TOTW: THE TOWER

The Tower

to stand against
as if to lean on
the existent
as a crutch

opposition
a leaning tower
propped up by
forced perspective

transient
beyond repair
all that is solid
melts into air

illusions
go up in smoke
a fire cast by
a drawn athame

* * *

Mundane exegesis fodder for profane hecklers:

The title alludes to the The Tower (tarot card), which symbolizes some of the themes present in the poem.

1. The alleged pitfall of total negation, of being against everything and for nothing, of nihilistic contrarianism, said to be countered by prefiguration by utopians who build their own towers. How often, and in which ways is the existent bolstered by those who oppose it, by the very act of opposing it? How often is contrarianism a crutch for anarchists who lack a clear set of values or ethics? How is anarchism sometimes based on premises it opposes?

2. The clichéd image of a tourist “holding up” the tower of Pisa. Forced perspective is the name of this optical illusion, but it also implies ideology. Do anarchists really materially oppose anything, or is it merely an illusion, posing for the camera? How are they consciously crafting this illusion, or how are they deluded? If the tower were to crumble, would deluded anarchists caught off-guard stumble and fall, or would it merely be the illusion of opposition which dissolves? How do anarchists react when the rug is pulled out from under them, when the things they oppose are no longer there, or are transformed beyond recognition? Is an anarchist merely defined in opposition to authority, hierarchy, and government? Do anarchists vanish in a state of anarchy? Can anarchism survive epistemological breaks and societal collapse?

3. The title of the book All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity by Marshall Berman, taken from Samuel Moore's 1888 translation of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Berman uses Goethe's Faust as a literary interpretation of the self-destructive nature of Modernity, ideas which are echoed elsewhere in Zygmunt Bauman's work. How is liquid hyper-modernity, in continuous change, challenged by an anarchism which often suffers from anachronisms? Do both technocrats and anarchists share a very modern inflated sense of agency, a Faustian hubris of changing the world for the better?

4. A postmodern reading of what it can mean to be “at daggers drawn with the existent”. While the original sense of the phrase declares open hostility, this reinterpretation points to a dispelling of illusions, or the casting of one’s own. The shifting and reorienting of one’s perspective, beliefs, will, and intention that is central to Chaos magic. For some Wiccan traditions, an athame is a ceremonial dagger which may represent the element of fire and is not intended for stabbing.

Listen to the TOTW discussion here!

There are 21 Comments

to the extent that anarchy is a rejection of the existent, then by definition it requires the state, capitalism, religion, etc.

to the extent that anarchy is a positive, then it has always existed, as people will always want (among many contradictory things), autonomy, responsibility, agency, clarity, connection.

but the idea/assumption that any of us ever feel or act on a single thing or desire or fear or whatever... hasn't been my experience. i think our motivations are always complicated and conflicted, and frequently i think that's the only thing that keeps us opaque to our enemies. so i can't regret it, even when it means i do and think stupid, self-defeating shit.

"to the extent that anarchy is a rejection of the existent"

Wait... who ever said that? Your mom?

The Existent still seems to me like yet another spook... just a sassier, philosophically-charged one.

I prefer "society", as while being also a spook, here is one everyone can relate to.

it’s a rejection of the existent if it’s the utopian kind, utopia means “no place”, it seems true for those whose affect towards what exists is dissatisfaction and a desire for “a new world” which doesn’t and can’t exist

Any world can exist. But no world does. Not even the current "world" does, it is only an accumulation of things, representations...

