?

Log in

No account? Create an account

anarkospiritual

Intro

« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 10th, 2006 | 03:35 pm
posted by: xfotisx in anarkospiritual

Hi everyone, great community! I personally don't have a 'curriculum vitae' in anarchism or anything like that... I understand anarcho-spirituality as the state when one forgets about names, culture, color, race, ideals..Then what's left is something that doesn't know about 'good' or 'bad', Proudhon, Bakunin or Tolstoy and his 'christian anarchism'.

If I had to place myself somewhere, I'd say it's more of a green anarchism, social ecology stand. I think there is a lot of un-learning to do before we can qualify ourselves as spiritual beings.Thanks for reading and looking forward to some interesting conversations. Keep the community active!

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {21}

peacelovehappy

(no subject)

from: peacelovehappy
date: Nov. 10th, 2006 07:34 pm (UTC)
Link

hmm, i don't think i would say it's forgetting about all of those things (after all if one forgets all the past problems we're bound to repeat them)
it's interesting to here other people's thoughts though.

Reply | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Nov. 10th, 2006 07:49 pm (UTC)
Link

I see where you're coming from. But doesn't my name, culture, color etc define who I am? It differentiates me, from you. Differentiation brings division and divisions breed hate. The rest is human history. If we can do away with all these 'values' then we see that we are just human beings, and we can work to rebuilt.

I'm convinced there is a different way of understanding the world than the one we're tought.

Reply | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 10th, 2006 10:29 pm (UTC)
Link

Your hostility to "difference" actually manifests itself to me as spiritually "evil" (corrosive, violent, anti-me, anti-world, anti-life). Consider that differentiation creates beauty. I always mistrust what I see as a very Judeo-Christian tendency in leftists to want to force everything into a crushing monolithic oneness. The freedom and liberation you folks always talk about sounds like Hell to me, a nightmare! If liberation means self-definition through leveling, disintegration and diffusion into "sameness", fuck that! Not for me!

Never take away from me the name I have built, and the culture I am rediscovering. It fills me with the power and possibility of life.

Ideas to me sound so nightmarish because they are built a lack of respect for the world. Do you really believe that the earth has never housed people who were spiritual, empowered and fulfilled THROUGH their culture? It makes me think you must believe the whole world to be just like the Starbucks down the street, or your highschool, and thus "oppressive", and worthy of destruction and deconstruction.

You talk about "human history", like it's just this long progression of nightmares with nothing good in it. This is also Christian, the belief that the world is "Hell" and absent of "God", and one day, eternity will begin. What the fuck is history to ME? How does it explain my life, my history? Am I not part of history?

There is much more to the world than is meeting your eye.

Reply | Parent | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 10th, 2006 10:59 pm (UTC)
Link

*Ideas like yours

Reply | Parent | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 07:08 pm (UTC)
Link

I'm not hostile at all against difference. All I'm saying is it doesn't exist. Maybe you are the one influenced by Christian rhetoric, and all that 'you are special' stuff. Well you're not.

But you have a name and a culture, so you have to protect them*. Why waste time on such a boring task!

*not you especially, but people in general.




Reply | Parent | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 13th, 2006 11:50 am (UTC)
Link

I'm not sure what 'you are special' stuff you're referring to, or how it relates to anything I've said at all.

"Why waste time on such a boring task!" Obviously, I think it's important and am not at all bored by it.






Reply | Parent | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Nov. 14th, 2006 11:51 am (UTC)
Link

The 'you are special' refers to a false sense of self which prides itself on being different. This praise of 'uniqueness' is a western concept that doesn't exist in other places of the world like India and China. Much of it is based on the way Christian rhetoric has addressed the person throughout the centuries, making one feel special because one has a God, a faith, a culture, a name and so on. But the word 'God' isn't god at all... it's all in the western way of understanding the world based on societally constructed symbols and images. I say that if one can consiously let go of these images (even only for a while), it is revolution against the whole foundation, it is real anarchy.

