Qua?
ahLet’s get one thing straight, Millennials and Zoomers - sorry Millennial, you’re stuck with it, "Zoomers" you still have a chance to create your own image, instead of piggyback off of the Boomers and Gens X/Y - come up with something great.
Don’t try to recreate knowledge to fit your agenda. Don’t create theories just to fit what you think nature looks like, and this includes the socially-constructed languages we’re all using now. It’s not about pronunciation, it’s about grammar. It’s ask, not ax.
Take Castellano, and the lisp, or fricative, which evolved out of cultural phenomena in the 15th century rather than as a biological adaptation. During the 1400's and 1500’s in Europe, education was rampant as modern schools were being formed. What this did was generate a variety of perspectives and translations, thus leading to what are called “sibilant phonemes”. The examples would be “sip, zip, ship, strip” and the changing consonants. In Spain during the 1500’s, 8 emerged, which is more than used today. But part of the change also had to do with dental, alveolar, and post-alveolar use of the tongue, or tongue-on-teeth, tongue-on-roof, and tongue-toward-throat talking.
These same dynamics work with uneducated pronunciation. We wait for the last person, but we help the last person to move forward in their way. While we’re not discriminating or calling mispronunciation “ebonics”, American English has correct and incorrect usage based on etymological derivations and the evolution of phonemic transliteration or tranverbalization. I would make the same cases for slang, especially internet lexicon.
We’re academizing the dialogue, which is great. In fact, the thinkers and serious praxical leaders are finally coming out, with numbskulls finally letting their hearts lead their minds. The problem with this is, we have always been around. It’s like a generation ago when Silicon Valley blew up and Gates, Jobs, etc. were the new rulers as nerds usurped might for control of American economics and money, life had changed. All who worship Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, Sergei and Larry and so on, benefit from 2nd and 3rd wave nerds of techno-economy, and they’re not even part of what it means to be a true revolutionary at the academic level. They’re pure business, as Jobs and Gates were. No futurist foresight into what their mindless devices might do except to shift the balance of economic power to another hypnotizing methodology. Will it work to free us from subjugation? We’re fucking trying. Hoisting up the fucking ship while trying to mend the holes your captain shot into it while you were rowing. And he’s still inside! Walk the motherfucking plank.
Go back to the Brits invading the US, and the aftermath of immigrated flow allowing a few decent WHITE to bring revolution of a different sort in. Without considering demographics, Charles Sanders Peirce, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Emma Goldman, Gertrude Stein are some of the first names and people who come to mind, omitting political figures like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, and hundred of others. Yes, you read very few female names by convention, and very few non-English names on purpose.
Take Thomas Paine’s concept of deism, which basically states that with reason and experience, God can be known. It doesn’t have to be faith and revelation. This means through science. So let’s discuss language and race again, shall we? Or will we default to population consensus and argue only Homo-epistemological paradigms, and usually in the political and social frames? Sociopolitical means, ‘my group is loudest’. In America, winning that also means, my group has most money.
I appreciate my education as much as my life. Some days I want to kill myself. But I’m here through 40 years, and without the fire inside to keep my curiosities and explorations wandering, I wouldn’t have made it this far. In some respects, I was socially-pressured to study hard, to be a great student, to go to college and make “something” more of myself, often punished or scolded for failure. It began with parents, but as I aged, the negative criticism and eventual conscientious objection came from others. “You can do better” is one thing, but explaining why or why it wasn’t good enough for you, that’s another.
That’s what none of them could do. Most of you can’t do it even today. You don’t know how to explain where anything about yourself comes from in your life. You default to family, systemic racism, God, some other entity besides yourself, the conventions and consensus. My parents are bootstrappers -- pull them up yourself when shit gets worse. Yes, people should be there for you, but learn to take care of yourself from the start. That’s not a lesson every child gets, with or without parents. DIY. If we’re going to start having a conversation (again) about “rebuilding the foundations”, which means knocking down the building, digging out the old foundations, maybe redoing plumbing, laying a new foundation, and rebuilding on top of that - and we’re still arguing 244 years later about whether to knock down the building or not - it must begin with our individualism as strength.
