in natural and social history is a desideratum (needed/wanted), not an evial.. but human activity is expected to occur w/in an ethical context of virtue not a value free context of utility and efficiency
second nature.. nurture, support.. third nature of authority and rule..
but it is not the complexity of machinery that inhibits our ability to deal w these imperatives; it is the new rules of the game we call an ‘industrial society’ that, by restructuring our very lives, has interposed itself between the powers of human rationality and those of nature’s fecundity (fertility).. most westerners ordinarily cannot plant and harvest a garden, feel a tree and shape it to meet their needs for shelter, reduce ores and cast metals, kill and dress animals for food..
hence the initial goal of the factory was to dominate labor and destroy the worker’s independence from capital.. the loss of this independence included the loss of the worker’s contact w food cultivation..
to live in a cottage, whether as an artisan or as factory worker.. often meant to cultivate a fam garden, possibly pasture a cow.. prep one’s own bread and to have the skills for keeping a home in good repair.. to utterly erase these skills and means of livelihood form the worker’s life became an industrial imperative.. the worker’s complete dependence on the factory and on an industrial labor market was compelling precondition for the triumph of industrial society.. urban planning.. together w urban congestion.. long working hours.. a generous moral disregard for working class alcoholism.. and a highly specialized division of labor melded the needs of exploitation to a deliberate policy of proletarianization.. the need to destroy whatever independent means of life the worker could garner from a backyard plot of land.. a simple proficiency in use of tools.. a skill that provided shoes clothing, and furnishings for the fam.. all involved the issue of reducing the proletariat to a condition of total powerlessness in face of capital.. w that came.. loss of character and community.. the factory system w its need for a large corps of unskilled labor.. far from giving workers greater mobility and occupational flexibility (as marx and engels were to claim).. actually reduced them to aimless social vagabonds..
to reinfuse the ‘artificial craft’ w the ‘natural arts’ is not just a cardinal project for social ecology’ it is an ethical enterprise of rehumanizing the psyche and demystifying techne.. the rounded person in a rounded society, living total life rather than a fragmented one.. is a precondition for the emergence of individuality and its historical hallmark.. autonomy.. this vision, far from denying the need for community, has always presupposed it.. but it visualizes community as a free community in which interdependence rather than dependence or independence provides the many sided social ingredients.. in treating the factory and tech development as socially autonomous ‘scientific socialism’ ignored the role that the factory w its elab hierarchical structure, has played in extending the conditioning of workers to obedience and schooling them in subjugation from childhood thru every phase of adult life
nature is a biotic ‘industry’ in its own right.. soil life disassembles, transforms, and reassembles all the ‘materials’ or nutrients that make the existence of terrestrial vegetation possible.. the immensely complex food web that supports a blade of grass.. suggest that biotic processes themselves can replace many strictly mechanical ones.. we are already learning to purify polluted water by deploying bacterial and algal organisms to detoxify the pollutants.. and aquatic plants/animals to absorb them as nutrients..
an environmentalistic technocracy is hierarchy draped in green garments.. hence it is all the more insidious because it is camouflaged in the color of ecology..
12 – an ecological society
what is ‘human nature’ or is natural about human beings.. here again.. helps to return the cradle and mother child relationship..
but then ie’s from sea world history.. so like green camou from above.. oi
domination now enters into history as a social ‘need’.. a social imperative.. that entangles personality, daily life, econ activity and even love in its toils.. the myth of contractual ‘trust’ w its sanctimonious seals and archaic language is built on the persistence of contractual mistrust and social estrangement, which the idea of ‘contract’ continually reinforces.. that everything has to be ‘spelled out’ is evidence of the ubiquity of moral predation..
bauwens contracts law et al
far more than its claims of achieving rationality ‘civilization’ certainly did provide the soil for the emergence of the highly willful individual and placed a high premium on volition as a formative element in social life and culture.. indeed ‘civ’ went even further: it id’d will w personal freedom.. we are free to choose to formulate our own personal needs, or at least to select from those that are created for us.. whether as myth or canon, will.. conceived as the personal freedom to choose or to create the constituents of choice.. presupposes there such a phenom as the individual and that he/she is competent and therefore capable of making rational judgments.. capable of functioning as a self determined.. self governing being..
