seeing current society spanarchicly while adding on to panarchist thought!

This was posted on anarchism.net’s forum and I wanted to share it here in case, for whatever reason, this post doesn’t survive there… Let’s see if the html i used there is good here (i.e. color text anyone?!)

Was reading Adam K’s contributions to panarchist thinking (i take it, a subset of anarchist thought?) in the same thread as the below post, and had some ideas i thought i might add, as well as spring a few angles that i think panarchy is missing.

Adam shares:
“1. Changing People’s Views
I assume that if some people succeed in opting out of current political constraints, others won’t like that, and may well try to stop it.” Then goes on to give an example with the soviets.

I didn’t get that. Adam, are you talking about today’s political constraints, or something under panarchy?

[b]In spanarchy, rebels are encouraged (i.e. DISSENT WELCOME!). [color=#f66]And then they are given ample time to articulate and illustrate their positions–all while the techniques that coercers have used since the beginning of “civilization” are systematically demystified.[/color][/b] [i][b]So, you have a prime time TV show where crucial arts practitioners actually aid the rebel in articulating themselves via radically creative theatre. “Commercials” then come on which take certain statements “by the horns”. [/b][/i]This might all be pre-recorded, or their might be some programs, such as where the rebels PERSIST in feeling under-defended, where some sort of LIVE show that INCLUDES ALL audience members’ input in creative ways, is aired. Perhaps even as a SERIES.

Think about THAT ONE. Instead of “soaps” like “Days of Our Lives”, you might have something where persistent rebels, in groups or as singles (etcetera) “art themselves” in such a way as to interest further thought!

You take a step outside of all the values of current prime time t.v. spectacle and propaganda interests, and you can play with this in much-enjoyed abandon!

2. Good that you’re saying that panarchy need not be interpreted as a demand or ideal, but i don’t get how this is so (i take it you’re trying to steer around the post-left anarchist critique of ideology?). If someone who currently controls a territory doesn’t immediately relinquish control, they still have to at some point, right?

Spanarchicly, this would be done by [i]crucial artists[/i] [b][color=#f9f]whom have been able to reach the heart of such a controller,[/color][/b] and move such controllers to see the value of sharing, while their input would, depending upon the level of their natural authority (as opposed to coercive dictation), [i]help lead[/i] in the vision of the communities involved. (And possibly including the input of those not directly involved, too!)

No hierarchy here, once you get beyond the martial structure! Albeit, i think i would have to write up a story about such *crucial arts* in action before many would grasp this angle, yes?

Further on #2:
The idea that people would carry their “political rights” with them through other territories…hmmmm….[b][color=#6f9]something to think through, perhaps in story form.

Hm, what if a few of us here took on one or two “places” in such a story? And then “acted it out” here? Would any of you give yourselves permission?!?[/color][/b]

#3.1 An idea i have to expand upon the idea of letting (but who gets to let them? Incormal community consensus?) some have certain privileges (i.e. your sample of ambulance drivers able to exceed speed ‘limits’). So i thought of, for the grumblers from the “masses” something:

A live TV/radio/internet show invites those who want to drive fast to something [b]like (germany’s) Autobahn.[/b] There would likely be preliminary levels to go through in which to “qualify” (and save beratement from mothers who’ve lost their teenagers in wrecks), such as virtual races at first. And then a “trial” in heavily-padded go-carts (heh). And so on until they got a chance to:

A. Be consensed into the Autobahn Clan (a territory where fast drivers live)

B. Be encouraged to imagine (via something like Dissent University?) and create THEIR OWN angle on such a clan.

And the bottom line would be that, while they obtain their desires, they also GIVE SOMETHING BACK.

To conclude, if we can allow ourselves to move beyond the trapped thinking that’s been planted in us, we could have A LOT OF FUN with all of this. AND inspire MANY who are currently struggling within ways of doing things that they erroneously believe is “all” that is supposedly “possible”!

:wave:

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “seeing current society spanarchicly while adding on to panarchist thought!”