This relates to all of what you've said. Don't forget that what defines you also confines you, so be careful of how harmful the space in which your name and culture allow you to move in can really be. It might be a big cage but it's still a cage. The fact that you need to protect it shows how fragile it is. How can you perceive the 'more than meets the eye' with societally constructed means anyway?

Reply | Parent | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 14th, 2006 12:39 pm (UTC)
Link

There are a number of false assumptions involved here.

Firstly, that I'm concerned with uniqueness. I am not concerned with "uniqueness", or how "special I am", or pride, or anything of the such. Your assumption that this is an underlying component of my thought displays the two dimensional, self-oriented (in that it assumes that all humans are motivated by primarily self-referencing things) quality of your critique. The reason why I'm championing "difference" is because I'm interested in complexity, beauty, and sophistication. Possibility. Nature! These things are allowed when we recognize variation. When we insist upon our oneness (what you are actually describing sounds more like nothingness), these qualities evaporate. It is like the difference between the complex order of the woodlands, and the monolithic simplicity of a parking structure. How very liberating.

It must also be said that I am not interested in Difference to the absolute exclusion of Sameness. I value an interplay between the universal and particular. I see your ideology as an attempt to through psychological, linguistic and semiotic violence annihilate the particular in favor of the universal. Not that you're consciously attempting to do this, but that your ideas are an extension of a process of annihilation which has been occuring for several hundreds of years. There is a wealth of detail and delicacy which you are simply not aware of, and your unawareness multiplied by the number of folks who share your mindset represents a potent social force for steamrolling all that I love.

As much as you talk about how "the West" (itself a constraining intangible) is a set of abstract symbols which oppress and limit our reality, you yourself seem to be falling back on some "sacred cows" of your own. You talk about breaking cages. Tell me, what value does this freedom you speak of have? Why is freedom "good"? Why is it good to never be limited? What is freedom? What is limitation? How am I being harmed by my confinement? Definition transcends formlessness. Is formlessness something I should particularly desire? Why?

"Don't forget that what defines you also confines you..." Of course not. But don't forget that without limitations, nothing can exist as itself. I take it you're straightedge. Does not your conscious attempt at developing a set of limitations in fact strengthen and enrich you? Someone could easily look at that and say something inane like, "Oh, you're just oppressing yourself. You just don't have an open mind."

In the end, ranting about freedom and imprisonment to a person whose experience and values are different than yours is... stupid and insulting. The dualism between freedom and confinement cannot just blindly be applied to everything. Unless you're a Christian or a Marxist and you have an interest in dominating the world.

"The fact that you need to protect it shows how fragile it is." Actually, the reason why I need to protect it is not because it's fragile in relation to me, but because increasingly, ideas like yours are the dominant ones, and ideas like mine are the exception. And, as you yourself must concede, ideas are more than capable of shaping the physical world. I believe that my ideas are capable of fostering societies that safeguard the ecosystem and are composed of fully realized human beings, whereas I see that your idea is actually a subversive agent of Our Society, (being industrial-capitalist society) which is being used to destroy identities that might constitute a threat to it's global aims. And you are unwittingly like a virus, containing that possibility.

Incidentally, Indian and Chinese ideology certainly do account for "uniqueness" (difference). This is why India has a caste system. Again, there is more than is meeting your eye.

And as for perceiving the "more than meets the eye" with societally constructed means... Let me ask you, do you really believe that this concept you have of "letting go of these images... against the whole foundation" isn't itself a societally constructed means? Why are social constructs bad? Because they're "fake"? Is language all fake? Are your dreams fake? Are all the books you've read and the music you've loved also fake?



Reply | Parent | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Nov. 16th, 2006 01:02 am (UTC)
Link

Having no conceptual boundaries, or at least having the will to recognize and fight them, can give you tremendous energy to think and see clearly. It comes into everything from interpersonal relationships to self-knowledge to the so called quest for god. Detail, delicacy, possibility, nature... it's all in there, in the state I'm talking about which you've labeled down as 'sameness'. This state is the pure human state, all-embracing and stripped from the innumerable facets that man has always been inventing and re-inventing in the hunt for psychological security.