(on fourier’s ‘women are to be totally lib’d from all patriarchal constraints.. but does not prevent fourier form viewing them as sexual performers.. cook, entertain his communities, satisfy sexual needs of several males..243) despite the inconsistencies that mar his discussions of women.. fourier was perhaps the most explicit opponent of patriarchalism in the ‘utopian’ tradition.. it was he, not marx, who penned the famous maxim that social progress can be judged by the way a society treats its women.. singled out fourier as one of most radical thinkers of his time.. (then goes on about his utopianism of freedom ness)
oi.. nika & silvia on divorce et al
but public space like inner space becomes mere empty space when it is not structured, articulated and given body.. it must be provided w institutional form, no less so than our highly integrated personal bodies.. which *cannot exist w/o structure.. w/o form and articulation.. there can be no id, no defn and none of the specificity that yields variety.. what is actually at issue when one discusses institutions is not whether they should exist at all but **what form they should take.. libertarian or authoritarian..
dang.. whalespeak.. sitting on edge of freedom.. but not letting go enough to be legit free.. oi oi oi .. all *this (structure, articulation, id, defn, specificity) yields is the variety of spinach or rock ness.. not discrimination as equity.. need to all be architects.. new everyday.. (m of care – jan 6) et al
**neither.. none.. freeman structure law (?) et al.. what we need is a means to undo all that assumed people telling other people what to do ness.. and trust every one of us.. from the get go.. let’s do this first: free art\ists (aka: all of us.. hari rat park law style)
quorums, consensus and please for participation are degrading, not ‘democratic’ .. they emphasize quantity as a social goal, not quality as evidence of an ethical community
finally i must emphasize that direct democracy is ultimately the most advanced form of direct action.. to exercise one’s powers of sovereignty by sit ins, strikes, nuclear plant occupations is not merely a ‘tactic’ in bypassing authoritarian institutions. it is a sensibility, a vision of citizenship and selfhood that assumes the free individual has the capacity to manage *social affairs in a direct, ethical and rational manners.. this dimension of the self in self management is a persistent call to personal sovereignty, to roundedness of ego and intellectual perception which such conjoined terms like management and activity often overshadow.. the continual exercise of this self.. its very formation by one’s direct intervention in social issues.. in asserting its moral claim and right to empowerment stands on a higher level conceptually than marx’s image of self id thru labor.. for direct action is literally a form of ethical character building in the most important social role that the individual can undertake: **active citizenship.. to reduce it to a mere means, a strategy that can be used or discarded for strictly functional purposes is instrumentalism in its most ***insidious.. often most cynical form.. direct action is at once the reclamation of the public sphere by the ego, its development toward self empowerment and its culmination as an active participant in society..
oh my.. oh my.. so unsettling.. any form of democratic admin.. claiming to free us more more ***insidiously binding us
the high degree of competence individuals have exhibited in managing society, their capacity to distinguish policy making from admin.. and their awareness of selfhood as a mode of social behavior .. all these traits will be heightened by a classless, nonhierarchical society..
oh my.. those aren’t even relevant in legit non hierarchical ness
we have no reason to be disenchanted by history.. even as most barbarous.. humanity has soured to radiant heights in great periods of social reconstruction.. once these burdens are removed, we have every reason to hope for degree of personal/social enlightenment for which there are no historical precedents.. (then on need to get back to mother infant relationship vs hiearchical/class societies)
we must try to create anew culture, not merely another movement that attempts to remove the symptoms of our crises w/o affecting their sources..
we must also try to extirpate the hierarchical orientation of our psyches, not merely remove the institutions that embody social domination..
yeah.. all of us need detox.. ie: a mean to undo our hierarchical listening to self, others, nature..
