Thesis on the Apolitical

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
SirEinzige
Thesis on the Apolitical

I

The apolitical is an expression not a subject. There is no 'the' in regards to what corporeal body expresses explicit apoliticality

II

The rejection of politics by the apolitical is not a renunciation based rejection such as that of radical ultra/post-left anti-politics, apoliticality begins with a rejection that is grounded in corporeal egoist preferences. It is not configured on initiating an attack on a given political structure.

III

The active modes of apolitical orientation are a series of de and non-initiations away from integrated political structures of belief and behavior. Returning to Stirner's conception of owness, disowness of, or non association with, political orientation becomes an active process. If there is violence involved in this disassociation from politics it can only be defensive violence against the would be enforcers of a political totality.

IV

Being apolitical is not an elective position or a proposed solution. For the political there are the ISSUES, for the anti-political the issues are not THE issue, for the apolitical THE issue is not MY issue. Issues themselves are subsumed away by preferential egoist individuation. Politicality of any kind cannot exist without some type of third person referential issue. The apolitical reject this, there is only MY issue.

V

Political orientation is rooted in abstract belief and behavior, thus any type of mode against politics must begin and end on the terrain of belief and behavior. There is no physical 'system' to attack or defend against, no machine to rage against. It is not about attacking abstract systems but dealing with people invested in belief based abstractions that must be enforced in everyday life in order to function. Think of a political believer the way a non religious person thinks of a religious person, someone to avoid or deal with directly. Ultimately apolitical energy should be aimed at undermining political belief.

VI

The apolitical is corporeal in nature not constituted. As already mentioned the apolitical is an expression not a subject. This means that notions of struggle that are abstract and not rooted in any kind of corporeal immediacy are rendered null and void. Abstract constituted struggle mediated by elective positions and proposed solutions are not of any direct concern to the apolitical.

VII

Belief itself, which is always third person, is the source of political mediation. A unique self-referential mind does not believe, it perceives, thinks and acts in an unmediated manner. Reality is always entertained and not taken as a constituted given, orientation with others is always provisional and based on affinity. Political body structures cannot survive on such loose thinking non believing minds.

VIII

In the end first person interest and third person issue become one. The political can only exist as the constituted, elective, proposed third person. Your interests and your issues are yours alone and that is not to be represented by anyone else nor should you try to elect and propose onto others.

IX

The political world is built and maintained on the separation of will and representation. The apolitical brings an end to that line of separation. The apolitical will to power is corporeal power alone not the power of sublimated alien status or constituted enfranchisement driven struggle.

X

Let the world be panarchic then. There will be those who remain within the structure of politics and belief systems(BS). For the apolitical let anarchy, lawlessness, selfhood and will reign within shared relations of affinity and union.

http://sireinzige.blogspot.ca/2017/09/thesis-on-apolitical.html

emile
the 'apolitical' seems equivalent to nietzsche's 'perspectivism'

perspectivism implies that there are no 'objective truths'.

politics rallies people around 'objective truths'. since there are none, politics does not make any sense.

likewise for 'common belief systems. they make no sense.

meta-belief systems make sense such as the meta-belief that 'common beliefs' make no sense.

an individual's experience is his own unique experience and experience is the sole source of truth.

a personal truth is not an 'objective truth'. the basics are nicely presented by Alexis Papazoglou in the following article; The post-truth era of Trump is just what Nietzsche predicted

what it is, is a rejection of 'dualism' and an embrace of 'nondualism'. this is, in effect, an upgrading of mode of understanding from newtonian thinking to einsteinian thinking [relativity].

the key error in Western society (the globally dominant controlling society) lies in this unfulfilled assumption, that reason based debate could be used to suss out the objective truth;

A core tenet of Enlightenment thought was that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion, a common ground that can function as the arbiter of different perspectives. Of course people disagree, but, the idea goes, through reason and argument they can come to see the truth. Nietzsche's philosophy, however, claims such ideals are philosophical illusions, wishful thinking, or at worst a covert way of imposing one's own view on everyone else under the pretense of rationality and truth.
.
For Nietzsche, each perspective on the world will have certain things it assumes are non-negotiable – "facts" or "truths" if you like. Pointing to them won't have much of an effect in changing the opinion of someone who occupies a different perspective"

today's populism is bringing together people who have debated the issues and feel that they have come up with the truth.

we all agree certain things are objectively true: .... but according to perspectivism, we agree on those things not because these propositions are "objectively true," but by virtue of sharing the same perspective.

what could be more transparently (meta-) true that that!

every political faction is convinced that they are 'on to the truth' when all that have done is aligned themselves on the basis of their common perspectives' (common prejudices).