But my question was about how can you equate anarchy with rejecting the "Existent". This sounds rather arbirtrary just like those equating anarchy to communism.

to the extent that what exists is transient, anarchists’ focus will shift and adapt to changing reality, as one does, but this could be pointed to as the logical fallacy of ‘moving goalposts’ (akin to communists’ “that wasn’t really communism”) or ‘conventionalist stratagem‘ as a ‘gotcha’ lobbied by those intolerant of anarchic ways of being.

anarchism is a living breathing subculture and hodgepodge of ideas, not a single specific internally coherent and consistent philosophical system or a single truth claim.

the generally held view in semantics is that, for communication to take place, meanings must be shared, presuming a communality of experience between communicators. recent advances in epistemology suggest that such communality is neither proven, nor credible. alternative concepts of the mechanisms by which communication can take place have been developed and the properties of the relationships between such indications as can be observed and the distinctions they indicate have been explored. an ontogenetic theory of meaning, need not require the communality of experience to nevertheless explain the possibility of communication.

lots of anarchists love should-ing, but they could be anything from ethical realists, utilitarianists, moral relativists, or conventionalists. anarchy has no single exclusive ethical or philosophical doctrine.

anarchism is neither a testable hypothesis, nor is it an unfalsifiable pseudoscientific ideological sham like Marxism (the “immortal science” of historical materialism) and psychoanalysis (like Freud & Lacan).

The contemporary anarchist milieu suffers a lot more from a generalized post-modern opportunism than from "anachronism". The dialogues which express the need to adapt an "anachronistic", "old fashioned" anarchism to modern circumstances is more often than not the dialogue of a trojan horse or ideological vampire serving the entryist interests of the contemporary social-democratic and liberal-reformist trends which arise from the recuperation factories of the bourgeois academic institutions.
Yes, the theory and practice of the anti-state revolutionary milieu needs to adapt to contemporary conditions. But the Tower of historical proletarian struggle is bound to crack and fall when it becomes top-heavy with superfluous additions that serve only to undermine the foundations .

Manichean opposition to anything, be it the state, the ruling class, industry, academia, capitalism or civilization, is rigid ideological thinking that fails to take into account the nuances of the contingent and contextual.

You're likely a blockheaded fool who'll never really grow a personal consciousness. "Pomo anarchists" aren't telling you to adapt your anarchronistic views; we've been telling you to *come to terms* with the contemporary world, and build an anarchism out of it. Which means: (while history is important) quit the 100-years-ago nostalgia opiates in the first place, as the situation of folks in the early 20th century was incredibly different to ours these days.

Like they weren't dominated by corporate-controlled technology, especially the internet, as we are... this would be a good starting point.

'Nother poster here yes they weren't dominated by corporate tech but they sure were dominated by gods, morality and nation.
Homo Sapiens are a herd species and throughout eons of time have chosen a ruling minority,,,,unfortunately.
Revolution is an opiate for the intelligentia

Yeah de-evolution inverts the symbol of "Tower" and its inherent hierarchical materialist growth.

How often, and in which ways is the existent bolstered by those who oppose it, by the very act of opposing it?

This happens when opposition is symbolic and, while not removing what it opposes, always serves as justification for surveillance and repression against it. It also happens when it affirms underlying logic it opposes and only advocate for more extreme or idealistic version of what it opposes, forming part of a feedback loop which improves and refines the existent.

How often is contrarianism a crutch for anarchists who lack a clear set of values or ethics? How is anarchism sometimes based on premises it opposes?

Contrarianism is fun for many, whatever. Anarchism is sometimes based on humanism, on notions of good government under the guise of self-management, on productivism, workerism, on thepolicing of behaviors, affects, and aesthetics

Do anarchists really materially oppose anything, or is it merely an illusion, posing for the camera?

Both, it need not be effective (which it usually isn't at a large scale, but often at a small scale) to be real, and illusions can be effective.

How are they consciously crafting this illusion, or how are they deluded?

The illusion is crafted by the issuing of inflated communiques, by the writing of revisionist and imputationist histories, by posturing on social media. Some fall for it, others don't. Those who make it are usually in the know. Those who lie to themselves to seem convincing might become deluded or those who do it for clout.