That’s why I mentioned the transcendentalists and Peirce, the first semiotician. I’m not just throwing out some trendy or fringe theory about the mind, I’m suggesting to everyone the unifying means with which one can understand anything in mental, physical and emotional ways. Semiotics is meaning. As a modern human, everything has meaning to us. We mutually think and feel in the 21st century, and truly have a difficult time separating the two, as they shouldn’t be separated in the first place. When the mind-body duality was solved by the Enlightenment thinkers, they were changing with it, hence our sophisticated mergence of ability seen in artists, athletes and craftspeople today (and the inflated economics systems mutually merging with human rather than maintaining natural balance). Now, we’re merging thinking and feeling, understanding ourselves as soma, not bodies, and not directed from mind or action. What we feel is like a root grounded to earth and the electromagnetic spectrum we are a part of. It might be difficult to argue that we don’t have the entire spectrum as part of us, but the point is, in 2012 it was theorized by the ancients and the recent prophets the energy of the world would change. This was meant to be polar shifting of the earth, but in another frame, it was the population of human electromagnetic awareness creating shifts from physical mind (like moving from God-conscious to self-awareness) to mental mind (like transcendence of human form into what we think will be singularity) to emotional mind (or this pure empathy eventually guiding us back to an evolutionary reemergence of primal feelings for survival). What makes this movement so meaningful is that our evolutionary minds have reached apex of righteousness, with serious effort by some of us of course, so that our primal feelings will be anarchic and cooperative, mutual, unifying of diversity, reciprocal, passionate, and liberatory. This is where I’d default to ontological principles and TAZ, but I did compose a psychological analysis of Hakim Bey’s work exactly 10 years ago (LOL, WTF, I just noticed "06" of 2010. Hmm...):
Inner Liberation Through Anarchy: Psychophilosophy
06/2010
According to Hakim Bey in “TAZ”, there are seven “magical weapons” anarchy lacks in order to be as effective as “inner liberation”. They are as follows:
A sense of the meta-rational; ways to go into smooth, nomadic or chaotic thinking and perception;
An actual definition of self-realized or liberated consciousness and how to approach it;
A coherent archetypal view of epistemology using hermeneutic phenomenology to uncover meaning;
A teaching of sexuality and pleasure used for awareness and liberation;
An attitude of celebration; relieving psychic debt through generosity;
A language to communicate the first five steps of cognition: sense/perception, consciousness, knowledge/meaning, sexuality, happiness;
Silence.
A Sense of the Meta-Rational
Hakim Bey intentions a narrative with natural transitions, easing an understanding for the power and fluency of anarchy as a model and actuated lifestyle. The first quizzical conundrum of developing a sense of the meta-rational lies in what it means to sense forms of cognition, such as rationality or meta-rationality. To experience a paradigmatic shift of worldview from ration to meta-ration isn’t a simple task for most people, especially those whose mentalities are dominated by overt doing, reaction or physicality. There’s not only personal reason for the individual to overcome, but social pressure from affiliation disallowing “smooth”, “nomadic” and especially “chaotic” thinking.
Smooth thinking tends to result in a posture of natural balance, where one works with identity, relationships, roles and meta-physicality until ‘workless’ is awareness and comfort in the consistent state. The difficulty of smooth thinking leading to meta-rationality is the perception higher, cognitive states can’t be achieved in actualized circumstances. Rationality in the scholastic sense applies a level of technical and intellectual burden to everyday life, rather than the sophomoric anti-teknics insinuated within Bey’s meta-rationality - organically-calculating amounting to fluidly instinctive! Though meta-rationality tends toward primitive nomadism, smooth thinking as a contributing sense means accepting forces others naively support as common thought within a dilettante, philosophical framework. With ‘fateless’, conscious adaptation to life-as-known, smoothly-living-unknown is effortless.
