I, Anarchist

objet_petit_a · April 16, 2010, 3:23pm

I, Anarchist

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
~Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I think that, ultimately, man, in all it’s existence, is a product of it’s will. Thoughts occur as a function of what man wills. Schopenhauer reasons that the ‘Wille zum Leben’ is the very core of reality and of things-in-itself b[/b]. I personally differ from his idea in the sense that I do not think that ‘will’ is that thing-in-itself, but rather one of the first levels of subjectification from ‘consciousness’. For the matter at hand such separations are of no consequence though, so I will not elaborate on the matter. What is important is the similarity between myself and Schopenhauer on that process in man that Schopenhauer named ‘Wille zum Leben’.

The idea that thoughts are a product of the will is a product of my belief that man does have a free will in the sense that will does not only occur as attached to a certain thought. Like Schopenhauer I am of the firm belief that will an sich exists separate of particular desires. because of that a freedom of the will exists to me. If I would have had the thought that will only exists as attached to a thought (as desire and such), the form of freedom I am convinced exists could not be. Then it would be a causal process. My thought is, like Schopenhauer, that will is not causal. Therefore a choice exists in what one wills.

My idea that freedom of will exists leads to the thought that mankind’s natural state is free. One might even conclude that this goes for every being. Although freedom usually is a given every being may be restrained in a fysical or mental way. A cage can be made of bars, flowers or perhaps desires. Is it not so that Christians will to go to the church because if they do not they would be sinning for instance? In that example will is applicated to ‘sunday church’ and thus produces a causal reaction: go there. Such unseen bonds are everywhere. One puts on a nice parfume to charm a girl, pray before dinner for blessings of the Lord and don’t drive through a red light to avoid a ticket. One need only convince an individual of a certain ‘good’ and people shall will to act accordingly.

From this perspective the state has a very dubious role in any society. The state being the lawgiving party in society makes the state also the controlling party in society. That, in fact, is the only point to laws: to make sure a populace is inclined to behave in a certain way. This is the one thing all states have in common: the goal to set rules to make the populace behave in a certain manner b[/b].
Political theories are an expression of ethical theories. The fact that certain social structures develop between people shows the ethical foundations of political thought. This structure is named social contract theories in ethics. These theories try to describe the reasons for the ‘coming to be’ of such social structures and from there motivations for certain expressions of such structures can be formulated.
Depending on the philosopher the term ‘social contract theory b[/b]’ is used for slightly different things. I use the term for the state in which a social structure is freely present as opposed to the fixed b[/b] position of a structure manipulated by laws (thus forming a state).

Most people consider states by a comparison of different states and their political organizations. A comparison might be between Plato’s Athens and Hitler’s Germany. Western society understands Plato’s Athens as the first democracy in the world and has since used it as a ‘blueprint’ to form a ‘free and open’ society. Hitler’s Germany is understood by western society as the most horrific example of totalitarianism. The difference between the two state forms is twofold. The first difference between the two is the amount of influence of the populace on the affairs of state (the ability to choose representatives). The second difference is the amount of impact the state has on the day to day business of the populace. Plato’s Athens had a relative large influence of the populace on the government, while the government had a relatively small influence on the day to day business of the populace, while Hitler’s Germany had the opposites thereof. In this way Plato’s Athens stayed closer to what I would call the social contract than Hitler’s Germany did. Hitler’s Germany is even called totalitarian because of the amount of impact of the state on the day to day business of the populace.
I would like to submit here that these differences only appear valid in a comparison of stateforms, while an investigation into states an sich reveals something else entirely. A totalitarian state is a state in which the government has a direct impact on the day tot day business of the populace. This occurs not when structuring ideas are created or promoted, but when such ideas are enforced. An open and free society is more or less an opposite of this because a state can be called ‘free’ when no forced obedience is present and a state can be called ‘open’ when all members of the populace can hope to have an influence on the ideas that structure society. The difference between an open and free society and a totalitarian state therefore are the same as the differences between a society having only a social contract and a society being manipulated by law. Allthough there are many variations and levels of control by the state the totalitarian aspect comes into play with the very existence of ‘the state’ because no law can exist or be enforced without it.
In that sense the state removes the absolute freedom of the individual and replaces it with a certain amount of repression, thus taking away from the possible expressions of the ‘wille zum leben’.

