333 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
333 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
non serviam #15
|
|
***************
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents: Editor's Word
|
|
Dora Marsden: Thinking and Thought
|
|
S.E. Parker: Comment to Ken Knudson
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editor's Word
|
|
_____________
|
|
|
|
I am delighted to include an essay by a female champion of egoism in
|
|
this issue of Non Serviam, made available electronically by another
|
|
egoist woman, Sunniva Morstad. It first appeared in "The Freewoman",
|
|
No. 5, Vol. 1, August 15th 1913. Like Stirner, she builds a case for
|
|
egoism through a criticism of the absoluteness of language - a thought
|
|
which should not be unfamiliar for the many on Non Serviam who have
|
|
adopted Korzybski=B4s "General Semantics" as a guideline. I personally
|
|
think this approach to egoism via a criticism of language deserves
|
|
more attention, and would therefore be very happy to receive articles
|
|
written from different points of view on this relation.
|
|
Since Non Serviam is now also going to go on paper to the unprivileged
|
|
without email access, I will include some longer good discussion posts
|
|
which would otherwise have been most fitting for the discussion list
|
|
Nonserv, in Non Serviam. The first such post is a comment by Sid Parker
|
|
to Ken Knudson=B4s serial [2] here in Non Serviam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Svein Olav
|
|
|
|
[1] Sidney Parker: "Archists, Anarchists and Egoists". Non Serviam #7
|
|
[2] Ken Knudson: "A Critique of Communism and The Individualist
|
|
Alternative". Non Serviam #1-12
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Dora Marsden:
|
|
Thinking and Thought
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
It is strange to find searchers coming here seeking thoughts, followers
|
|
after truth seeking new lamps for old, right ideas for wrong. It seems
|
|
fruitless to affirm that our business is to annihilate thought, to
|
|
shatter the new lamps no less than the old, to dissolve ideas, the
|
|
"right" as well as the "wrong". "It is a new play of artistry , some
|
|
new paradox," they reflect, not comprehending that artistry and paradox
|
|
are left as the defences of power not yet strong enough to comprehend.
|
|
If a man has the power that comprehends, what uses has he left for
|
|
paradox? If he sees a thing as it is, why must he needs describe it in
|
|
terms of that which is not? Paradox is the refuge of the adventurous
|
|
guesser: the shield of the oracle whose answer is not ready. Searchers
|
|
should not bring their thoughts to us: we have no scruple in destroying
|
|
their choicest, and giving them none in return. They would be well able
|
|
to repair the depredations elsewhere, however, for nowhere else, save
|
|
here, are thoughts not held sacred and in honour. Everywhere, from all
|
|
sides, they press in thick upon men, suffocating life. All is thought
|
|
and no thinking. _We_ do the thinking: the rest of the world spin
|
|
thoughts. If from the operation of thinking one rises up only with
|
|
thoughts, not only has the thinking-process gone wrong: it has not
|
|
begun. To believe that it has is as though one should imagine the work
|
|
of digesting food satisfactorily carried through when the mouth has
|
|
been stuffed with sand.
|
|
|
|
The process of thinking is meant to co-ordinate two things which are
|
|
real: the person who thinks and the rest of the phenomenal world, the
|
|
world of sense. Any part of the process which can be described in terms
|
|
unrelated to these two - and only two - real parties in the process is
|
|
redundant and pernicious, an unnecessary by-product which it would be
|
|
highly expedient to eliminate. Thoughts, the entire world of ideas and
|
|
concepts, are just these intruders and irrelevant excesses. Someone
|
|
says, apropos of some change without a difference in the social sphere,
|
|
"We are glad to note the triumph of progressive ideas." Another, "We
|
|
rejoice in the fact that we are again returning to the ideas of honour
|
|
and integrity of an earlier age." We say, leprosy or cholera for
|
|
choice. Idea, idea, always the idea. As though the supremacy of the
|
|
idea were not the subjection of men, slaves to the idea. Men need no
|
|
ideas. They have no use for them ( Unless indeed they are of the
|
|
literary breed - then they live upon them by their power to beguile the
|
|
simple). What men need is power of being, strength in themselves: and
|
|
intellect which in the thinking process goes out as a scout, comparing,
|
|
collating, putting like by like, or nearly like, is but the good
|
|
servant which the individual being sends afield that he may the better
|
|
protect, maintain and augment himself. Thinking, invaluable as it is in
|
|
the service of being, is, essentially a very intermittent process. It
|
|
works only between whiles. In the nadir and zenith of men's experience
|
|
it plays no part, when they are stupid and when they are passionate.
