Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Humanity is the Ground of All Meaning
All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.
All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.
Forwarded from Normal Chat
What is Ethics?
Ethics in the most rudimentary sense is concerned with the distinction between Right and Wrong actions with respect to other beings of the same kind, or what we call the social dimension. Social experience has taught early hominids what actions result in better social outcomes, which were probably geared to group survival. These practical insights were progressively formalised as customs, laws and religion. Our modern institutions were build on the prevailing ethical principles, not only because these were socially internalised as the shared moral conscience, but because we became aware that the integrity of the social dimension, which is sustained by ethics, is inseparable from the conditions of social constructs such as meaning and culture. Rational ethics is necessarily grounded in what all rational agents value about themselves: the uniquely human capacity to bestow worth on things, actions and ideas. In order for this capacity to be consistently expressed at the social level we must respect it not only in ourselves but in everyone else. A meaningful existence is necessarily an ethical existence, and the degree of meaning is commensurate with the degree of ethical consistency of the individual and the society.
In essence, we must act ethically to preserve not only the integrity of the social dimension but also a meaningful existence as individuals.
Ethics in the most rudimentary sense is concerned with the distinction between Right and Wrong actions with respect to other beings of the same kind, or what we call the social dimension. Social experience has taught early hominids what actions result in better social outcomes, which were probably geared to group survival. These practical insights were progressively formalised as customs, laws and religion. Our modern institutions were build on the prevailing ethical principles, not only because these were socially internalised as the shared moral conscience, but because we became aware that the integrity of the social dimension, which is sustained by ethics, is inseparable from the conditions of social constructs such as meaning and culture. Rational ethics is necessarily grounded in what all rational agents value about themselves: the uniquely human capacity to bestow worth on things, actions and ideas. In order for this capacity to be consistently expressed at the social level we must respect it not only in ourselves but in everyone else. A meaningful existence is necessarily an ethical existence, and the degree of meaning is commensurate with the degree of ethical consistency of the individual and the society.
In essence, we must act ethically to preserve not only the integrity of the social dimension but also a meaningful existence as individuals.
“Preoccupation with fight-flight leads the group to ignore other activities […]. [This] basic assumption of the group conflicts very sharply with the idea of a group met together to do a creative job..” Bion
The pursuit of tribal sovereignty, the focus on racial or gender discrimination, preservation of tradition, are all fight-flight responses reflecting the (absurd) basic assumption that the primary purpose of the group is to preserve the group, rather than do anything creative as a group. Tribalism is nowadays a form of paralysis of the creative potential of the group, which causes a vicious circle of weakening, leading to more anxiety about the group’s preservation, leading to a stronger fight-flight response, leading to more paralysis, leading to further weakening, and ultimately to destitution, in-fighting and self-destruction.
The pursuit of tribal sovereignty, the focus on racial or gender discrimination, preservation of tradition, are all fight-flight responses reflecting the (absurd) basic assumption that the primary purpose of the group is to preserve the group, rather than do anything creative as a group. Tribalism is nowadays a form of paralysis of the creative potential of the group, which causes a vicious circle of weakening, leading to more anxiety about the group’s preservation, leading to a stronger fight-flight response, leading to more paralysis, leading to further weakening, and ultimately to destitution, in-fighting and self-destruction.
“… leaders who neither fight nor run away are not easily understood.” Bion
Land is an existentially crucial public resource that no group has a better right than others to monopolise on racial/cultural grounds. The distinction between private property rights vs public land is relatively new, seeking to prevent conflicts about access and use of this limited resource on the basis of human equality under law. This precludes any claims of ownership predating this system, which are not based on human equality, are universally overlapping and contradictory, therefore indefensible.
Asking the military to intervene in the political process is literally asking for a military coup. If the military felt this was justified they would have done it irrespective of what you think. If they military feels this is a bad idea they will not be swayed by your suggestion. A request of this kind purports to give legitimacy to a temporary military dictatorship, and should be prudently interpreted as designed to facilitate this outcome, and then you are guaranteed to get much more than you asked for. Who will you ask for help then? A foreign army to invade and “liberate” you from your stupidity, for a hefty price?
I think the biggest problem of constructive political change is exemplified in the question of how should we fix the political system that appears utterly dis-functional; the task is too big and too vague to be practically meaningful. We should not have an end-goal in mind (we cannot clearly imagine it yet and working systems are always too complex to explicitly comprehend) but set smaller, more practical tasks that lead in the right direction. It seems to me that we are doing it here, at this stage in an ad hoc manner, but something more structured is already evolving. So far we have sent some letters, refined our arguments/reasons for rationally defending the intellectual and ethical positions we hold. Now we are beginning to develop something of a group dynamic, making independent contributions and refining our interactions towards a more mature, sophisticated ‘system’. In a sense, we are already realising a system that we would like to live in, without yet being clear about the rules of this system; the result is partly unconscious but already somewhat sophisticated (and definitely more sophisticated than any other group on social media that I know of).