Freedom is not a state of mind and can't be captured. It is nevertheless essential if one wants to look at the truth. Not the Truth, just the truth in everything that comes by him/her. There might be two sides of the coin but only one truth and no path. And how can I reach that truth if I have an anchorage which dictates my scope and view?

My dreams are not fake at all. I'm talking about cleaning the blackboard with intelligence, not whiping everything out.

p.s. Concerning Indian ideology, I said 'the praise of uniqueness' doesn't exist, but you compared it to the social racism of the caste system.
p.s.2 I like this part: 'I value the interplay between the universal and the particular'...

Reply | Parent | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 16th, 2006 11:04 am (UTC)
Link

I think I have a better understanding of what you're describing now. Maybe. You must realize that in attempting to describe this condition you are trying to reach, you are relying on some of the things you also see fit to discard? A necessity, possibly, of communicating via the internet. But, possibily a representative of something else... Again, look at your language! "Pure", "truth"!

A part of me is suspicious of whether or not you have tapped into the condition you have described. If you have seen with clear eyes, than how is it you do not see what social organization and idea can BE? Do you believe that constructs of myth, of language, of craft, are nothing more than hindrances? Or is it just that you believe these things to be all equally compatible all the time?

For me, attempting to come closer to truth (difficult word!), has always been a process of elimination (which I casually refer to as nihilism), like the one you describe, but also of construction. Such is the nature of my "culture". "Nihilism" + Idealism.

In observing things with clarity, one sees organization. One sees nature. Do you not build from the organization you have seen?

There are a lot of things in my post you didn't really address, and what I'm really left with is the sense that you have explored little and simplified much. Nonetheless, thank you for your responses.

Reply | Parent | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 16th, 2006 11:31 am (UTC)
Link

Afterthought:

Can you describe some experiences you've had where you've enacted this process to your benefit?

Reply | Parent | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Nov. 20th, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
Link

If I give you any specific examples I will ruin the beauty of it. Like you said, ranting to people with different experiences is stupid and insulting. But it's not an imaginary state, like some people think they've seen God after fasting and chanting for hours or something. It's much more practical.

I am talking about living with intelligence. About using the things we talked about (culture, language etc) to my advantage without clinging to them. Because truth is I am remote from these things! If I do that then I am uninhibited and I can find room to breathe, learn, act. Then you can call me any name (good or bad) and it's okay because I don't have a concept you can threaten. Then I can really love someone, and not because they fit in a fucked up imaginary concept I have in my head. I can create, because I don't try to paint like Picasso but just want to create. And there are some sacred things too, that would be ridiculous to speak about over the Internet.

I know that every time I am leaving some things unanswered in your posts, but I try to stick to the most important things I want to say and get the message through. I don't want to make it self indulgent either and this is a public community after all. But if there is something else you ever want to talk about drop a line and I can give you my email.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: anonymous
date: Jul. 16th, 2007 06:07 am (UTC)
Link

"But doesn't my name, culture, color etc define who I am? It differentiates me, from you."

A lot of things differentiate you from him, including basic natural science. Should we eliminate the physics of particle bonding or the biological processes that constitute you or him as beings, respectively? Should you be merged with him to one mental-physical entity, or cease to operate on your own independent imperatives, instead eating and shitting and fucking at intervals coordinated by the local council of which I'm sure you'd be an equal member?

You say differentiation brings division, which breeds hatred. I think this says more about you than about the nature of identity, cultural or religious affiliation, biological uniqueness or anything else. Why do you hate what's different from you, and seek to eliminate it? I know that's put in a confrontational way, but that really is the meaning behind what you expressed.

Reply | Parent | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Jul. 20th, 2007 05:31 am (UTC)
Link

How can you know what is the meaning behind what I was trying to express?

