Imagination insinuates the excess, a passing over into silence amidst the noise of the already traversed.
Imagination insinuates the excess, a passing over into silence amidst the noise of the already traversed.
In the sacred writings of Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Nanak (the first guru of Sikhs) utters the Mool-mantra that occupies a central role, somehow depicting the entirety of Sikhism’s universally complex theology. And it is often claimed that for common benefit of all, these experiences (utterances) are articulated without interpretation or distortion. They are yathapurvam akalpyat – expressed as they are seen. According to Vinoba Bhave, the conception of God in Guru Nanak is based on the concept of Brahman and Aum in Vedanta. Brahman ‘is that from which the world originates’. It is the material, efficient and formal cause of the world. It is responsible for ‘the origin, sustenance and cessation of the world (Taittriya Upanishad).
God is Ananda, i.e. joy or bliss. “From (God’s) joy does spring all this Creation, by joy is it maintained, towards joy does it progress, and into joy does it enter.” (Sadhana by Rabindranath Tagore, 45)
“This world is Whole. That World is Whole. From Whole comes the Whole. If you take away Whole from Whole, what remains is Whole.”
This reminds me so much of the Christian theological “Doctrine of Accommodation“. Theologians stress on a form of truth (for eg, angels: good ones or the fallen ones, or, even what they somehow linguistically represented) that was neither allegorical nor metaphorical; that in a sense they really did look like how they appeared, but that also they should not be understood in an entirely literal way. This was known as the doctrine of accommodation and has occupied a central place in theology.
Are these Mool-mantras taken at their literal values? Somewhere phenomenology seems to be at work. This comparative-ness is not then really far-fetched. For instance, take Calvin‘s Commentary on Genesis. I quote in full,
If any one should inquire whether this vacuity did not previously exist, I answer, however true it may be that all parts of the earth were not overflowed by the waters; yet now, for the first time, a separation was ordained, whereas a confused admixture had previously existed. Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe. (Commentary on Genesis 1:6)
Here Calvin is talking about the firmament, and he denies allegory or other sophisticated forms of interpretation, instead affirming a general phenomenological reading. Moses is not making a sort of “cosmological” or “astronomical” claim but is instead describing things according to the way that they look from the ordinary human perspective. Moses does not intend any strict claim about physical science, and thus there is no need to “embrace by faith” something which is not being asserted or taught. He is merely speaking of “the visible form of the world.”
“Humanity tends towards the organized body, the body with organ, the male member. the modern human is dressed in blue, as far from the red-blooded feminine as it is possible to be, gendered and sexed in a world still solidified in the mold of brotherhood and patrilineal inheritance. the female body is already diseased, on the way to the limits of life, while the phallus functions as the badge of membership, or belonging – to one’s self, society, species.”
You cannot own it, if you cannot control it.
You own something, if you alone control it.
This control is assumed assurance by powers of overt or covert violence, or assumed assurance of similar violence delegated by higher forms of authority. The twist is that if it is the former, it is secondary power, whereas, if it is the latter, it is primary a.k.a sovereign property.
As you’d probably guessed it by now, I am hinting at NeoCameralism. The sovereign power, or sovereign corporation (there is hardly any harm in arriving at this complicit identity) is alone able to ensure its own property rights. Another complicit identity would lie in sovereign’s might and rights. This is absolute, in so far as it is primary, and subordinate rights or secondary properties cascade down the social hierarchies. NC is nothing but a systemic and systematic realization of this reality. Or, as someone, somewhere might have it’. The most compelling idea in the sprawling Moldbuggian corpus is “NeoCameralism”. NeoCameralism is a close relative to Patri’s theory of Dynamic Geography in that both are forms of practical market anarchism. Its reasoning is straightforward: If you believe that government should be given incentive to govern well, then modern democracy must be thrown out. Simply trying harder to elect better candidates will not fix the familiar structural problems of democracy, such as plundering special interest groups, ever-expanding bureaucracy, and election contests with the intellectual content of an American Idol finale. However, if you think that security service providers (AKA “governments”) form geographic monopolies (500,000 years of human history provides good evidence for this), then the Rothbard/Hoppe/Friedman vision of anarcho-capitalism with a competitive market in security must also be set aside as a pipe dream.
NeoCameralism is the idea that a sovereign state or primary corporation is not organizationally distinct from a secondary or private corporation. Thus we can achieve good management, and thus libertarian government, by converting sovereign corporations to the same management design that works well in today’s private sector – the joint-stock corporation.
One way to approach NeoCameralism is to see it as a refinement of royalism, an ancient system in which the sovereign corporation is a sort of family business. Under NeoCameralism, the biological quirks of royalism are eliminated and the State “goes public,” hiring the best executives regardless of their bloodline or even nationality.