“What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries’ old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth.” — Nietzsche, ‘On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense’

.

SirEinzige
Perspectivism(among other things) is what I'm going for

It would be nice if people ditched things like truth and reality literalism but I think the post-truth epoch will be the proliferation of old enlightenment leviathan habits of political orientation. You see with the the whole Kekistan thing(there's more to come). There will be few minds within the one percent territory who figure out a more authenticated way of living during this unraveling period of time.
Apolitical orientation will be part of this.

Le Way (not verified)
What interests me is

What interests me is retaining the apolitical consciousness from infancy into adulthood. With enough critical thinking and some lateral orientation one can still be apolitical within the gut of leviathan, reacting with the consumed community within, averting the digestion of their energies and directing them outwards towards a fulfilling and more organic inter-subjective existence. This can grow spontaneously without any organization.

SirEinzige
Neotonous Knowledge baby

That's what I would call what you and I are getting at. There needs to be a kind of dynamic juvenile knowledge that knows how to ward off the overgrowth of knowledge into organized mediated bodies and apparatuses. Such a society has never been and probably never will be but perhaps there can be pockets where the apolitical and the anarchic express themselves.

The modern ist/ism subjects of political anarchy are not exactly providing an example. The bridge as Nietzsche would say.

emile
anarchist kids are not taught judgement and retribution.

tolstoy's christian anarchist views do a good job of showing what gets in the way of 'anarchism'. [the brainwashed ethic of judgement and retribution].

if you look beyond the 'christian' aspect of his The Kingdom of God is Within You , he shows very well how the dysfunctional authoritarian structure gets built.

in tolstoy's christian paradigm terms, the trouble starts because followers of Christ don't follow Jesus order to 'resist no evil'.

but if you read his great analysis of police, soldiers, judges, tribunals, property owners, etc. in this account, you can see that circular hierarchies develop from 'making judgements' which is less extreme than 'resist no evil'

but indigenous anarchism is also associated with 'making no judgements of people, whether or not people qualify actions as good or evil. e.g. the peacemaker myth of the iroquois and the indigenous aboriginal warrior ethic of being committed to peace-making.

indigenous restorative justice does not concern itself with judging a person evil or good, but orients to transforming community and involved party relations so as to restore, cultivate and sustain relational balance and harmony.

tolstoy came to anarchism by figuring out that the whole vicious cycle of russian and euro-american hierarchical society kicks off from 'judging'. in his case, he takes this back to Jesus' order to 'resist no evil', ... but we can just look at the judging part of it, since that is common to indigenous anarchy.

the police and the military kill and injure peasants who rebel against monopoly landowners because the court decides that the peasants are in the wrong; i.e. there is a 'judgement' against the peasants.

at this point, tolstoy is saying 'the problem is in using evil against evil' which jesus said not to do.

but what tolstoy is also talking about is the circular process which the participants don't feel good about (e.g. the police don't like to shoot and torture the peasants) but do it because the judge decided the peasants were in the wrong, the court ordered the police in, and the whole thing is full of things that don't make sense but everybody participates anyhow. this circle seems to be the problem since it 'manufactures injustice' 'in the name of justice' the circle engenders the state structure.

the circle is broken in tolstoy's case, by following christ's rule of 'resist no evil'. that's why tolstoy rejected the clergy, and the state and got his anarchist views.

the circle is broken in the indigenous anarchist case by restorative justice. this is where parties to a conflict, and the community, which believes that 'it takes a whole community to brew up trouble', work together to restore balance and harmony. there never is a 'judgement'

i can't see christian anarchism of the tolstoy variety working, but his analysis that shows up the dysfunctional circle is very good.

children and animals and native children are not born with an ethic of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. it is a very 'rational' thing. but western culture gets it into their kids at a very early age; i.e. 'don't do that or you are going to get a spanking'. it's what western justice is all about; judgement and retribution.

what tolstoy is implying is that 'the state structures stand or fall on the basis of the cultural practice of judgement and retribution'.. .if you back off judgement and retribution, you get anarchy.

emile
science and the public: 'climate change is the cause of damage'

tolstoy's point is that claims by rich landlords that; 'peasants are causing a lot of property damage' are bullshit. the youths of the community in the police and military should not be called to 'resist this evil' with their own evil. the evil of the peasants is just a semantic construct like 'climate change is causing a lot of property damage', a claim which is all over the media these days, ... and universities are setting up groups to calculate the 'damage from climate change'.