|
|
Descartes' maxim "Cogito ergo sum," carried the weight it did and does
|
|
merely because the longfelt influence of ideas had taken the virtue out
|
|
of men's souls. Stronger men would have met it, not with an argument,
|
|
but a laugh. It is philosophy turned turtle. The genesis of knowledge
|
|
is not in thinking but in being. Thinking widens the limits of
|
|
knowledge, but the base of the latter is in feeling. "I know" because
|
|
"I am." The first follows the second and not contrariwise. The base -
|
|
and highest reaches - of knowledge lie not in spurious thoughts,
|
|
fine-drawn, not yet in the humble and faithful collecting of
|
|
correspondences which is thinking, but in experienced emotion. What men
|
|
may be, their heights and depths, they can divine only in experienced
|
|
emotion. The vitally true things are all personally revealed, and they
|
|
are true primarily only for the one to whom they are revealed. For the
|
|
rest the revelation is hearsay. Each man is his own prophet. A man's
|
|
"god" ( a confusing term, since it has nothing to do with God, the
|
|
Absolute - a mere thought) is the utmost emotional reach of himself:
|
|
and is in common or rare use according to each individual nature. A
|
|
neighbour's "god" is of little use to any man. It represents a wrong
|
|
goal, a false direction.
|
|
|
|
We are accused of "finesse-ing with terms." No accusation could be
|
|
wider off the mark. We are analysing terms; we believe, indeed, that
|
|
the next work for the lovers of men is just this analysis of naming.
|
|
It will go completely against the grain of civilisation, cut straight
|
|
across culture: that is why the pseudo-logicians loathe logic - indeed,
|
|
it will be a matter for surprise that one should have the temerity to
|
|
name the word. So great a fear have the cultured of the probing of
|
|
their claims that they are counselling the abandonment of this
|
|
necessary instrument. They would prefer to retain inaccurate thinking
|
|
which breeds thoughts, to accurate thinking which reveals facts and in
|
|
its bright light annihilates the shadows bred of dimness, which are
|
|
thoughts. Analysis of the process of naming: inquiry into the impudent
|
|
word-trick which goes by the name of "abstraction of qualities":
|
|
re-estimation of the form-value of the syllogism; challenging of the
|
|
slipshod methods of both induction and deduction; the breaking down of
|
|
closed systems of "classification" into what they should be - graded
|
|
descriptions; _these_ things are more urgently needed than thinkable in
|
|
the intellectual life of today. The settlement of the dispute of the
|
|
nominalist and realist schoolmen of the Middle Ages in favour of the
|
|
former rather than the latter would have been of infinitely greater
|
|
value to the growth of men than the discoveries of Columbus, Galileo
|
|
and Kepler. It would have enabled them to shunt off into nothingness
|
|
the mountain of culture which in the world of the West they have been
|
|
assiduously piling up since the time of the gentle father of lies and
|
|
deceit, Plato. It is very easy, however, to understand why the
|
|
conceptualists triumphed, and are still triumphing, despite the ravages
|
|
they have worked on every hand. The concept begets the idea, and every
|
|
idea installs its concrete authority. All who wield authority do it in
|
|
the name of an idea: equality, justice, love, right, duty, humanity,
|
|
God, the Church, the State. Small wonder, therefore, if those who sit
|
|
in the seats of authority look askance at any tampering with names and
|
|
ideas. It is a different matter from questioning the of _one_ idea.