In the comparison between the flexible form of the social contract and the fixed form of the state with enforced laws has been examined. Besides the syntax another part of the examination should be the semantics. The fact that laws are enforced in states produces a certain ‘rulebase’ in its populace. The populace are given to understand that no matter the intention certain things are not allowed, no matter what. Therefore the systems in the populace changes. Both Lacan and Kant hold that systems are made up out of ‘objectified images’ and signals. Phase one, man objectifies in two cardinal numbers two collections he has counted; phase two, with these numbers he realizes the act of adding them up b[/b]. Hence the institution of a ‘rulebase’ leads to a totally different working in the minds of the populace. It has the effect of forcing an incorrect image (that of the law, instead of the workings in freedom) onto the minds of the populace and enforce its validity by enforcing the law. Thereby the populace is forced to treat an image (thought-object) as true while it is untrue. This is significant because in psychology a psychosis is judging a thought-object as true, while it is not equal to what it represents. In this way the populace is forced into this effect en masse and, to make matters worse, is forced to act on it, thus becoming a psychopath. This is called the psychopathology of society, allthough it had better been called the psychopathology of the state as far as I am concerned.

According to Freud’s architectonic description of the human mind (Es, Ich and Über-Ich) b[/b] the repression of the ‘Es’ by the ‘Über-Ich’ leads to the compromise of the ‘Ich’, or ego. The ‘Über-Ich’ is often explained as culturally determined by society. Freud’s model is therefore precisely relevant in this matter. It describes the coming to be of the ego by means of the repression of natural drives (Es) by the rulebase society (Über-Ich) gives its populace. This theory carries within itself the revolution of this repression by society. The point where the drives of an individual violently break (with) the chains of society. This violent liberation is in fact the revolution of the enslaved drives taking back control of the ego from societies repression.

I think the entire path from the formation of laws until the ultimate violent liberation is the very problem all societies struggle with. The psychopathology of the state creates psychoses in it’s citizens, leaving sanity only for those who are confident enough to trust their natural abilities of critical thought, leading to a person choosing to separate from the chains of the state because there is no free choice in its cultural influence. The critical individual thus chooses which cultural influences will manipulte the drives instead of following the dogma of the state. Freud once said: “Wo Es war, soll Ich werden”. To me that is the psycho-analytical equivalent of the individual using critical thought to be able to come to thoughts that correspond to that which they represent. The political equivalent is the embracing of the social contract an sich as is done in anarchism.

Notes
1) Arthur Schopenhauer - Ueber den Willen in der Natur
2) Rule Utalitairianism
3) Thomas Hobbes uses the term for the English monarchy in the sense of a natural development from the state of nature, while Rousseau uses it only to refer to the lawless state of interaction from which a state might develop. I follow Rousseau’s definition.
4) The double meaning was not an accident. It first refers to the stable nature of laws (unchanging), which is precisely the problem since it is no longer considered why somebody comes to a certain act, but just the act is judged. Secondly it refers to the deliberate determination of laws. It was the entire point for the laws to do just that.
5) Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, second edition, Introduction to Aesthetic, section IV, Immanuel Kant
6) Traumdeutung, Sigmund Freud

iturn001 · April 19, 2010, 4:13pm

I was just wondering. When you say will exists separate from any particular desire, are you saying that will exists without desire? Or will exists without the necessity of a capacity or mind capable of inferring will? To say will is independent of thought is somewhat to say that thinking is independent of thought; moreover, to say that all that is simply will be whether one wills it or not is different from saying all external factors mused over by willful minds will not be changed and are on the same path, as well as thought, regardless of thought itself- thought is determined and immutable/ “predestined.” It seems to me that you believe that people choose, but perpetuation by desire allows us to live in an illusion, thinking about moving forward, fabricating reason and purpose for life to facilitate survival while those who do not are, by natural selection, weeded out of existence. To say that humans are free simply because will exists outside of desire seems only like an assertion that people would choose without a desire which perpetuated the movement of thought. To that I would agree, but to use that to philosophize why one is, in fact, undetermined, and we live in genuine “choice” I believe might be somewhat of an arbitrary statement. I understand it is what you believe; moreover, if you could elaborate on what you mean by “free,” it may help me to understand what it is exactly you mean.

