| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
=Relations= | =Relations= | ||
*[[File:AnWeed2.png]] [[Anarcho-Marijuanism|{{Color|#3cde49|'''Weedman'''}}]] - Fellow contemporary anarchist, but I have a few disagreements. For one I disagree with the usefulness of the TAZ, primarily because it must fundamentally rely on capital for its own existence and cannot present an "outside". In fact through its existence capital now has a controlled alternative, preventing actual insurrectionary exit. Really while I'd agree that zones and the like will show up at any insurrectionary praxis, and they allow for temporary affirmative assertion, putting them at the basis of praxis is just self defeating. I also disagree with your notion of the matrix, I find it misunderstands concepts like technocapital, spectacle, civilization, etc that you seek to put under a single label. I also of course disagree economically, as "mutual aid markets" really just become a petty bourgeoisie idealism and doesn't escape the cycle of capital. Rather I find that the only real insurrectionary exit comes in the form of communization. | *[[File:AnWeed2.png]] [[Anarcho-Marijuanism|{{Color|#3cde49|'''Weedman'''}}]] - Fellow contemporary anarchist, but I have a few disagreements. For one I disagree with the usefulness of the TAZ, primarily because it must fundamentally rely on capital for its own existence and cannot present an "outside". In fact through its existence capital now has a controlled alternative, preventing actual insurrectionary exit. Really while I'd agree that zones and the like will show up at any insurrectionary praxis, and they allow for temporary affirmative assertion, putting them at the basis of praxis is just self defeating. I also disagree with your notion of the matrix, I find it misunderstands concepts like technocapital, spectacle, civilization, etc that you seek to put under a single label. I also of course disagree economically, as "mutual aid markets" really just become a petty bourgeoisie idealism and doesn't escape the cycle of capital. Rather I find that the only real insurrectionary exit comes in the form of communization. | ||
*[[File:Mfaicon.png]][[Mindform Anarchism|{{Color|#c9fffc|'''Felix'''}}]] - I'd largely agree with your characterization of anarchy on an ontological level with "an ungrounded ground of infinite potential" though we draw it from vastly different theorists. What confuses me is how you pair that with your traditionalism, along with your more structural formulation of politics and your rejection of postmodernism. To start with tradition you claim that that is the only way to resist the destructive process of capitalism, which is certainly commodifying and removing traditional ways of life. But the reaction to turn back to tradition in order to replace capital only replaces one alienating process with another, along with being entirely contrary to anarchy. You base your rejection of the postmodern on category theory, claiming it to go against the axiomatic process of set theory (modernity), and morphisms (postmodernity). However while category theory is certainly a very interesting field of math, it cannot be placed as the basis of philosophy. You claim yourself that it is based on simple logic rather than axioms, but this is itself based on a dominant image of thought and philosophical assumptions. Just as many Analytics (along with Badiou though he does this better) claim set theory as the basis for philosophy category theory falls to the same issue. I also would like to note that Deleuze and Guattari used category theory extensively in their later work, thought that might be interesting for you. | *[[File:Mfaicon.png]] [[Mindform Anarchism|{{Color|#c9fffc|'''Felix'''}}]] - I'd largely agree with your characterization of anarchy on an ontological level with "an ungrounded ground of infinite potential" though we draw it from vastly different theorists. What confuses me is how you pair that with your traditionalism, along with your more structural formulation of politics and your rejection of postmodernism. To start with tradition you claim that that is the only way to resist the destructive process of capitalism, which is certainly commodifying and removing traditional ways of life. But the reaction to turn back to tradition in order to replace capital only replaces one alienating process with another, along with being entirely contrary to anarchy. You base your rejection of the postmodern on category theory, claiming it to go against the axiomatic process of set theory (modernity), and morphisms (postmodernity). However while category theory is certainly a very interesting field of math, it cannot be placed as the basis of philosophy. You claim yourself that it is based on simple logic rather than axioms, but this is itself based on a dominant image of thought and philosophical assumptions. Just as many Analytics (along with Badiou though he does this better) claim set theory as the basis for philosophy category theory falls to the same issue. I also would like to note that Deleuze and Guattari used category theory extensively in their later work, thought that might be interesting for you. | ||
=Notes= | =Notes= | ||
Revision as of 20:01, 12 January 2024
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent HelloThere314's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
 |
Work in Progress "I'll be done any day now!" - Still-Being-Drawnism This page is not done yet and may still contain inaccurate information or miss important details. |
Hello, I'm 
HelloThere314, and this is my self insert.