|
|
Those who, in the name of one idea do battle against the power of
|
|
another, can rely upon some support. Indeed, changing new lamps for old
|
|
is the favourite form of intellectual excitement inasmuch as while it
|
|
is not too risky, is not a forlorn hope, it yet ranges combatants on
|
|
opposing sides with all the zest of a fight. But to question _all_
|
|
ideas is to leave authoritarians without any foothold whatsoever. Even
|
|
opposing authorities will sink differences and combine to crush an
|
|
Ishmaelite who dares. Accordingly, after three quarters of a thousand
|
|
years, the nominalist position is where it was: nowhere, and all men
|
|
are in thrall to ideas - culture. They are still searching for the
|
|
Good, the Beautiful and the True. They are no nearer the realisation
|
|
that the Good in the actual never is a general term, but always a
|
|
specific, i.e. that which is "good for me" (or you, or anyone) varying
|
|
with time and person, in kind and substance; that the Beautiful is
|
|
likewise "beautiful for me" (or you, or anyone) varying with time and
|
|
person, in kind and substance, measured by a standard wholly
|
|
subjective; that the True is just that which corresponds: in
|
|
certainties, mere verified observation of fact; in doubt, opinion as to
|
|
fact and no more, a mere "I think it so" in place of "I find it so." As
|
|
specifics, they are real: as generalisations, they are thoughts,
|
|
spurious entities, verbiage representing nothing, and as such are
|
|
consequently in high repute. The work of purging language is likely to
|
|
be a slow one even after the battle of argument in its favour shall
|
|
have been won. It is observable that egoists, for instance, use
|
|
"should," "ought," and "must" quite regularly in the sense which bears
|
|
the implication of an existing underlying "Duty." Denying authority,
|
|
they use the language of authority. If the greatest possible
|
|
satisfaction of self ( which is a pleasure) is the motive in life, with
|
|
whose voice does "Duty" speak? Who or what for instance lays it down
|
|
that our actions must not be "invasive" of others? An effete god,
|
|
presumably, whose power has deserted him, since most of us would be
|
|
hard put to it to find action and attitudes which are not invasive.
|
|
Seizing land - the avenue of life - is invasive: loving is invasive,
|
|
and so is hating and most of the emotions. The emphasis accurately
|
|
belongs on "defence" and not on "invasion" and defence is
|
|
self-enjoined.
|
|
|
|
No, Duty, like the rest, is a thought, powerless in itself, efficient
|
|
only when men give it recognition for what it is not and doff their own
|
|
power in deference, to set at an advantage those who come armed with
|
|
the authority of its name. And likewise with "Right." What is "right"
|
|
is what I prefer and what you and the rest prefer. Where these "rights"
|
|
overlap men fight is out; their _power_ becomes umpire, their might is
|
|
their right. Why keep mere words sacred? Since right is ever swallowed
|
|
up in might why speak of right? Why seek to acquire rights when each
|
|
right has to be matched by the might which first secures and then
|
|
retains it? When men acquire the ability to make and co-ordinate
|
|
accurate descriptions, that is, when they learn to think, the empire of
|
|
mere words, "thoughts", will be broken, the sacred pedestals shattered,
|
|
and the seats of authority cast down. The contests and achievements of
|
|
owners of "powers" will remain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
S.E. Parker:
|
|
|
|
Comment to Ken Knudson
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
K.K. prefers a "consumer' dicatorship" to a "producers' dictatorship"
|
|
on the grounds that "consumers are finicky people - they want the best
|
|
possible product at the lowest price. To achieve this end they will use
|
|
ruthless means."
|
|
|
|
I do not know what consumers he is writing about, but they are
|
|
certainly not the ones I know. A few, certainly, will use "ruthless
|
|
means" to obtain the cheapest and best product. The majority, however,
|
|
seem to be quite content not only to buy expensive trash, but even
|
|
unwilling to look for shops where theycan get identical products at
|
|
cheaper prices. For example, we have two supermarkets where I live.
|
|
One, on average, charges higher prices than the other. They are about
|
|
three minutes walking time apart. Yet the higher pried one continues to
|
|
prosper because most of its customers are not prepared to go round the
|
|
corner to what the cheaper priced one is like. Not only this, but a
|
|
smaller shop in the neighbourhood, run by a company that are rip-off
|
|
merchants of the first order, not only flourishes, but has extended
|
|
opening times! So much for the "ruthless customer"!
|
|
|
|
It is clear to me that K.K. has merely exchanged the idealized
|
|
"producer" for the idealized "customer", he has replaced the myth of
|
|
the socialist with the myth of the "free marketeer" - and is therefore
|
|
just as utopian as the anarcho-communist he criticizes so well.
|
|
|
|
"The only way to realize anarchy is for a sufficient number of people
|
|
to be convinced that their own interests demand it."
|
|
|
|
This statement does not show _why_ people will find anarchy in their
|
|
interests, it only shows that Ken Knudson _thinks_ they should find it
|
|
in their interests. (I am reminded of an observation about Ayn Rand
|
|
made by an American conservative to the effect that "Miss Rand believes
|
|
in people acting according to their self-interest so long as she can
|
|
define what that interest is.")
|
|
|
|
KK claims that people are pragmatists and that until they can be made
|
|
to realize that "anarchy actually works for their benefit, it will
|
|
remain...anidle pipe-dream." As I understand it, pragmatism is
|
|
concerned with what _works_. If anarchy is still a "pipe-dream" it is
|
|
plainly _not_ working. So how does one show that it will work? By
|
|
convincing people that it will! But, if people are pragmatists, and
|
|
will only be convinced by something that "works", then one is in the
|
|
invidious position of trying to convince them that what is not working
|
|
now will work at some indefinite time in the future if only they will
|
|
be convinced that it will, despite the fact that, as pragmatists, they
|
|
are only to be convinced by seeing something that actually works!
|
|
|
|
Methinks that here he has fallen right into the trap that Stirner
|
|
pointed out; the belief that because something is conceivable it is
|
|
therefore possible.
|
|
|
|
KK looks to the founding of the mutual banks as a way to achieve his
|
|
ideal society, but how many of these have been established and worked
|
|
succesfully since Proudhon advocated them over a hundred years ago? If
|
|
they were in the interest of a "sufficient number of people" who have
|
|
grasped their value as a means to realize anarchy why hasn't that
|
|
"sufficient number" been forthcoming? Could it be that most of those
|
|
who have had them explained to them did _not_ find them in their
|
|
interests? What basis does he have for assuming that even if a large
|
|
number of people became consciously self-interested they will find
|
|
their interests coincide with those of anarchism? His faith I do not
|
|
doubt, but where is the evidense?
|
|
The power of the tyrant, KK writes, "comes from the abdicated power
|
|
of his subjects". The supposition that at some time or another these
|
|
subjects decided to "abdicate" their power to a tyrant smacks
|
|
suspiciously of the myth of the "social contract". In any case, he is
|
|
assuming that if these subjects had the power to grant to a tyrant and
|
|
that they were to repossess it they would then be as powerful as those
|
|
whom they granted it. Again, an act of faith. It is plain to me that
|
|
since individuals are genetically unequal, so their power - their
|
|
competence as Stirner called it - is also unequal. Even were they
|
|
tyrant - or democratic governments - thus rendered "powerless" this
|
|
inequality of power would soon be expressed in a new hierarchy - of
|
|
_function_ if not _formal_status_ - and the division between ruler and
|
|
ruled re-established. The "dominant five-percent", like the poor, we
|
|
always have with us.
|
|
|
|
What Stirner wrote about idols is true. I know that, Ken Knudson knows
|
|
that, and so do a few others, but why does he believe that everyone
|
|
will cometo know that? This is the sort of belief called the "Everest
|
|
fallacy" - i.e. because _some_ people have climbed Everest, _all_
|
|
people can climb it.
|
|
|
|
"We egoists raise the banner of free competition." "We" egoists do
|
|
nothing of the kind. If I benefit from "unfree" competition why should
|
|
I renounce my egoistic satisfaction in that fact in favour of a system
|
|
from which I benefit less? Implicit in this kind of assertion is the
|
|
assumption that everyone's interest can be served by one way of going
|
|
on. If one accepts the Stirnerian concept of "the unique one" this is
|
|
manifest nonsense.
|
|
KK rejects "frontiers" as absurd. No doubt from a global _anarchist_
|
|
perspective they are. But why suppose that an_egoist_ will reject
|
|
frontiers out of hand? Making one's "fatherland", "motherland" or
|
|
"homeland" _holy_ is, of course, so much spookery. Nonetheless, an
|
|
egoist might find the existence of frontiers something of use to him.
|
|
I, for example, live on an overcrowded island called Britain. Do I want
|
|
this country swamped by hordes of immigrants as the result of doing
|
|
away with frontiers? I do not. And if my support, pragmatic support, of
|
|
a barrier against such a horde steps on the intellectual/moral toes of
|
|
some liberal, libertarian or anarchist dreamers, that is their lookout.
|
|
It is _my_ egoism that concerns _me_, not some abstract "egoism"
|
|
pressed in the service of some universalistic fantasy. There are more
|
|
ways of viewing one's egoistic interests than are dreamed of by
|
|
anarchists....
|
|
|
|
There is more I could write on these topics, but I think I have put the
|
|
cat among enough pigeons for the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sid Parker
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
* *
|
|
* "What is laid down, ordered, factual, is never *
|
|
* enough to embrace the whole truth: life always *
|
|
* spills over the rim of every cup." *
|
|
* *
|
|
* -- Boris Pasternak *
|
|
* *
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|