As for nomadic thinking, Homo, and especially USAn, is far from the terrestrial vagabonding never quite adopted to by colonizers. To have a sense of meta-rationality through nomadism, it’s imperative for those unaccustomed to attend to Native American and indigenous ideologies and spirituality. The sheer generality and wander! of naturalism neurologically patterned in the native, cosmic systems are hardly attainable through postpartum learning. Yet, even the modern native has been coerced into rational representation, albeit a settled restraint to the Rez. There are neoteric forms of nomadism developing in small, mostly anarchic groups and communities; those who roam with what fits into a pack, on a bike or in a car, never to be stable for more than what’s acceptable to minute mind and brief body. They’re syndicated on mutuality, anarchy without adjectives, and co-operation morphing survival into living, caring and loving the needs and abilities of one another. But the struggle for arrogating such nomadic thinking lies in the denial of identity alteration and acceptance, with lifestyles rarely catering to the social individual, while the individualist is instead forced to flex compliance and brief conformity during a struggle to retain meta-rational motivation.
Chaotic thinking is the most deliberate and personally harmful, yet when a social shift of mass proportion meta-enlightens the horde, those prepared in chaos! are fully advantageous. To meta-rationalize in non-linearity produces constant opposition, for the majority of humans take chaos as either disorder or survive and thrive on artificial ordination. With such a civil expectation traversing from hierarchical plateaus, as well as the very intimates intending to love and care unconditionally for one another, there are deep-seated burdens which no chasmic cloud, tide, leaf or nervous system can fill. Chaotic thinking and eco-logic threaten love, allegiance, consideration and respect, teetering on pagan and Satanic eros- and thanatos-driven psychoanalytic drivel if not rudimentarily perceived in smooth and nomadic terms. A sacrosanct, introverted investment in chaos doesn’t lead to negative attitudes or uniquely human, destructive behaviors, but it will alienate the meta-rationality of transcendentalism, which tends to be at the root of anarchy in affluency. Chaos existed in a primal form before this, and to begin there is to end now.
Smooth, Nomadic and Chaotic Ways
What are the “ways” to enter smooth, nomadic and chaotic thinking? There’s only one way, though there are steps in the meantime, spaces and location for times to pass until attention is accrued by the thinking type itself.
Smooth thinking is the least adverse to common, human goals. Most people want simplicity, balance, ease and self-control. Synonymous doctrines for smoothness can be found everywhere, as the denier cri for all ideological searches. By using smooth thinking cooperatively with rationality, we can absolve differentiation through plural identification - find it in everything literal. With one objective superseding flagrant esotericism, the mind becomes underwhelmed and less trained by abject repetition. Take the depths and shallows of philosophical, economic, political, pornographic, or scientific literature and art and peel away layer after layer to uncover understanding, well-being, respect, intimacy, and wonder - all possessing similar senses of meta-rationality. Inherit an obtund sensitivity for judgment and analysis, instead pummeling the actionable breadth of smoothness from all options into awesome activity!
Nomadic thinking is the most sincerely active of the three, unifying transiency and novelty to experiences guided toward sustainability and genuine livelihood. There are many examples of communities, group thoughts, cultures and civilizations developed in the rights of natural and organic inclusion, whereby humanity and wilderness are the same along a rhizomatic spectrum. With the ability to interweave in and out of social circumstances entitling base-need satisfaction, the nomad adopts habits and movements enabling just integration and transcendent individuation. The flexibility of the nomad feeds directly off of the “smoothness transition”, an inevitable outcome from searching and finding apt plurality in self-conscious sense and perception. It’s a subliminal diversion representing covert injections! of anarchic magic into ordained social and psychological adaptations.
The necromantic fate of chaotic thinking simply suggests that who and what we are right now! is gone. The sensation and perception of traditionalism is predestined to collapse. The structural functions of atomic positivism, faintly retained in recollected hindsight and collective memory, is heedless to the personable objections made at linear objectification. In such objections, a path will be untraced, smoothed out, trampled on by travelers and transients with no ends, endpoints or need for eschatological end of days in mind, body or backpack. The indeterminancy of chaotically-adaptive thinking remains as such until it provides determined use, hence the proscriptive rationality and advent of meta-rational shifts in what we assume to be obviously logical yet truly, insanely protological.
