Throughout the history of human sensations there have been 2 familial archetypes, those who plan and those who play. This runs from individuals through collectives. Playing of course preceded planning. It was the primordial human condition, the naked neotenous ape in a state of perpetual play and intercourse. Planning came much later, and what inevitably followed was prohibition and scarcity.
Indeed the etymological root definition of economy tells you all you need to know about it, Household planning. Is there anyway to redeem such a deformity of development? Is the general economy as proposed by Battaile and others the redemptive direction to go in?
Wednesday 19 November 2014
Saturday 24 May 2014
To the Anarch then
It is time for noble archetypical paths not taken. Indeed since 1845 this has been the case. The marriage of anarchy in approximation to(for or against) political economy(anarchism) has been an abysmal failure. Consider this to be my divorce from the naked but still political still positional anarchist.
Where does the Anarch come into all this? It is postulated from 3 figures to my mind. Max Stirner, Renzo Novatore and Ernst Junger. The latter is the man who really coined the term. While me and him have some differences I am interested in an intellectual fusion of his concept with the Negational force of Novatore. One is active the other passive, both are necessary.
Stirner is the key postulate in all of this. The political-economic anarchists have been a step back in comparison for too long now. They always have and always will represent the naked heterogeneous entities of organizational modernity and civilization. Their actions are always inevitably clothed by the enclosing homogenizers of formal ideology. Revolutions really are Chinese wardrobes, out with the old in with the new. I used to opine the hard work of anarchists being undone by the emergent power players. I now accept this as inevitably interwoven within the structure of political power and revolution itself. The anarchists at their best represent relaxed human experimentation and not political intensification as is always the story of revolutions past, present and future. The Anarch is a RENAISSANCE expression and not a revolutionary position. His violence if engaged is singular, specific and intimate as opposed to positionally and algorithmically structured.
So here's to expression over position, spirit over matter, mythology over modernity.
Here's to the Anarch
Where does the Anarch come into all this? It is postulated from 3 figures to my mind. Max Stirner, Renzo Novatore and Ernst Junger. The latter is the man who really coined the term. While me and him have some differences I am interested in an intellectual fusion of his concept with the Negational force of Novatore. One is active the other passive, both are necessary.
Stirner is the key postulate in all of this. The political-economic anarchists have been a step back in comparison for too long now. They always have and always will represent the naked heterogeneous entities of organizational modernity and civilization. Their actions are always inevitably clothed by the enclosing homogenizers of formal ideology. Revolutions really are Chinese wardrobes, out with the old in with the new. I used to opine the hard work of anarchists being undone by the emergent power players. I now accept this as inevitably interwoven within the structure of political power and revolution itself. The anarchists at their best represent relaxed human experimentation and not political intensification as is always the story of revolutions past, present and future. The Anarch is a RENAISSANCE expression and not a revolutionary position. His violence if engaged is singular, specific and intimate as opposed to positionally and algorithmically structured.
So here's to expression over position, spirit over matter, mythology over modernity.
Here's to the Anarch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)