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The snippet is from the manifesto of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (aka David Cole). Any kind of “holy mandate” tribal-nationalism is classified as Right Wing extremism, as racial supremacism - a core feature of nazi ideology. They also claim to be your rulers. Beware.
Violence is the most unsophisticated and instinctive response to societal problems; it does not require serious reasoning, but only a cover story for the lowest common denominator: killing. We are here to do better because we can do better, while there is no shortage of those who are quick to fight because they have no better ideas. Violence is not a solution to anything, it is just a continuation of the same old mentality, the animal instinct dressed up in ideology, a waste of creative potential. We are better than that.
Daily Hypocrisy. A para-military unit loyal to a rich conspiracy theorist Sovereign Citizen (Charles III) attacks a poor conspiracy theorist Sovereign Citizen for refusing to recognise their preferred Sovereign Citizen’s “authority” over others:) https://t.me/NormalParty/2277
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Anonymous tip-off:
I would like to report a dangerous “sovereign citizen” who goes by the name Charles the Third. He and his followers have amassed a substantial cache of weapons, including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical production facilities that could be covertly weaponised against the public. This sovereign citizen controls a global network of military, para-military and spy organisations, typically identifying themselves with the term “Royal”, by means of which he interferes in democratic elections and extorts public wealth. His predecessors in the same “sovereign” movement are known to have committed massacres (most notably in India and Germany, although the list of their crimes is virtually inexhaustible). I hope you will make the investigation of this POI your highest priority, as he poses a Gobal threat.
I would like to report a dangerous “sovereign citizen” who goes by the name Charles the Third. He and his followers have amassed a substantial cache of weapons, including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical production facilities that could be covertly weaponised against the public. This sovereign citizen controls a global network of military, para-military and spy organisations, typically identifying themselves with the term “Royal”, by means of which he interferes in democratic elections and extorts public wealth. His predecessors in the same “sovereign” movement are known to have committed massacres (most notably in India and Germany, although the list of their crimes is virtually inexhaustible). I hope you will make the investigation of this POI your highest priority, as he poses a Gobal threat.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The Concept of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a property that can be held only collectively, not individually, because individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient. It follows that there can be no “sovereign” monarchs (all Kings and Queens are impostors). On a deeper analysis, considering that every instance of consciousness is existentially determined by its relating to all other instances of rational consciousness, sovereignty does not even belong to nations but to all of humanity, which renders the political notion of sovereignty trivial. Sovereignty is then reducible to rational agency per se, which is necessarily characterised by moral autonomy of the Self with respect to negotiating the ontological dependency that binds all of humanity together, as a multiplicity of reflexively interrelating Selves. Our moral choices may advance our rational agency, by correctly navigating the conditions of mutual dependency (the Right moral choice is ultimately and necessarily in self-interest), or degrade our rational agency by misunderstanding or abusing those conditions (the Wrong moral choice is contrary to self-interest).
Sovereignty is a property that can be held only collectively, not individually, because individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient. It follows that there can be no “sovereign” monarchs (all Kings and Queens are impostors). On a deeper analysis, considering that every instance of consciousness is existentially determined by its relating to all other instances of rational consciousness, sovereignty does not even belong to nations but to all of humanity, which renders the political notion of sovereignty trivial. Sovereignty is then reducible to rational agency per se, which is necessarily characterised by moral autonomy of the Self with respect to negotiating the ontological dependency that binds all of humanity together, as a multiplicity of reflexively interrelating Selves. Our moral choices may advance our rational agency, by correctly navigating the conditions of mutual dependency (the Right moral choice is ultimately and necessarily in self-interest), or degrade our rational agency by misunderstanding or abusing those conditions (the Wrong moral choice is contrary to self-interest).
I contest the view that the present political system is based on violence. Violence is of course used instrumentally, but its ultimate foundation seems to be the mindset of Dependency and the associated social Collusion.