guided as we may be by the principle of equality of unequals, we can ignore neither the personal arena nor the social, neither the domestic not the public, in our project to achieve harmony in society and harmony with nature
to create a society in which every individual is seen as capable of *participating directly in the formulation of social policy is to instantly invalidate social hierarchy and domination
no.. rather.. it perpetuates it.. people are not legit free if you’re predetermining they do *that
whether we merely ‘situate’ our eco communities or root them in their ecosystems.. whether we ‘design’ them merely as part of a ‘natural site’.. (like a frank lloyd wright dwelling) or functionally integrate them into an ecosystem (like an organ in a living body) these choices involve very diff orientation toward technics, ethics, and the social institutions we so blithely call ecological..
organism as fractal ness.. huge..
we may reasonably question whether human society must be viewed as ‘unnatural’ when it cultivates food, pastures animals, removes trees and plants.. in short ‘tampers’ w an ecosystem.. ‘interference’ w natural world.. but all these seeming acts of ‘defilement’ may enhance nature’s fecundity rather than diminish it.. the word fecundity here is decisive and we could add other terms such as variety, wholeness, integration and even rationality.. to render nature more fecund, varied, whole, and integrated may well constitute the hidden desiderata of natural evolution.. that humans become rational agents in this all expansive natural trend.. that they even benefit practically from it in the form of greater and more varied quantities of food.. is no more an intrinsic defilement of nature than the fact that deer limit forest growth and preserve grasslands by feeding on the bark of saplings..
this is huge to m of care – jan 6.. acorns.. sans hand/mind focus
@monk51295 @sonmi451it “Nothing we do is better than the work of handmind. When mind uses itself without the hands it runs the circle and may go too fast; even speech using the voice only may go too fast.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/kennethcardenas/status/1479228833115086855
“The hand that shapes the mind into clay or written word slows thought to the gait of things and lets it be subject to accident and time. Purity is on the edge of evil, they say.” — Stone Telling, in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Always Coming Home
we have to trust (this is what doe and architects can help us with.. seeing how to trust all the ways.. but not how to set up a structure for it).. we need to let go of the takes a lot of work bs or we’ll never grok (acorn) enough ness
that humanity was expelled from the garden of eden does not mean that we must turn an antagonistic face toward nature; rather, it is a metaphor for a new eminently ecological function: the need to create more fecund gardens than eden itself
oh my.. opposite.. need to trust .. rather than keep thinking we have to create/engineer the dance.. we need to let go and embrace/trust the chaos/entropy of wild/natural biodiversity to be enough.. order/control is the poison
if human nature is part of nature, the associations that rest on universal human loyalties may well be expressions of a richer, more variegated nature than we hitherto have been prepared to acknowledge
yeah that.. we have no idea what legit free people are like.. black science of people/whales law et al
even more preferable that the blood related fam is the commune that unites individuals by what they choose to like in each other rather than what they are obliged by blood ties to like..
yeah that.. discrimination as entropy as equity
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..
on a still larger scale.. the commune composed of many small communes seems to contain the best features of the polis.. such larger or composite communes networked confederally thru ecosystem, bioregions and biomes, *must be artistically tailored to their natural surroundings.. we can envision that their squares will be interlaced by streams, their places of assembly surrounded by groves their physical contours respected and tastefully landscaped, their soils nurtured caringly to foster plant variety for ourselves, our domestic animals, and wherever possible the wildlife they may support on their fringes.. we can hope that the communes would aspire to live with, nourish, and feed upon the life forms that indigenously belong to the ecosystems in which they are integrated
yeah to ie: rp ness.. iwan baan ness.. bachelard oikos law ness.. but *this needs to come as the day from everyone (everyone a legit free artist/architect).. this is why takes a lot of work is such a huge red flag.. as are all the other red highlighted words above
decentralized and scaled to human dimensions, such eco communities would obey nature’s ‘law of return’ by recycling their organic wastes
more red flag ness
we could expect that work more craftlike than industrial, would be as readily rotated as positions of public responsibility; that members of the communities would be disposed to deal w one another in face to face relationships rather than by electronic means.. in a world where the fetishization of needs would give way to the freedom ot choose needs..