  1. ethicalartservice Says:

    by Joe Kelley, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 (posted on http://www.anarchism.net, here:
    http://www.anarchism.net/forum/index.php?id=34130

    ++++++++++++
    Having the liberty to choose governments, i figure, would also be the liberty to choose non-governments, i.e. completely escaping the structure as narrated by eurocentric values and assumptions?
    ++++++++++++

    Spanarchist,

    I am jumping in right here because that question above is a basic language problem that has a very simple solution.

    How is it that a person (or many people) can think and act in an ungovernable way? Every physical manifestation of mass will govern every other physical manifestation of mass as these particles of matter interact. A choice to choose non-governments is a governing thought and a governing act.

    Governing is thinking and acting.

    Why has “government” been used as a word to describe something that someone may or may not choose to do?

    A random thing is governed by all those things that are not random. No random thing can occur unless the random thing avoids governed things.

    Do you actually mean that someone has a choice to think and act randomly?

    Bear with me here, I think I’ve found a root problem concerning your thinking that can help you think more accurately.

    I’ll take your sentence and take out “government” and place in place of “government” a definition instead of a word so as to remove ambiguity and to remove “randomness” or misunderstanding.

    Having the liberty to choose not to be subjected to injury by criminals (legal or otherwise) is an opportunity and a physical reality, a choice, a fact, an ability to find a way to avoid being injured by someone (someone with a badge or someone without a badge), to avoid being governed by someone who injures you, the one at liberty, in that process of governing you, is possible in liberty.

    When you are not at liberty to choose not to be subjected to unwelcome and unappreciated acts perpetrated by anyone where you are injured by those acts, then liberty does not exist, in that case. You, without the mental and physical ability to avoid being subjected to injury by criminals (legal or otherwise), are not at liberty – as far as you are concerned – liberty does not exist.

    When you employ the word “government” so as to identify a specific concern, something you don’t like, then why choose such a poor word, one that is so general, so ambiguous, as to mean nothing and everything all at once?

    What exactly is it that you are specifically concerned about, concerned enough to choose words to label this concern of yours?

    If you, as I have guessed, are concerned about people who may injure you, against your will, and your concern encompasses a concern about other people who may be innocent of any wrongdoing who are also being injured or will be injured by this thing that you are concerned about; then why use “government” as the label that points to this thing that goes around threatening and injuring innocent people for some reason?

    I’ll read on to see if your concern is similar to my concern.

    ++++++++
    Do you think i’m being “too” anything, here?
    ++++++++

    It sounds to me like you are seeking a method by which you and anyone else can govern their own actions in a manner that does not injure any innocent people in the process, and perhaps you are seeking a powerful method of governing your own actions that also avoid being injured by other people who may want to injure you for some ambiguous reason.

    I could be wrong. I am thinking that you are doing this self-governing thing now and you are looking toward a possible thing that can answer your question.

    +++++++
    *crucial arts*
    +++++++

    I think you may have a coincidental association with the thoughts (and actions) of Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn.

    Here:

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html

    Here:

    +++++++++++
    But who will co-ordinate these value scales, and how? Who will create for mankind one system of interpretation, valid for good and evil deeds, for the unbearable and the bearable, as they are differentiated today? Who will make clear to mankind what is really heavy and intolerable and what only grazes the skin locally? Who will direct the anger to that which is most terrible and not to that which is nearer? Who might succeed in transferring such an understanding beyond the limits of his own human experience? Who might succeed in impressing upon a bigoted, stubborn human creature the distant joy and grief of others, an understanding of dimensions and deceptions which he himself has never experienced? Propaganda, constraint, scientific proof – all are useless. But fortunately there does exist such a means in our world! That means is art.
    +++++++++++

    I would like to contiue this discussion later, I have to get to work at this time, consider reading the whole link by Alexander and then tell me if I am coincidentally on the same track as you and Al?