objet_petit_a · April 20, 2010, 9:42am

Actually, I am only using Schopenhauer because the thought is clear and easy to ‘grasp’. He seperates ‘will’ from ‘representation’ in the sense that our cognition forms images of that which exists in the sense of representation. That which exists he calls ‘will’. I am not 100% in agreement with him as I think I mentioned, but it serves the purpose. Anyway, we can distinguish between ‘desire’ (will) and the object of desire, hence leading to an investigation into why people come to certain conclusions (or ‘desires’). This in turn is the very foundation of psychoanalysis…and indoctrination…

Anyway, I am not sure if I answered your question. I would appreciate some more feedback, or a discussion on your remark (or my undoubtedly incomprehensible reply to it).

NOTE:
Seeing as this peeked your interest I would like to recommend some great literature:

Schopenhauer - Über den Willen in der Natur (On the Will in Nature)
Schopenhauer - Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation)
Both are easy to read an Schopenhauer is a good writer whose works keep readers interested and is good at explaining his thoughts (even though I personally don’t agree with him fullY, it is a read that leaves no one without having learned something).
Jacques Lacan - Ecrits (mostly this lecture: The language of the self.)
This one is a hard read, he doesn’t hold back on terms and almost never explains the basics. This leaves the reader with a lot of investigating while reading and when certain details cannot be found timely some portions of the work might remain misty. For me the hard part was mostly the psychological terminology and the referrals to Freud. I Took about 3 months to read 90 pages or so. However, Lacan has thought me many things.

Well, I’ll leave it at that for now.

iturn001 · July 3, 2010, 2:39am

thank you for those reading suggestions ; moreover, choice exists independent of one’s thought of it, sort of like the number system or other scientific works, right? What I’m thinking though is that, distinctly from numbers, colors, etc., choice is something that exists in the midst of science, which is determined by physics- although some, including Yale’s Shelley Kagen, professor on the philosophy of death, may disagree on a subatomic, quantum mechanical level. But that’s sorta a different story. So putting that idea aside, our free will seems to me like the energy inside of a toy parade monkey. If all we did was wind up the monkey and set up its parameters and external factors with which it would be moving, straight forward as we would know, does that mean it really had a choice? It really had the energy to move and to think it had a choice, but did it REALLY have an option? We may not act as a result of desire, but the things we think are determined by our biology and other external factors, aren’t they?

btw, I do not mean any harm or disrespect in saying this, but isn’t anarchy a paradox? I was thinking about it and it seems kinda like if one were to say there is no truth or should be no truth. What do you think of when you hear the word? What does it mean to you?

objet_petit_a · July 29, 2010, 11:09am

Hello iturn001,

I think you are not fully seeing what this is about. Perhaps I should ask you to clarify the idea Shelley Kagen is talking about so I can put things in perspective for you. The thing I think you are missing is the separation between the phenomenon and the noumenon. That is what quantum mechanics is all about. If you (or Shelley Kagen for that matter) think that quantum mechanics is about a constitutive representation of some working I would like to point out that it is impossible to have an image in the mind which is not a phenomenon. That is why it is always locked in logical space and time. That is why phenomenons are not equal to the noumenons. Since quantum mechanics is about the separation between the two such a model is a misunderstanding on its most fundamental level of quantum mechanics. Causality is a dead give away of such misunderstandings by the way. Anyway, anarchy is about the absence of such systems being pressed unto an individual (me?) so as to prevent psychosis to be pressed unto that individusl (me?).

I Suppose you cannot understand what I am saying above. The thing you really need to investigate is the separation between the phenomenon and the noumenon. I hope you will.

Azathoth · October 23, 2010, 9:00pm

Very well written - thank you.

Since you’ve posted it publicly I’m assuming you’ve taken whatever steps you intend to with regards to intellectual property and am saving a copy, if that suits you.

On the difference between a society based in the violent enforcement of statutory laws and one based in making adherence to contract (including the public contract and public trust) morally compulsory, I agree with you. Further, I believe that the former type can accurately be characterized as the “Civil Society” and the latter as the “Common Law Society.”