oh my.. so off.. so whalespeak
industrialization would be seen as an insult to human physiological rhythms.. it is not for us to describe in any detail how the communes of the future would confederate themselves and coord their common activities.. *any institutional relationship of which we could conceive would remain a hollow form until we knew the attitudes, sensibilities, ideals and values of the people who establish and maintain it.. certainly we, who have been saturated w the values of hierarchy and domination, cannot hope to impose our ‘doubts’ upon **people who have been totally freed of their trammels..
saying that freedom is how they *fill that structure in.. is poison.. don’t need nika’s step of physical architects first..
no one will ever be **totally freed.. if keep thinking we have to structure something for people first..
what humanity can never afford to lose is its sense of ecological direction and the ethical meaning it gives to its projects..
oi.. this is the exact poison.. that is keeping us from us.. from the dance
again from 253 – have to trust (this is what doe and architects can help us with.. seeing how to trust all the ways.. but not how to set up a structure for it).. let go of the takes a lot of work bs
by same token, our efforts at cooperation will be actively demoralizing if we come together merely to ‘survive’ the hazards of living in our prevailing social system..t
aka: if we just try to tweak/remodel/upgrade sea world
hari rat park law et al
insofar as we hope to resurrect ourselves, we are obliged to use technics to bring the vitality of nature back into our atrophied sense..t having lost sight of our roots in natural history, we must be all the more careful in dealing w the means of life as forms of nature
no movement for freedom can even communicate its goals, much less succeed in attaining them, unless historic forces are at work to alter unconscious hierarchical values and sensibilities.. ideas reach only people who are ready to hear them.. no individual, newspaper, or book can undo a character structure shaped by the prevailing society until the society itself is beleaguered by crises..
my efforts will succeed if they demo how profoundly the curse of domination has infused almost every human endeavor since the decline of organic society.. i have emphasized the potentially liberating role of art and imagination in giving expression to what is authentically human, utopistic, and free in human nature..
i do not profess to believe we can return to the pristine *garden where this violation first occurred.. history provides hope for a solution to the problems of hierarchy and domination.. knowledge or gnosis.. **to know and transcend our primal act of self transgression.. is the first step toward curing our social pathology of rule.. just as self knowledge in psychoanalytic practice is the first step toward curing a personal pathology of repression..
hmm.. resonate with being *where violation first occurred.. but i think seeking *knowledge.. intellect ness.. is part of why it occurred.. so i don’t see it as the cure
we justly mistrust its acts of generosity today.. behind its seemingly worthy (just talking about defense budgets .. and appetite for rule.. et al) projects.. med tech, cyber revolutions, space programs agri .. energy innovations.. seem to lie the most malignant motives for achieving the subjugation of humanity by means of violence, fear and surveillance..
this book traces landscape of domination from inception in a hidden prehistory of hierarchy that long precedes the rise of econ classes.. *hierarchy remains hidden not only in humanity’s prehistory but also in the depths of its psychic apparatus.. all the rich meaning of the term freedom is easily betrayed during the course of our socialization processes and our most intimate experiences.. this betrayal is expressed by our treatment of children and women.. by **our unconscious ways of ordering our experiences of reality.. hierarchy and domination preside over our self appointed movements for human emancipation.. such as marxism in its conventional forms.. where any self activity by the ‘masses’ is viewed w suspicion and more commonly than not.. denounced as ‘anarchistic deviation’..