science believes in spooks. it makes spooks out of everything. all you have to do to define a spook is to take a bunch of measurements. by continually updating your measurement packet you keep the spook alive and can speak of the packet as if it were a 'thing-in-itself'. e.g. Katrina, Harvey, Irma, 'climate' and etc.. the logical error is that one must presuppose there is a thing there that one is measuring the properties of. this unjustified a priori assumption sets up the logical error of petitio principi (circular reasoning). this is a general problem that underpins 'dualism'.
.
How much damage did hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico coastal region do, before there were local communities and reporters and scientists there to measure it. if the damage is rising, does that mean that the hurricanes are getting worse, or maybe that more humans are building where the hurricanes have always come. Hurricanes are a valuable and welcomed resource for windsurfers in Gulf Coast cities. Did the Nile floods do a lot of damage to the ancients living on its banks, or was it the source of Nile valley civilization. Are there any 'objective truths' or are there only personal-value-laden 'perspectives'?

As a matter of fact, even the indigenous peoples living in flood or hurricane prone lands did not think in the dualist terms of 'climate versus man' so that man could allege that 'the untamed forces of nature' were 'damaging' the 'improvements to the land' that man has made. egyptians were happy to have the floods which renewed the sediments that supported the crops and the community.

That notion of 'climate change causing damage' comes from Western religious and scientific dualism which supposes that man is an independent thing-in-himself that is separate from and above nature and has the power to control and improve on nature. that is Western man's 'perspective'.

“God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man, … to subdue the earth; i.e., improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this commandment of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him” – John Locke, 1690

Locke's perspective continues to be the intellectual underpinning of 'property ownership'. .

in indigenous anarchism and in modern physics, the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum. subject and object are only one. humans, like ants, are inhabitants that are changing the habitat at the same time as the habitat is changing them, as in Mach's principle (inhabitant-habitat nonduality). as nietzsche pointed out 'good' and 'evil' are personal 'perspectives'. there are no objective truths.

Meanwhile, there is a major 'values' judgement in the perspective that 'damage' is being done. APs might consider the removal of a modern concrete jungle 'restorative'.

the man who constructs a house in the forest can't do so without destroying some forest, or would we say that the house is an improvement to the land, as on our property tax notices? maybe what is happening, instead of construction and destruction, is something 'beyond good/constructive and evil/destructive', something 'relational', called 'transformation'.

the increasingly common expression "climate change is causing a lot of damage" would seem to be an Western culture, anthropocentric perspective.

how about if we all settle in a fertile valley and some rich and powerful bullies push everybody off the most fertile and beautiful expanses and fence the whole thing off. if the peasants ignore the fences and continue their natural activities of fishing and hunting and planting and harvesting, could we say that 'peasants are causing a lot of property damage'?

Tolstoy is calling bullshit on that sort of judgement. resist no evil means that all police and military and courts and tribunals have to go. no-one should make a judgement against the peasants and no soldiers should ever use their 'evil' to resist the peasants who have been judged 'evil'. if you follow this through, there should be no state, no laws and no courts and no judgements and no police and no military charged with using evil to fight evil. [restorative justice uses none of those]

climate is just a word for a packet of measurements. climate-caused damage is a spook-based anthropocentric perspective and certainly not an 'objective truth' (there are none).

Le Way (not verified)
Thought that was an Austin

Thought that was an Austin Power's quote at first glimpse, hah, but yes, these pockets exist continuously, sporadically and spontaneously in any autonomous zone. As Austin would say, put the grrr back into growing more TAZs, baby,,,,,:)

Anonymous (not verified)
Here we go now...

Oye, lowly leftard proles! The Anarch has produced his edicts. Let them be printed and spread in our NA gay saunas all over NA!

Anonymous (not verified)
tl;dr anarchy is when I

tl;dr anarchy is when I pretend everybody could magically be forced to think like me and obviously this is anarchy because I equate my weird theories with that word.

Also, age of consent laws are bullshit but don't ask me why I randomly brought that up.

SirEinzige
Anarchy in the relational sense is no organizatin or mediation

Put simply, nothing me specific about it. Also ALL laws are bullshit.

Anonymous (not verified)
You spend most of your time

You spend most of your time here splashing around in your own poop and thinking it's some revelation to everyone else, same as Emile.

Of course all laws are bullshit... We're anarchists.

SirEinzige
It's not meant to be revelatory

I'm simply expressing old thought forms in new ways.

Anonymous (not verified)
Those are your pretensions,

Those are your pretensions, yeah. Looks different from over here though!

Le Way (not verified)
Moronic anon confuses

Moronic anon confuses age of consent with age of cognitive relational awareness duhhh!

Anonymous (not verified)
Nope, just trolling ziggy, no

Nope, just trolling ziggy, no confusion here ;)

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
r
u
E
A
1
X
7
Enter the code without spaces.