The U.S. is an interesting conflagration of the two - a Civil Society built upon a Common Law Society. English law, which is our heritage, is Common Law. Civil Law can be traced back through Ancient Roma and further.

Common law permits any configuration of social contract so long as the contractual obligations are honored and protects “Freedom” by prohibiting social configurations which would impede upon the fulfillment of duties (contractual obligations) of others.

Civil Society protects freedom by condescending to Grant to the people “Rights”, and then acting as tutelary trustee over those rights for the benefit of the people under the fiduciary duty (i.e. contractual obligation) that membership in Civil Society imposes. Civil Society further assumes a tutelary position over individuals through its duty to “Keep The Peace” (through Peacekeepers, Justices of The Peace, etc).

Civil Society is inherently permitted to exist by the Common Law Society because its policies and doctrines are based on adherence to fiduciary duty and fulfillment of contractual obligation, therefore common law cannot intercede against the agencies of civil society so long as they adhere to this stricture, but the duties imposed by the social contract underlying Civil Society would seem to run counter to the ultimate purpose of the Common Law Society because Civil Society appoints itself as tutelary to all organisms on earth (and beyond) - the cosmopolitan proposition. This would seem contrary to the purposes of a Common Law Society because Common Law is fundamentally permissive, encouraging men and women to engage in whatever forms of society they see fit (something that a natural selectionist should especially appreciate), while The Civil Society demands adherence to a single, increasingly centralized and increasingly hierarchical mode of thought and behavior. Since silence equals consent and most individuals are ignorant of the contract Civil Society presents to them or how to decline consent even were they comprehending, they become in the eyes of the law de facto members of Civil Society, bound by its strictures, wards of its states in perpetuity, and Common Law still registers no objection, being governed entirely by the way of stare decisis (precedent or “case law”) and a demand that contractual duties be honored and thereby lacking any power by which to intervene without becoming, itself, perverted.

The irony of The Civil Society is that, as you so eloquently express, it is self-destructive. By so firmly constraining social evolution it makes inevitable either uprisings on the individual and collective levels or a complete & permanent subjugation of the individual will to the collective will of the ultimate seat of Civil Authority (e.g. The Roman Emperor, The Pope, The King, etc.) and an end to constructive competition between social forms. The aforementioned natural selectionist might shrug at this, but a social contract configuration highly adapted to the subversion and assimilation of Common Law societies is not necessarily the configuration most highly adapted to long term survival pressures exerted by the external, non-human world (i.e. Nature, micro-organisms, animals, the Earth itself, the cycle of ages, and every other trial of Chronos). No, in my opinion Civil Society most closely resembles a parasite or predator that is rapidly extinguishing its own host/prey and holds no long term solution to the issue of the Earth being a closed system with limited “markets” in which to foster “growth.”

We living today under the guardianship of the U.S. Civil Authority are watching the final stages of the slow erosion of our pure freedom to contract with each other as we see fit and behave accordingly under Common Law in the face of an ancient and inexorable social contract “memeplex” that seems perfectly adapted to infect Common Law Society and bring it under the power of the hierarchical Civil Authority, which seems inevitably to gather all societies to itself and to bindingly consolidate all law in a single seat of totalitarian power. I can’t think of examples of civil societies which did not move towards totalitarianism in direct proportion to their consolidation of power with the Civil Authority rather than in the practices and liberties of Common Law and self-rule by the people in their own courts and tribunals.

That is my purely personal assessment based on my own beliefs, experiences and studies, and citing sources would be an epic project which I have no interest in undertaking presently.

objet_petit_a · October 24, 2010, 9:11am

Hi Azathoth, thank you for your comment. I am glad you liked it. I have saved the original in the sense of intellectual property, but I hardly think it is worthy of a real mention. It lacks many proper references, it is too quick to get to certain point, leaving proper causes for thoughts to the readers and I could be much more eloquent. It might serve in the future as a part of a funny book of little scribbles perhaps though.

NOTE: I would be honored if you could use it for some work of genius of your own.