*why we need a means to undo hierarchical listening first.. detox.. et al
we have perilously simplified the natural world, society and personality so much so that the integrity of complex life forms, the complexity of social forms, and the ideal of a many sided personality are completely in question
in an age when mechanical materialism competes w an equally mechanical spiritualism.. i have emphasized the need for a sensitivity to diversity that fosters a concept of wholeness as the unifying principle of an ecology of freedom..t this emphasis, central to the goals of this book, contrasts markedly w the the more common emphasis on ‘oneness’..
again on discrimination as equity
my defn of the term ‘libertarian’ is guided by my description of the ecosystem: the image of unity in diversity, spontaneity, and complementary relationships, *free of all hierarchy and domination.. t.. by ‘authoritarian’ i refer to hierarchy and domination as my social guide: gerontocracies, patriarchies, class relationships, elites of all kinds, state, particularly in its most socially parasitic form of state capitalism..
free of any form of m\a\p
just as analytical reason has served the ends of freedom of thought.. we have no certain guided beyond our ethical criteria that unconventional modes of thought will necessarily yield emancipatory conclusions..
what is decisive in considering the ‘canons’ of reason.. or more precisely in shaping a new approach to subjectivity.. is the extent to which we raise a biotically variegated ethical standard based on the fecundity of life.. on the virtue of complementarity.. on the logical image of an ever richer mosaic of experience rather than on a hierarchically reared pyramidal view of experience..
we can conceive of teleology as the actualization of potentiality.. more precisely as the end result of a phenom’s immanent striving toward realization that leaves room for the existence of fortuity and uncertainty.. here, teleology expresses the self org of a phenom to become what it is w/o the certainty that it will do so .. its ‘telos’ would thus appear as the consequence of a prevailing striving rather than as an inevitable necessity
the chromosome fibre does not merely repeat itself and grow additively, like a periodic crystal’ instead it changes significantly to yield new forms/mutations that initiate and carryon inherited evolutionary developments
my point here is that substance and its properties are not separable from life.. henri bergson’s conception of the biosphere as an ‘entropy reduction’ factor, in a cosmos that is supposedly moving toward greater entropy or disorder, would seem to provide life w a cosmic rationale for existence.. that life forms may have this function need not suggest that the universe has been exogenously ‘designed’ by a supernatural demiurge.. but it does suggest that ‘matter’ or substance has inherent self organizing properties, no less valid than the mass and motion attributed to it by newtonian physics..
at the very least, science must be what nature really is.. and in nature, life a counteracting force to the second law of thermodynamics.. or an ‘entropy reduction’ factor.. the self org of substance into every more complex forms indeed, the importance of form itself as a correlate of function and of function as a correlate of self org.. implies the unceasing activity to achieve stability.. that stability as well as complexity is a ‘goal’ of substance; that complexity .. not only inertness.. makes for stability; and finally, that complexity is a paramount feature of organic evolution and of an eco interpretation of biotic interrelationships.. all these concepts taken together are ways of understanding nature as such, not mere mystical vagaries.. they are supported more by evidence than are the theoretical prejudices that still exist today against a universe charged w meaning, indeed, dare i say .. with ethical meaning..
this much is clear.. we an no longer be satisfied w a passive ‘dead’ matter that fortuitously collects into living substance.. the universe bears witness to an ever striving, developing.. not merely a ‘moving’ substance.. whose most dynamic and creative attribute is its ceaseless capacity for self org into increasingly complex forms.. natural fecundity originates primarily from growth not from spatial ‘changes’ of location.. the orderly universe that makes science a possible project and its use of highly concise logic.. mathematics.. meaningful presupposes the correlation of form w function.. from this perspective, maths serves not merely as the ‘language’ of science but also as the logos of science.. this scientific logos is above all a workable project because it grasps a logos that inheres in nature the ‘object’ of sci investigation..