“Whenever a state exists that is likely to activate, or itself to have been activated by, the baD, there is a fear of dictatorship—a recent example is the often expressed fear that the Welfare State will lead to a tyrannical interference with liberty—the seizure of power by Communists, bureaucrats, etc. One of the most common calls in this situation is for a return to a belief in God, and indeed it will be surprising if in the small therapeutic group some member does not make this very plea. It expresses the desire to avoid the concrete embodiment of leadership in an actual member of the group. If I leave things to develop, many remedies will be proposed; revolt against the chosen leader, a claim that treatment should be available for all and that one person should not monopolize, and so on. In effect practically all the solutions adumbrated are recognizable as closely similar to procedures tried throughout history. What is not so easy to describe is what it is against which the group is seeking to protect itself.” W.R.Bion, 1966
The term ‘herd animal’, often used by psychologists and sociologists in reference to humanity, is a profound misrepresentation of what makes us human. Being a conscious Self is not conditional on the formation of crowds or even basic aggregation, but on social reflexivity (mutual mirroring) that occurs irrespective of social aggregation. This mirroring occurs to a lesser degree when we are aggregated as physical crowds than when we are communicating one on one, and can also be executed internally (in imagination) for extended periods of time. Moreover, the uniquely human feature of reflexive consciousness is the opposite of (non-reflexive) animality, so neither ‘herd’ nor ‘animal’ fits the constitutive formula of a Self whose existence is meaningful.
Tradition and Culture is not a substitute for Morality
Nazis were ultra-traditionalists, defending the ‘original’ Germanic folk-lore from external influences and from the influence of modernity. The fact that they were traditionalists evidently did not endow them with the kind of moral conscience that would preclude their crimes against humanity. Their excessive attachment to culture/tradition created an extreme psychological dependency and anxiety, which was in turn assimilated by the majority of Germans. Each felt they would literally cease to exist without their traditional culture, their folk-lore being perceived as the sole substance of their existence. When this level of dependency is established, one feels justified in attacking every challenge to the ‘purity’ of cultural convictions, and every new-comer, every resident professing a different culture is perceived as an existential threat, a cultural enemy that must be eliminated. The key point here is that tradition is not necessarily moral or rational, and when uncritically internalised as the basis of one’s identity that supersedes our common identity as humans (conscious rational beings) it is a straight path to genocide. The only middle ground between traditionalism and cultural change is rational discernment, the ability to evaluate ideas on their logical merits, instead of habit and attachment.
Nazis were ultra-traditionalists, defending the ‘original’ Germanic folk-lore from external influences and from the influence of modernity. The fact that they were traditionalists evidently did not endow them with the kind of moral conscience that would preclude their crimes against humanity. Their excessive attachment to culture/tradition created an extreme psychological dependency and anxiety, which was in turn assimilated by the majority of Germans. Each felt they would literally cease to exist without their traditional culture, their folk-lore being perceived as the sole substance of their existence. When this level of dependency is established, one feels justified in attacking every challenge to the ‘purity’ of cultural convictions, and every new-comer, every resident professing a different culture is perceived as an existential threat, a cultural enemy that must be eliminated. The key point here is that tradition is not necessarily moral or rational, and when uncritically internalised as the basis of one’s identity that supersedes our common identity as humans (conscious rational beings) it is a straight path to genocide. The only middle ground between traditionalism and cultural change is rational discernment, the ability to evaluate ideas on their logical merits, instead of habit and attachment.
This story reminds of Bion giving up his authority as an expert in order to stop others idolising him, and only then genuine human interaction, based on rational agency rather than appearances, was possible. https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/toxic-message-teachers-and-parents-are-cancelling-90s-classic-the-rainbow-fish/news-story/b98f0a1959a90917abde0cd57c2760d3
Theodore Adorno argued that concepts are deficient because they are not identical with the objects of experience. It is not clear why this renders them deficient, but rather implies deficiency of the expectation that Concepts and Objects ‘ought to be’ identical. My answer to the question of this non-identity is that Objects are not singular concepts but a synthesis of multiple concepts, including the abstract concepts of change and difference that renders every object of experience both spatially and temporally unique. The object is nothing in excess of the concepts (meanings) in terms of which we experience them as meaningful appearances. On this view, Adorno’s idea that there is a ‘gap’ between concepts and objects is false.
It is logically impossible for consciousness to arise without meaningful socialisation, without being a part of a communication community where meanings are mirrored by beings of the same kind. Consciousness cannot be ‘discovered’, it can only be collectively evolved (https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO). Crucially, a lower degree (inferior) reflexive consciousness could not possibly recognise a higher degree (superior) reflexive consciousness; the less cannot contain the more, it can only mirror itself. Projective anthropomorphism is quite common, because humans are naturally predisposed to respond to any features that mirror human features as if they were also associated with reflexive consciousness. Our need to connect is so strong that we may invent ‘conscious’ entities to connect to. When this happens, we should consider the possibility that we are lacking sufficiently reflexive/meaningful human connections to satisfy this fundamental need.
The chief psychological motif of aristocracy and royalty is procreation/breeding; as a group-entity it can preserve itself only through heredity/lineage. This invokes two primary anxieties that are prevalent in this group: about its sexual potency and the messianic hope linked to genetic superiority. It is therefore no surprise that apart from its obsession with sexuality, the aristocracy views humanity via the same lens it views itself: their obsession with familial eugenics.