If the tower were to crumble, would deluded anarchists caught off-guard stumble and fall, or would it merely be the illusion of opposition which dissolves? How do anarchists react when the rug is pulled out from under them, when the things they oppose are no longer there, or are transformed beyond recognition? Is an anarchist merely defined in opposition to authority, hierarchy, and government? Do anarchists vanish in a state of anarchy? Can anarchism survive epistemological breaks and societal collapse?

What's at the base of what anarchists oppose is the ugly aspects of human nature, and therefore will not disappear any time soon. Society, domination, coercion, many other common place behaviors that go beyond the big institutions that sometimes are the focus and even those won't disappear soon either. Some anarchists are goal oriented and their aim is a generalized state or scenario. These might declare their job done once their criteria are met, which might be ridiculously low, like taking ownership of a piece of land or squatted building, or organizing the workplace, or toppling a nation-state's government. I think anarchism is mired in humanism, modernism and materialism and could not overcome this epistemology as an ideology or academic theory, but individuals can.

How is liquid hyper-modernity, in continuous change, challenged by an anarchism which often suffers from anachronisms? Do both technocrats and anarchists share a very modern inflated sense of agency, a Faustian hubris of changing the world for the better?

Everything swirls and gets lost in the cosmic sauce, none can attribute causality to themselves. Indeterminacy leaves room for free will, but there are no rulers, no masters of reality, the cosmos is anarchic. Definitely some would be eager to carry out technological and infrastructural projects to rival the horrors of communist and capitalist mega-projects. At least anarchists are quarrelsome and unruly enough to ever get any of that done, keeps them honest. Those who are more technocratic and meritocratic (authority of the shoemaker, or any lame excuse to justify ad hoc authority, or even democratic, any form of government or rule) and want results, for things to work and run smoothly, to see real big change, collective power and shit, stop being anarchists or never were one to begin with.

"anarchists oppose is the ugly aspects of human nature, and therefore will not disappear any time soon"

great post, not disagreeing, which is weird for me!

but have you come across the anthropology take where that observation gets flipped around? basically, it's our close cousin species that "naturally" live in dominance hierarchies and a key aspect of human evolution was how we moved away from that... at least for awhile. Any thoughts on that?

"Tarot " is a spook brah, like destiny, every anarch knows this!

If everything is a spook, then the world is truly enchanted.

so the last resort of those who become disillusioned that the word cannot conform to their fantasies is escapism into wishful magical thinking?

How do anarchists react when the rug is pulled out from under them, when the things they oppose are no longer there, or are transformed beyond recognition?

This make me think of the changes capitalism has undergone, and institutions like churches, monarchies, and big corporations. How some gain power and others become vestigial. How can anarchist adapt to counter the cybernetic governance that has swallowed them up along with the whole world? We see some burning 5g antennas, others install mesh networks, all use the internet like normies and take its existed for granted. What if the internet ceased to exist and we still lived in a hyper technological world? What if governments are replaced by A.I. , there is universal basic income, and police is replaced by drones. In other words, things imagined long ago and seen set in pace since last century. What if A.I. is decentralized and used by all, and so are drones, and everyone is the police? What if this all happens quickly and then collapses shortly after natural disasters, pandemics, or mass shortages and scarcity? We’ll keep seeing how it plays out.

Today is the 850th birthday of the tower of Pisa.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/leaning-tower-of-pisa-850-years-birthday/...

“The Tower of Pisa was once feared on the brink of collapse as the lean that made it such a popular landmark threatened its very existence.

[…]

Now, experts say its future is “bright,” with satellite and terrestrial surveillance currently keeping tabs on even the slightest shift in its position, making the famous bell tower one of the most monitored monuments in the world.“

How structures which seemed on the verge of collapse since their inception are held in place with technology that was once beyond out wildest dreams.

Meanwhile, the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, freshly renovated after the 2019 fire, will reopen again in December 2024.

https://amp.dw.com/en/notre-dame-4-years-since-the-fire-restoration-make...

Add new comment