A Self-Realized Definition of Liberated Consciousness
Self realization is liberated consciousness, though Bey is wrong about how. There’s no “approach” to how but rather a state of being inside of liberation - it happens. Humans are usurped by the “self” of psychological imperative, who we are as individuals purely dependent upon our solitude as bodies and minds working together against externality. We can have an image, a traditional psychoanalytic self, one (truly, “One”) intertwined within philosophical dilemma and scientific limitation. Or, we can realize a “self” is letting others feed the depths of ego for you, freeing awareness for transitory action rather than inert reflection. Selfless is liberation - yet, selflessness not to the point of no self, simply to the point of a dependency on social selves.
But there are blockades to true sociality!, as if our interactions and communication only serve purpose and not one another, lost in rationality and nowhere near meta-rationality. A person united to you by blood or love doesn’t know what lies beneath the surface of personal, quotidian events, making an approach toward full divulgence steps beneath doubt, guilt and reticence. If for one moment you feel or think doubt, guilt or reticence, ask if you’ve gone too far to conceal, not too far divulged. Freeing yourself from imaginary feelings is the step without intentionality keeping you in this space.
It all sounds so vague, but getting involved in the classic, psychological discourse of self-realization and liberated consciousness reeks populism. The rhetoric and vocabulary, if not restricted, becomes superficially and intangibly cemented, never to escape noema and become actualized, noesis. Words in the first place to describe a sheer feeling of mental reverence and actionable awareness, such as liberation, brutalizes qualia. Repetitively, we proscribe approaches toward a state of self which is and must remain a state if to persist toward realized liberation. If it’s the act which gets us there - which is! - it can’t stop if life is to continue freely until death.
Let’s not confuse liberation and freedom. A simple reification will avoid cumbersome traditions of debate and metaphorical lapses. Being free or released from any impediment is it! What impedes you is what you are aware of that harms. Once freed, the act, when noticed, is liberation. It’s freedom. It’s independence. It’s autonomy. It’s the whole self once again, with no attention being drawn from a complete you to that which impedes, toward restrained dissociation.
It all sounds so easy, as if all it takes is a little patience and the use of a few extra senses to pay attention. Don’t just see, but hear and smell! Run the lists and all the education you’ve received through your mind. Focus on the lessons at hand, the lessons in their hands, and the lessons not yet handed to you. Without the err of fire-breathing and calling to arms, finding a definition for “liberated consciousness” is as effortless as the certainty you are right and have right. There aren’t steps, just steps beyond steps to a new platform of intrinsic viewing, understanding your problem as not yours but hers and his as well. We’re in this together and once you can adopt a loss of apprehension for the human condition, the condition is all around you with answers to deadly conjecture.
I can hear their front doors close. I can hear a car start. I can hear a child voicing pleasure at a first peddle. I can hear a bird chirp and a fly buzz. I can see them all if I choose to walk over. I can say hi. But will they run away? It’s a question I never should ask. That’s my liberated consciousness.
Coherent Epistemological Archetypes
Episteme is knowledge or science.
Archetype is an original model.
Truth, belief, justification, internality and externality are synecdoche.
The most convoluted, complex and condescending weapon toward liberated consciousness is the very topic at hand. Not only is there a loaded and continual cycle of re-generative semiotics, there’s a dilution of human experience and egotistical indulgence in the terminology of knowledge, origin, interpretation and observation, much of which is metonymously counter-intuitive. I feel Bey is addressing telos on predicate, an intellectual expectation forced upon anyone achieving a higher sense of human mentalism. There’s an inert rationale of complication, teeming with endless inquiries into “truth”, “belief”, “justification”, “internalization” and “externalization” which can never and have never been appropriated with clarity. We’re asking for too much indoctrination and post-less thought if we enter the realm of meta-rational antinomy.
Rather than dissect origins of Indo-European or Afro-Asiatic linguistics in the conceptualization of symbolic learning, it’s important to ask why. Though why is also endless, we can ask what for? What is epistemology for? What are archetypes for? What is hermeneutics for? What is phenomenology for? Many have made a career out of answering such questions, delicately and rambunctiously fitting and slamming divergent explanans into the tedious and eloquent activities of every day. For our epistemological ratiocination, we’ll simply and briefly state the who and what.