In all sincerity, I do not hate what is 'different' from me. Because the consciousness of mankind is common everywhere, like there is emotional hurt and the need for security, but also joy and what we call love. If you think about all this you'll see that human consiousness is common for everyone, no matter how different the external layers are.

So instead of looking within (where we're all the same), we take tremendous pride in the roles we're called to play upon. Real anarchy is to strip away the external (or better yet, just let it be) and become free.

Reply | Parent | Thread

hédonisme libertaire

(no subject)

from: mmoneurere
date: Nov. 11th, 2006 01:04 am (UTC)
Link

I understand anarcho-spirituality as the state when one forgets about names, culture, color, race, ideals..

The trouble with "forgetting" race, gender, culture, etc. is that it makes these things -- or at least the systems of oppression which use them as justification -- impossible to dismantle. Ignoring race isn't an anti-racist position; it's the liberal, racist-enabling thing to do. More important is to recognize race, to recognize gender, to recognize class, while at the same time recognizing their contingency and staying aware of how many destructive patterns they have authorized -- and how ultimately, they are illusory.

I like to keep my spirituality focused on more awareness, not less -- and that means going for the "big picture" without losing track of the "little things" and illusions which still have severe effects on people's lives.

Reply | Thread

xIt Never Rainsx

(no subject)

from: xfotisx
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 07:14 pm (UTC)
Link

Of course, 'recognize' - you are right...

Reply | Parent | Thread

za

(no subject)

from: super_weasel
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 07:49 pm (UTC)
Link

I like the way you put this.

Reply | Parent | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 11th, 2006 01:32 am (UTC)
Link

Does the quality of something being "illusory" also make it inherently negative? Part of what many of these social constructs which you see as inhibiting can DO for us, is give structure to our experiences. The institutionalized racism we see in our world is not the direct result of "race". Institutionalized sexism is not the result of "gender". Also, race and gender are not at all "like" class, because class refers to an actual, static and demonstrable economic role in society, and is not something thought to be "inherent", or biological.

I would further content whether race and gender are EXCLUSIVELY social constructs, but it would be disingenuous for me to say I know. Rather, I suspect. The debate on these subjects is inconclusive.

Reply | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 11th, 2006 01:33 am (UTC)
Link

This is actually meant to be a reply to the comment directly above.

Reply | Parent | Thread

za

(no subject)

from: super_weasel
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 08:04 pm (UTC)
Link

Part of what many of these social constructs which you see as inhibiting can DO for us, is give structure to our experiences.

I think there's a lot to this.

It reminds me of something Foucault I believe said about the construct "homosexual," which has only existed in the modern sense for about 100 years – it may be in some sense an artificial construction, but it does facilitate people coming together as a group and fighting for their rights. (Whereas this is harder if instead of "gays" we have scattered individuals who happen to have attractions for people of the same gender).

Reply | Parent | Thread

hédonisme libertaire

(no subject)

from: mmoneurere
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 09:58 pm (UTC)
Link

Does the quality of something being "illusory" also make it inherently negative?

It's not that anything illusory is inherently negative -- hell, I'm pretty fond of theatre, which is all about illusion, apparent or not -- but it changes the way we might deal with things which are negative. If race exists only in perceptions of and ideology regarding what are marked as collections of individual traits, and if gender is the naturalization of social constructions of agency and reproduction (along with over-generalizations from averages, in most modern cases), then our approach to the dismantling of the negative aspects of race and gender (and not all models of gender are necessarily negative; gender rigidity and subordination, along with race subordination, really only emerge with early state societies) will be different than if we see them as inherent or necessary (or natural).

I'd go so far as to say this is true for class, also -- yes, individual access to the means of action and self-determination varies, but the means of enforcing this differentiation (class) is a social practice rather than anything inherent to an individual of any given class. While there will be shared intra-class experiences, I don't see how there can be any essential content to membership in a given class (or race, or gender, or nationality) in any way beyond recognition of these shared experiences.

Reply | Parent | Thread