Or you can just see NeoCameralism as part of the usual capitalist pattern in which services are optimized by aligning the interests of the service provider and the service consumer. If this works for groceries, why shouldn’t it work for government? Who doesn’t in the right mind have a hard time in accepting the possibility that democratic constitutionalism would generate either lower prices or better produce at Safeway …
I am fully aware of nuances mushrooming at the tiniest crack in using the words control, might, and rights. And, why would I mind it? I wouldn’t, since to parenthesize these words into isolation would beg the question of why NeoCameralism?, and eventually, why this exercise? I shouldn’t be held culpable of insouciance. And I am not, I am acquitted, since in moving on, the plausible way to alienate ownership, which is no doubt a legal contract, is by entering into negotiations, trading away. A possibility of non-alienable political responsibility just has no scope of space, has nothing to offer substantially in terms of rights on property, whether primary, or secondary. If, I cannot legislate, I cannot take a free exit, and if I cannot take a free exit, I, in no way can escape the despotism of NeoCameralism. I only commercialize sovereignty, and in turn my very belongingness in this relationship with the despot.
Free markets are better than communism, but owned markets are better than free markets. Free markets are only good compared to communism, which is the dichotomy that’s been set up by our elites in order to guide us slowly towards communism. I mean socialism.It all comes back to sovereignty. Capitalism is only good insofar as it makes people responsible for their own property and profits i.e. insofar as it makes them responsible and provides an incentive to virtue. But then it is not the only way to do so, and the reason it is good is incidental, not central. NeoCameralism is a thought experiment that is useful for explaining NRx ideas. Especially useful as a crutch between techno-libertarian Alzheimer’s disease and normal, sane reactionary thinking. Moldbug today would not endorse it, nor would the Moldbug that was reading Carlyle studiously a few years back. There are certainly difficulties with NeoVameralism. Transitioning to a neocameralist world is the first hurdle that springs to mind. Moldbug never clearly spells out a plausible strategy for getting from here to there. Then there is the minor matter of how shareholders in the government will keep the management under control when management presumably has all the guns. After all, in a democracy corporate shareholders can ask the government to enforce contractual obligations when management shirks its duties. Hopefully you see the problem that occurs with this model when management runs the government. Moldbug offers some technological solutions to this problem that are interesting but unsatisfying……but, but, accelerate liberty via technology.
Responses to The Coming Insurrection are ambivalent, with some claiming it to be an important volume of left-wing theory, while others seeing in it elements of anti-modern thought and right-wing extreme fundamentalism. The work takes its inspiration from the ideas of Carl Schmitt, and is often touted as perpetuating political violence against the rule of law and democracy. The call for violence is not wholly unjustified, as the pamphlet contains an explicit call for violence to liberate territory from police occupation. Adherents of democracy are declared fanatics, with the very form of democracy as an enemy. The pamphlet written anonymously, draws on Schmitt’s ideas of the state of emergency, and the concept of the political. Heidegger is invoked for his ideas pertaining to resenting the technology and modernity. The authors take their impressions to the extreme, when even pretty innocuous looking matters in the present day scenario are equated with the relativism of imperialism, in turn dictated by the fundamentalism associated with the right wing (ala Arundhati Roy!!!). In his article in the FAZ, Nils Minkmar celebrates the antidemocratic manifesto as a “brilliantly penned diagnosis of our time” and speculates that it will become “the most important left-wing theory book of the age”. Of course the most questionable part of this statement is whether this a leftist book at all. But the FAZ author was particularly impressed by the anti-modern sentiments it contained. Towards the end, though, he does admit that the “black SUVs” that will follow on the heels of the state’s destruction will no doubt be worse that what we have now. The present intellectual zeitgeist is permeated with branding anything western an ideal as authoritarian or totalitarian (ala Roy again, Patkar, and the holy comrades of the left parties in India, to cite a few), which is tutored by a rhetoric that gate crashes into logic. The ideas somehow mirror Agamben’s The Coming Community. Agamben wrote in his magnum opus “Homo sacer”: “In modern democracies it is possible to state in public what Nazi biopoliticians did not dare to say.” With the help of Carl Schmitt’s theories on the “state of emergency” and Foucault’s concept of biopolitics, he places human rights and race laws, intensive care units and concentration camps on a par. It appears that the book is a naive translation of Agamben’s theories. The way to combat the so-called “normalisation of life” in modern societies, is to seek out invigorating salvation in a “state of emergency”, a far cry from democracy, rule of law and the market economy – this idea of a better age minus all coordinates of the present day comes from Schmitt and Heidegger, as does the search for hidden totalitarianism within democracy.
If Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is to be believed, nothing exists in reality until a measurement is carried out. In the double slit experiment carried out by John Wheeler, post-selection can be made to work, after the experiment is finished, and that by delaying the observation after the photon has purportedly passed through the slits. Now, if post-selection is to work, there must be a change in the properties in the past. This has been experimentally proved by physicists like Jean-François Roch at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Cachan, France. This is weird, but invoking the quantum entanglement and throwing it up for grabs against the philosophic principle of causality surprises. If the experimental set up impacts the future course of outcome, quantum particles in a most whimsical manner are susceptible to negate it. This happens due to the mathematics governing these particle, which enable or rather disable them to differentiate between the course of sense they are supposed to undertake. In short, what happens in the future could determine the past….
….If particles are caught up in quantum entanglement, the measurement of one immediately affects the other, some kind of a Einsteinian spooky action at a distance.