Epistemology is the word of knowledge, or the original attempt at developing a mentality of scientific thoroughness. While the term was amalgamated in the 18th century, the need or innate drive and potentiality for communicable truth, belief and justification overwhelmed conversations in ancient Greece. To assume this age as the origin for such discourse neglects the internality-externality inherent in experiencing and reintroducing through transference, of which must have developed in Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Far Eastern cultures and traditional mythical structures hundreds and thousands of years prior. Once a challenge to purely external mind-before-matter functionality occurred - due to both empirically-deduced and rationally-induced causation in human micro-evolution - all subsequent cultural regeneration induced the act of knowing, taking a purely mental endeavor into the realm of praxis.
From such a point emerged a raison d’etre within the thinker’s existenz. Knowing became telos itself, as demonstrated by a personal interpretation of Bey’s ordination, and diverged across many noospheric landscapes. Taking on Babylonian and Roman conquests, Indian and Persian spiritual Empire, disease and seafaring revenge in middle European voyage, and rooted, industrial production during the dominance of Western technical allegiance, each ancient and relative epoch clearly influenced the social and individual expectation of fact and fiction via episteme, offering scaffolding and proximation within singular spacetime. Much of the conserved knowledge isn’t useful or vital to a continued conjectural status, but the information intended survival over declarative suppositions. Yet, we’ve taken the inertially-framed verbal spats further than necessary, with their manipulative outcomes usurping clever and witty natural and mental principles. The archetypes are time-tested beyond personal actualities and our minds have been made up for us.
Meaning in Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Phenomena is that which appears, is observable, or is conscious.
Hermeneutics is the messenger, translator or interpreter.
Noema is associated intentionally as the ideal act.
Noesis is associated purposefully as the real act.
During this spatiotemporal process of uncontrollable mental configuration, representational confluence - or conceptual convergence if preferred - of a continual collective thought process was actually wrought with inter-subjective retrieval. Once entered into the person’s sensory-perceptive systems - albeit those with multitudinally-magnified and conserved morphology - experiences of personal and social pliability contextually altered inert symbolism conceptually and neuroanatomically. In this instance, the course of archetypal knowledge developing through phenomena and epi-phenomena became subject to a knowledge underdetermined unless hermeneutically-dissected. Hence we develop such new ideas as those filtered throughout above (existenz, telos...), Husserl’s noema and noesis, and strains of intentionality, Bentham, ontology and a varied argument on the nature of being, of which is the easiest to encounter throughout traditional, Western, scholastic philosophy and education. The micro-evolution of human thought crescendoed during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, only to become materialistically rehearsed in the industrial, technological, information and beta movements we use to interpretatively alienate Now.
It no longer takes a discussion of philosophy to uncover a meaningful epistemological citation for how anarchy can awaken a dreamer’s caustic mirage of utopia. To know, believe, trust or justify in a newly formed conscious-less space takes understanding how much of each comes from thoughtless, feel-fueled self-exposition. One can’t trust another’s symbolism - much less believe archaic, archetypal congruency as a methodology for getting through a day - when the hierarchical nature of personal interactions - much less the strenuous path from birth to cognitive awareness and on to vision-logic - is distantly discordant. We’re so unattached to this level of communicative lexicon as common talk, it’s become irrelevant to minute renderings of anarchic magic and the meta-rationality of achieving rebellion, revolution or reintegrative teleological consideration. One can talk the talk, but walking tends to develop first.
Why there isn’t anarchy in practice beyond the retro-fitted synonyms of a neoteric industrial and sustainable economy is simply because the comfort level of lifestyle and learning is tangential. There isn’t talk of hierarchical denigration cast with exploitative memetic for fear of self-deluded grandeur. We can’t delineate between noema and noesis because we simply don’t understand the difference between purpose and intention. Both seek the future rather than letting the experience come to us. Our dilemma in developing a cultural awareness of the need for anarchy and liberated consciousness still lies in the simple pleasures of avoiding pain and loss, physically and mentally. We’ll interpret and observe, standing at a distance while reading a book before we include a potential for being subjective and phenomenal selves. ‘Look from one side to the other but never submit yourself to slur’, as the koan and kudos go.