Anyway, what I like about your comment is that it goes towards the question of how our earth should be run, which is what I ask myself regularly. You state that economically there is a finitude of growth, while our economy wants to grow. I have considered this myself and recognized that the formula’s we use seem to point to a economy that can only thrive when it grows. But if this would be the case, not stable economy could ever exist, while in my thoughts the hunter/gatherer society seems as stable as any circle of life. Therefore the model must be flawed I concluded. Where is the model flawed? -At the point of profit.

What is profit? That portion of income that is not initially present in a balance sheet of a company. So, if I fish herring for instance and make €100,- while my expenses are €60,-, my profits are €40,-, thus balancing the balance. That is accepted economy, but the very cause for the plunder of the earth. Because what really happens on a planet inc. scale is that the stock of herring decreased by €40,-, thus balancing the balance. However, if we do not look at the decrease of our stock, we will image that we can plunder the earth and make good profit indefinitely, leading to the illusion that the only thriving economy is an economy with a net ‘profit’. However, in a normal company any board of directors not paying attention to the decrease in stock would be fired for malpractice!

So, how do we solve this? By creating institutions that watch the planet’s stock and act to make sure the stock replenishes itself.

Hmm…totally of topic…

Azathoth · October 24, 2010, 5:52pm

Off topic? I don’t really think so. I think the topic naturally leads there and discussion of economy of goods is fundamental to any discussion of lordship (i.e. any -archy; mon-archy, olig-archy, patri-archy, aut-archy or any other form of archony or rulership over the people) or, in the alternative, any system not characterized by few beings lords over many in any arrangement (i.e. an-archy ).

I don’t believe that profit is not a universal principle of industry, and neither is individual (private) ownership of property. Profit, at its heart, is wealth garnered from a cheat. Acquire resources without observe proper ecological safeguards to reduce overhead, underpay labor to reduce expense, overcharge consumers to increase revenue, and - viola! C’est profit.

Interestingly, I believe that there are legal grounds - even within the Civil Society (i.e. countries under Napoleonic Code, Sharia States, etc.) to have the heads of corporate entities as well as agencies for public administration & public service (governmental entities) dismissed from their posts by force of law if one can clearly prove/establish that the individuals in question have failed to protect the public trust. Which in itself is a difficult proposition which would require extensive investigation, case-building, and trials. I believe that at the basis of any individual’s right to govern either a private corporation or agency of public administration is the presumption that they are pro-actively exercising due diligence to protect the public interest or at least not to harm it.

The problem with this is, of course, that often the courts themselves are not unbiased when very large, very profitable businesses are in question. Also, that since we are all aware that someone on the street in the wrong neighborhood might shoot you in the face for the $20 in your wallet, it’s to be expected that if enough money is at stake the malfeasant individuals being targeted for removal from positions of power & profit would likely retaliate both lawfully and unlawfully. When enough wealth/power is at stake, even the president takes a bullet from time to time. Which makes any grass-roots movement to hold business & government leaders accountable for their despoilment of the public trust & ruination of the common wealth dangerous, difficult and in no way a sure success.

Azathoth · October 24, 2010, 7:26pm

In an attempt to distinguish societies that enforce statues (laws dictated by a legislature or supreme leader) from those in which no central authority dictates law to the rest of the people but rather the practices of the people over time determine the law through practice itself, an understanding of the distinction between Civil Society and Common Society is vital. Also, an understanding of Common Society is vital to any philosophical anarchist in terms of creating a solution set for anarchy. Anarchy can exist stably under a common law system without inherently meaning chaos and lawlessness but keeping to its pure meaning of no rulership/lordship of some over others. This is because in ANY civil law society laws are written/dictated by a supreme authority in either the form of an individual or political body.

"Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system inspired by Roman law, the primary feature of which is that laws are written into a collection, codified, and not (as in common law) determined by judges.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_ … _system%29
The distinction may still not be obvious, but important to bear in mind is that under Common Law, not only is law determined by the decisions of judges, it is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the merits of each case, not metted out from a template or rubber-stamped. Additionally, unlike a Civil Law society, judges in a Common Law society do not need the permission of any supreme central authority to obtain judicial authority. Any man or woman can be a judge under common law so long as all members of the court agree to their being qualified to judge or arbitrate. This places law and “enforcement” of law truly in the hands of the people and creates a substantial check against the legal powers of agencies effecting to govern the activities of their fellow men and women.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[b]http://www.svpvril.com/comcivlaw.html[/b]
"It was the civil law of imperial Rome which gradually undermined the Teutonic institutions on the continent of Europe. The fundamental text of that law, as we have seen, is, “the will of the prince has the force of law.” This gradually became the fundamental doctrine of the governments of continental Europe; and the juridical principles and the modes of procedure made it efficient in practice. The palatial courts, to which appeals lay from all inferior tribunals, enabled the prince to control the whole administration of justice. The prerogative of the crown could not, therefore, be resisted by the courts, as it has been at important junctures by the courts of England. It is the law, and the law only, which can successfully resist the encroachments of despotism. In the absence of defined laws, and an independent judiciary to enforce them, the only check upon arbitrary power is popular insurrection; and the people, after they have overthrown by force one despotism, are liable, by their excesses, as all history shows, to succumb to another…

(I don’t agree entirely with the article at that link, in fact I’ve read just less than half of it, but it contains some decent discussion of the difference between Common Law and Civil Law and their histories and interactions.)

objet_petit_a · October 25, 2010, 7:49am

@First Message:

Archo means to rule or to govern, being the head of a body (the last according to David Hume). It may mean to fall under an elder, predecessor or head. So, archia means leader, ruler, head and an-archia means the lack of a ruler, lack of rule (interpreted as unruliness, disobedience) or in a political sense an-archy. This comes from the Greek-Dutch dictionary, written by Dr. S. Muller jzn (highteacher of the gem university of Amsterdam), printed by Wolters 1919 (1e print).
I do not agree with your capitalistic instincts (=learned behavior). It is as if we are indoctrinated into believing that the universe would end before capitalism would end. Nothing is less true. A lordship might be determined by someone being more honorable and another therefore swearing allegiance to him or something.

Details can be important.

There are rules that dictate certain behavior yes, but not to the extent that would be wise. Are you familiar with the work of John Rawls by the way?
Concerning the general thought: A balance sheet is about just that: balance. Everybody knows it. When large profits are made everybody knows somebody is being cheated in some way. The problem is to make sure you have all the factors accounted for in your balance. This can only be done on a universal scale. A star-system scale would be less accurate and leave out certain factors. Similarly a solar-system scale would be less accurate and leave out certain factors. So, a balance sheet of a company simply cannot account for certain factors. One might be the factor which actually claims certain things as propert of that company for instance, or that the wages paid are in accordance to their labor and needs.

@Secon Message:
I don’t think the articles are really neatly taken down. Let me put it this way:
At this point I should make clear that a form of ‘law’ can exist in any form of social contract. First there is a form of natural law present before any kind of consensus between man has been established. Second we may understand the expression of the social contract, even being an anarchy, as a form of rules. Third, we should consider that laws may exist in an anarchy regardless of the lack of organized enforcement. Fourth, the now omnipresent form of law as enforced by a state. This is neatly described in the work ‘Law in Anarchism’, published in 1980 by the Erasmus University of Rotterdam.

This leads us to the thought that ‘common law’ might indeed not be the same as ‘civil law’. Neither being natural law.
Common Law = The part of English Law based on rules developed by the royal courts during the first three centuries after the Norman conquest (1066), as a system applicable to the whole country, as opposed to natural law. (…)(Oxford Dictionary of Law 7th edition pressed in 2009, p108 +109)
Civil Law =

The law of any particular state, now usually called municipal law.
Roman Law.
A Legal System based on Roman Law, as distinct from the English system of common law.
Private law, as opposed to public law, military law and ecclesiastical law.
(Oxford Dictionary of Law 7th edition pressed in 2009, p96)
Natural Law = The permanent underlying basis of all law. The Philosophers of ancient Greece, where the idea of natural law originated, considered that there was a kind of perfect justice given to man by nature and that man’s laws should conform to this as closely as possible. Theories of natural law have been an important part of jurisprudence throughout legal history. Natural law is distinguished from positive law, which is the body of law imposed by the state. Natural law is both anterior and superior to positive law.
(Oxford Dictionary of Law 7th edition pressed in 2009, p363)

So, this:

Is not true.

But do we want it to be true or not?