once we step beyond the threshold of a purely instrumental attitude toward the ‘language’ of the sciences, we can admit even more attributes into our account of the organic substance we call life.. conceived as substance that is perpetually self maintaining or metabolic as well as developmental.. life more clearly establishes the existence of anther attribute: symbiosis (mutually beneficial relationship).. recent data support the view that peter kropotkin’s mutualistic naturalism not only applies to relationships w/in and among species, but also applies morphologically.. w/in and among complex cellular forms.. as william trager observed more than a decade ago: ‘the conflict in nature between diff kinds of organisms has been popularly express in phrases like ‘struggle for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest’.. yet few people realize the mutual coop between diff kinds of organisms.. symbiosis.. is just as important.. and that the ‘fittest’ may be the one that most helps another to survive‘
oi.. manufactured symbiosis?.. as cover for and perpetuation of order/control?.. i don’t know.. not feeling it
on cellular evolution.. and the eukaryotic cells being clearly formed.. and the prokaryotes lacking nuclei.. less specialized .. the evolutionary predecessors of eukaryotic.. in fact they are the only life forms that could have survived and flourished in the early earth’s atmosphere.. w its mere traces of free oxygen.. existing phyla of multicellular aerobic life forms thus had their origins in symbiotic process that integrated a variety of micro organisms into what can reasonably be called a *colonial organism.. the eukaryotic cell.. mutualism, not predation, seems to have been the guiding principle for the evolution of the highly compels aerobic life forms that are **common today
sounds like taleb antifragile law.. and how not yet scrambled is that.. rather than when we *engineer ‘stability’ et all into us..in **sea world.. ie: supposed to’s of school/work; bush immune system law; et al
this ‘effect hypothesis’ advance by elizabeth vrba, suggests that evolution tends to be an immanent striving rather than the product of external selective forces.. mutations appear more like intentional mosaics than small, scratch like changes in the structure and function of life forms..
these notions (of suffering and cruelty) cannot be applied to the removal of an organism that can no longer function on a level that renders its life tolerable.. it is sheer distortion to associate all pain w suffering, all predation w cruelty.. to suffer the anguish of hunger, psychic injury, insecurity, neglect, loneliness, and death in warfare, as well as of prolonged trauma and terminal illness, cannot be equated w the often brief pain associate d w predation and the unknowing fact of death.. the spasms of nature are rarely as cruel as the highly organized and systematic affliction that human society visits upon healthy, vital beings, animal as well as human.. affliction that only the cunning of the hominid mind can contrive..
we do end of life so poorly
to vitiate (spoil/impair quality/efficiency of) community, to arrest the spontaneity that lies at the core of a self organizing reality toward ever greater complexity and rationality to abridge freedom .. these actions would cut across the grain of nature. . mutualism, self org, freedom, and subjectivity cohered by social ecology’s principles of unity in diversity, spontaneity, and non hierarchical relationships, are thus ends in themselves.. aside from the ecological responsibilities they confer on our species as the self reflexive voice of nature, they literally define us.. like the concept of ‘being’ these principles of social ecology require no explanation, merely verification.. they are the elements of an ethical ontology, not rules of a game that can be changed to suit one’s personal needs
civilization has bequeathed us a vision of otherness as polarization/defiance.. and of organic inwardness as a perpetual war fro self id.. this vision threatens to utterly subvert the eco legitimation of humanity and the reality of society as a potentially rational dimension of the world around us.. trapped by the false perception of a nature that stands in perpetual opposition to our humanity, we have redefined humanity itself to mean strife as a condition for pacification, control as a condition for consciousness , domination as condition for freedom, and opposition as a condition for reconciliation..
in view of a larger eco vision of nature.. we can formulate an ethics of complementarity that is nourished by variety rather than one that guards individual inwardness from a threatening, invasive otherness.. indeed, the inwardness of life can be seen as an expression of equilib, not as mere resistance to entropy and the terminus of all activity.. entropy itself can be seen as one feature in a larger cosmic metabolism.. finally.. selfhood can be viewed as the result of integration, community, support, and sharing *w/o any loss of individual id and personal spontaneity..
*civilization lives in hatred of the world around it and in grim hatred of itself.. its gutted cities, wasted lands, poisoned air/water and mean spirited greed constitute a daily indictment of its odious immorality.. a world so demeaned may well be beyond redemption ..**at least w/in the terms of its own institutional and ethical framework..