Teaching Sex Awareness and Using Pleasure Liberation
Not the easiest of topics to refresh when there’s still taste and respect involved in such acts. What comes to mind is a Liz Phair song, “Flower”, in which she chants, “Every time I see your face I get all wet between my legs. Every time you pass me by I heave a sigh of pain. Every time I see your face I think of things not pure and chaste.” And it goes on to include fucking like dogs, fucking girlfriends, blow job queens and fresh young jelly.
What is it about sex and pleasure that’s in need of awareness and liberation? They can be taken as relevant to both private or public settings, and because of the fluidity of sex and pleasure, there’s no easy way to exude inner liberation from either. Of all the previous issues Bey includes in anarchic, magic weaponry, sex and pleasure - albeit, physical and intimate pleasure - are the least vital to reforming anarchic consciousness, for the beauty of its mystery lies in the multitudinous variations. Teaching sexual awareness is bypassing the natural and punitive experience accompanying physical intimacy, including rape, ecstasy, chastity, deviance, kink or curiosity, all of which can’t be described or they loose the true anarchic spirit they enable.
Personally, sex is a hang-up. There are so many individual expressions in mind and body, the need to free sexual pleasure sounds inane, like there’s some form of social repression not easily hidden within the home or in a secret space for lovers. There is. The need to exhibit one’s liberation takes on a hierarchical stature not coalescent with anarchy, as the thought of teaching pleasure devalues a person’s own learning experience and assumes a superior as one who “knows” such awareness. Based on shared and foreign experience, there’s not a path for orgasmic and hedonistic seekers to be liberated. We all find gratification in different locales and depth levels within our places - a lover’s wet vagina, a psilo-psychic parallelism, a windblown jetty, a thick greenbelt of evergreens, the soft fur of a four-legged friend, a dive-bomb off an attaching bridge, or a deconstructed flight of civilized destruction. Pleasure and sex to all!
Maybe the liberated point is a need to refocus on sex and pleasure as vital, life-forming forces. With each day that passes, we tend to centralize attention of where and when. We must be in a forced location at a suggestive time, half-living years during which we’re stressed, anxious, hurried, sad, angry, apathetic, nervous, suspect, concerned, resistant and/or agitated. We look to our daily events as endgames leading us to a quiet home, or at least the less-painfully-emotional-home-than-work or errand. We don’t cognize the pleasure in the minute, finding the quotidian as part of the fabric of what we wait for as we’re passing by. We lust after that curvy hottie or entice the eyes of this handsome man, but can’t sexualize consciously for fear of retaliation by a lover of the person. It’s as if we’re all doing it so we can deny we ever do. Maybe the focus is on what has become too complicated yet has always been pleasurable and sexual to humans. Maybe we’ve thought about it far too long and our liberated awareness is simply thoughtlessness and action.
Sex can’t be analyzed. It can’t be revolutionized. It can’t be liberated beyond the fricative-styled cunnilingus every woman needs daily yet fears if she asks since he might want more every time. The aware and liberated of feeling asks you either say yes or no - no or yes, that’s all it takes. Say it with your tongue, teeth and palate, or use your eyes and hands. Go straight for the penetration or wait for infatuation. Deep or shallow, the movements all lead to the same end. It can’t even be described with words, but to call yourself both aware and liberated when it happens is the safest truth in a fictional execution of a symbolic world. Don’t let the layers of convoluted discourse before prevent the easiness and effortlessness of a melting world after.
Pleasure and sex to all!
Generosity and the Celebration of Psychic Relief
There’s a level of personal, selfish relief that goes along with finally reaching this weapon of Bey’s anarchic magic. The fulcrum of sexual identity either enables easy passage to happiness and pleasure, or it restrains the traveler on an unquantifiable incline of day-tripping. With the immediate release of relational and sexual attraction to any and all plausible attractors, we don’t have to hesitate to fulfill layers of meta-rationalization with conciliatory drivel. Nope, we just head on through the thinly-veiled bubble of candid superficiality without a hint of leftover or residue. Unfortunately, there was quite a dramatic shift of paradigmatic action to get here. So let’s tell.
Generosity is psychic relief. Divulging shared, mental experience - dimensional action traversing landscapes of objective and essence-less depth - can acutely influence the panacea of heartbroken wanderers. Giving another individual insight into what ails us is like a hug, kiss, monetary donation or warm bed and meal. It’s simply a matter of perceiving it as such, with our long-strewn lines of flight from pointlessness to a zero-point metaphor for momentous malfeasance. The standard for celebratory, psychic relief condones counteraction to acceptable suggestion. In fact, the basis for each and every weapon of anarchic magic is the cosmically-playful retort and triviality of the ideology and epistemology so many people compound on. A reiteration of the koan ‘Look from one side to the other but never submit yourself to slur’ remains appropriately unsolved on the matter.
The expectation of real examples being undeclared frustrates the common activist, desiring completion to attain celebration in infinite presence with finite essence. The movement is the celebration. The incomplete explanation is the generosity. If the attitude of a solution is intended to relieve psychic debt, where’s the remnant to prosper towards? What becomes obvious is the adage of the search as a precursor for more serious wonder/wander.
While attempting to retain a certain academic objectivity and lexicon along the same dialogical mindframe as previous weapons, a resultant, irresolvable potential fills the body. The congratulatory interactions necessitating psychic relief is present all along. The deep breath it takes to get from generously omitting one’s excuses from another person’s life, to reiterating every and all words taken to get to the purely intertwined causality of human and on to silence, arrives secondly. It was here, is here and is gone...but wait - another arrives! How aspiring the inspiration is!
Of the many anarchists and liberated thinkers who compose as a means toward anarchy’s majesty, the continued inscription is latent action and immediate gloom. On and on we drive forced semantic energy into a structural formula for others in the same negative strata to understand and appreciate. The misstep lacks humor, lacks the slur and isn’t drunk enough to condone insult. We lack the self-awareness to commit flagellating aggrandizement of reverse schadenfreude, a spiraling slip into a decay of self-deprecating farts. Hold your breath now and the weapon of silence is even more powerful to meta-rationality, liberated consciousness, knowledgeable meaning, and sex.
In conclusion, as I sit and use the first recognized term of ego in American English, I look forward to silence. I see “The Language of Communicative Cognition” and want to skip right passed it, moving on to compose the word ‘silence’ over and over again. I then remember that my anarchic model of anarchaos relies on three words: less, simple, silence - roted throughout each and every weapon, subliminally or flagrantly. I want to get there so bad, so often, in the presence of others with brains gryried and sulcied as mine, or when faced with the instruments of death targeting the decimation of my anarchic allegiance. I will make a list, formality pending, but it won’t keep me from ending this, from my teleological de-notion of intentionality, Bey’s noema to my noesis. Your rhizome to my sprouting line of flight. The it to the me. The to...
The Language of Communicative Cognition
Read above and look for words you don’t understand. Then sit and shut.
But honestly, the terms “communicative” and “cognition” reek of dynamism and ever-perpetuation. I can’t seriously describe a language of talk and think on the level an Umberto Eco would conceive of for a structural hierarchy of semiotics, or devise a Chomsky-Pinkerian tree branch of modulation for the anarchist rhetoric. NP→V tangentiality is sterilized notation far beyond natural use, with the resultant process of realization from word after word composed tediously depicting feelings never arrived it again. I know Bey didn’t posit the arrival of a characteristic process, judging the process as uncharacteristic in-itself. There are faults in every statement and every cognitive strategy to remain logical in the realm of self-ridiculum scholasticism. And there’s no space in this root for anything more than what is there. So, again, read back through, understand you can’t understand and move on to the next weapon, the most powerful weapon an anarchist with clear conscience has against every organic deterrent not coalescing within a similar psyche. Be active in quiet. Less, simple, silence.
Silence.