In short I take an anti-foundationalist approach to both philosophy and politics. This leads me philosophically to Stirner's idea of egoism, to base one's cause on nothing, along with an immanent view of phenomenology, existentialism, and post-structuralism (Mostly the theories of Deleuze and Foucault.) These influences lead me to an idiosyncratic notion of subjectivity, from which I base my philosophical analysis and insurrectionary politics. My politics is primarily based on Stirner's notion of ownness in contrast to freedom, Newman's post-anarchist challenge to power at the ontological level, and the contemporary theory of communization (I mostly take from Tropoloin, Tiqqun, and Culp Here). This communization is based on a combined social individuation and insurrection, as my communism is not the establishment of a new system but the abolition of social mediation, wich I view as fundamentally alienating and limiting. This is all a basic overview and is further expanded upon in my writings.
Writings
My stuff can be found on substack. Current articles are listed here:
Stirner's New Critics Part One: Introduction
Stirner's New Critics Part Two: The Marxist Critiques of Stirner- Stirner's New Critics Part Three: The Existentialist Critiques of Stirner
- Stirner's New Critics Part Four: The Post-Structuralist Critiques of Stirner
Post-Anarchist Communism Part One: Introduction
Immanence and Transcendence: Reflections on The Plane of Immanence
Post-Anarchist Communism Part Two: The Post-Anarchist Approach to Power
Post-Anarchist Communism Part Three: The Process of Communization
Beyond Baudrillard Part One: Introduction
Relations
Weedman - Fellow contemporary anarchist, but I have a few disagreements. For one I disagree with the usefulness of the TAZ, primarily because it must fundamentally rely on capital for its own existence and cannot present an "outside". In fact through its existence capital now has a controlled alternative, preventing actual insurrectionary exit. Really while I'd agree that zones and the like will show up at any insurrectionary praxis, and they allow for temporary affirmative assertion, putting them at the basis of praxis is just self defeating. I also disagree with your notion of the matrix, I find it misunderstands concepts like technocapital, spectacle, civilization, etc that you seek to put under a single label. I also of course disagree economically, as "mutual aid markets" really just become a petty bourgeoisie idealism and doesn't escape the cycle of capital. Rather I find that the only real insurrectionary exit comes in the form of communization.
Felix - I'd largely agree with your characterization of anarchy on an ontological level with "an ungrounded ground of infinite potential" though we draw it from vastly different theorists. What confuses me is how you pair that with your traditionalism, along with your more structural formulation of politics and your rejection of postmodernism. To start with tradition you claim that that is the only way to resist the destructive process of capitalism, which is certainly commodifying and removing traditional ways of life. But the reaction to turn back to tradition in order to replace capital only replaces one alienating process with another, along with being entirely contrary to anarchy. You base your rejection of the postmodern on category theory, claiming it to go against the axiomatic process of set theory (modernity), and morphisms (postmodernity). However while category theory is certainly a very interesting field of math, it cannot be placed as the basis of philosophy. You claim yourself that it is based on simple logic rather than axioms, but this is itself based on a dominant image of thought and philosophical assumptions. Just as many Analytics (along with Badiou though he does this better) claim set theory as the basis for philosophy category theory falls to the same issue. I also would like to note that Deleuze and Guattari used category theory extensively in their later work, thought that might be interesting for you.
Notes
Comments
HelloThere314 Comment below. I will be deleting old comments