  2. ethicalartservice Says:

    My response:

    I’m wondering about your use of language as well. I’m wondering how in some ways your phrase “Governing is thinking and acting” sounds all great and such, and how this thinking can reach so broadly….but when it comes right down to it, when things truly count, the habit of a panarchist would be to still get stuck in hierarchy, to still get stuck in the alleged tried and true OVER the alleged nonsensical or otherwise ways of doing things which ain’t even out of diapers, so to speak.

    Because, unless there’s a checking device built smack dab into the middle of a method or theory, I think you know as well as I that the tendency of groanups the civilized world over is to basically ignore all ways of seeing and thinking which don’t “fit into” their assumptions of belief and habit.

    An illustrating example is as simple as a groanup telling a youngster that their idea is “fantastical” and something for “fairy tails”; with that, I suspect you are starting to figure out what i’m getting at.

    Anyway, I’ll read the rest of what you say before i jump to any other possible conclusions!
    :wave:

    }Do you actually mean that someone has a choice to think and act randomly?
    ===
    You are putting words into my mouth, I think. And i think also that you are making things more complicated than i intended. Or perhaps not. Maybe what I need to do is stew over your thoughts for awhile and come back later!
    :ok:

    }criminals
    ==
    That concept alone, I see as very very political and very very misleading. In spanarchy, one begins to see such labled persons as doing something in interesting contexts, for one. And two, while their actions/consequences may be perpetuating stupidity and alienation/war, the gist of their “criminality” has a hidden gift, I see. For they have the courage, simply, to flout, to move from the alleged consensus, and go with their intuition.

    I’m speaking in general terms. Generally, human beings in today’s world, are living in the context of being colonized beings. Reduced from who we truly are. And spanarchy sees that and the theory opens up the “playing field” to a place where ALL get to participate meaningfully.

    Where dissent is ENCOURAGED. Where dissent is encouraged to become, to bloom, into its perfectly sane portions!

    Am I talking past you, yet? (Argh, if i am!)
    Or, are you talking past me? (ah?)
    Perhaps we are both talking past each other!?

    A good process we may well need!

    Does panarchy not only allow for such processes, but also encourage them?

    On injuring others in the process
    ==
    For me this boils down to consensual. If people whom are adequately informed, consense to be possibly injured or injure another, then a boxing match (of words, physicality, etc.) may commence. Or perhaps something even more mutually inspiring.

    I see that injury itself can be a trap if context and other inputs cannot be seen.

    This starts to make sense to me:
    “…perhaps you are seeking a powerful method of governing your own actions that also avoid being injured by other people who may want to injure you for some ambiguous reason.”
    ==
    There is truth to that. And my angle on this is seeing that if we do to others as we would want the others to do to us (a phrase i find valuable despite problems with dogmatic interpretations of religion), we’ll find sanity and truly meaningful relations with each other.

    If i can interest a critical mass in such a way of doing things, perhaps i can at least lay a foundation for a future generation that wouldn’t have to go through what i may have to go through.

    So i applaud your intuition here!
    :ok:

    You are certainly getting warmer with your feelings, again! Quoting Solzhenitsyn, tho, she/he speaks of directing anger. Well, i don’t see as much value in that as directing our intelligence, our radically empathizing intelligence (which doesn’t want to be trampled nor crushed, nor made into “collateral damage”, yet ALSO sees the value, at the same time, of reaching peoples’ commonalities, of peoples’ HEARTS of excellence and radical beautifulness!

    The end of her/his quote, touches my heart. A bit. Yes, art. And much more than we have been trained to think of as art. Because we are all arting all the time! Everything is art. How shall we art our best? Who shall be seen as arting? Who shall be seen as “best”? Who shall get to decide?

    i figure panarchy would decide “best” via the “tried and true” traditions of a continuing eurocentrism, when it truly counted. And silenced would be the voices, whether articulate, semi-articulated, or not-articulated, which tried (in their arting ways) to gift truths “unheard of”.

    Where does panarchy make certain that such as this would not happen?

    i figure you won’t mind if i post this on my spanarchy blog, right?
    :wave: ;-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: