HelloThere314ism

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.

HelloThere314ism
“Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection [Empörung] leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hopes on 'institutions.'” - Max Stirner
Basic Information
Aliases	Feel Free To Add! Respectable Stirnerite
Alignments	Post-Left Anarchist Communist Culturally Far-Left
Ideological Alignments
Philosophy	Stirnerite Egoism Communization Post-Anarchism Post-Structuralism Existential Phenomenology

Hello, I'm HelloThere314, and this is my self insert.

In short I take an Anti-Essentialist approach to both philosophy and politics. This leads me philosophically to Egoism, to base one's cause on nothing, along with an immanent view of Phenomenology , Existentialism, and Post-Structuralism. 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 the notion of ownness in contrast to freedom, the Post-Anarchist challenge to power at the ontological level, and the contemporary theory of Communization. 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.

Overview

I'm just gonna put an overview of my views on different topics for those that don't read my texts. I'm currently working on THK stuff so don't expect this to progress that quickly.

Metaphysics

• Metaphysical objects are conceptualized out of our experience of being.
• Concepts can be freely formed and manipulated both by individuals and society as a whole.
• Conceptualization can occur differently across different individuals and cultural groups.
• Individuals accept certain concepts as a "theoretical toolbox" due to being born into a specific cultural context.
• This does not mean that they cannot manipulate this cultural context to their liking.
• Concepts are always in the process of becoming, they are always going through manipulation of their use.
• Conceptualization can deal with things beyond our direct experience, it can be deeply theoretical.
• However it is never transcendent to experience, as it is always within the context of our experience that we experience the concept.
• Concepts, and thus transcendence, are experienced as transcendent but can always be reduced back to immanent experience.
• This is why Deleuze's plane of immanence is important, it is the ultimate expression of this pure immanence.
• Concepts are experienced as transcendent due to their domination of what they describe.
• Conceptualization always reduces and stratifies what it attempts to describe, it always causes alienation between it and what it seeks to describe.
• Stirner's idea of uniqueness, names do not name me, applies to all concepts as they are always in the context of subjectivity.
• Stirner's uniqueness, Lacan's real, Derrida's differánce, and Deleuze's intensity all express this idea in their own idiosyncratic manner.
• Concepts are inherently a multiplicity, as they contain subconceptions and are always in relation to other concepts.
• Concepts are never defined positively but instead always in relation to other concepts.
• This is of course influenced by Saussurean semiotics and the developments made by various post-structuralist thinkers.
• The scientific validity of this is disputed, but it is a far better model than the emergent language trees of Chomsky.
• Now concepts are not language, concepts are unified ideas that can be expressed within language as signified or can remain unexpressed.
• However semiotics does clearly have validity within the conceptual realm.
• What concepts describe are different connotations of being. This will be called connotation and is the layer of being underlying concepts.
• The difference between different connotations of being is not discrete, as that would require a conceptual relative difference.
• Instead difference here is Deleuze's difference, a preconceptual difference.
• WIP

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
• Beyond Baudrillard Part Two: Against the Fatal Strategy

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 on 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 don'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 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 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.
• Killer Kitty - Well this has certainly been an interesting turn. You've gone from a pretty standard liberal, with some unsavory tendencies, to the utter depths of reaction. You claim the superiority of the Brazilian nation and the black race, and that it should conquer all others. The racism here is of course very present, along with an irrational nationalism based on the sacred cause of the nation. The nation is not an entity that exists out there before we conceptualize it, neither is race for that matter. Instead, it is out of recognition of these concepts that it comes into existence. Why then follow this idol that we have placed there? Now there are material forces that function under this concept, the nation-state, that have their various weaponry and institutions. To embrace the state, to embrace the nation, to embrace this racism, etc is to alienate yourself and fall into reaction. Hopefully, this is just a phase.
• Bax - You confuse me somewhat as you start from Stirner (though your understanding of him seems to be faulty) and fall into the same sacred causes he came to detest. You justify this through your idea of the "collective ego" stating that since we all have "egos" and we all are self-interested we all should care for each other and become a collective. While certainly empathetic, it fundamentally misunderstands what Stirner means and just makes a logical leap without explaining it. This is just a blind collectivism, with a new sacred ideal being placed over me. Along with this the "ego" is a mistranslation of what Stirner means, it is rather the unique. Using this newfound sacred collective cause, you establish your nationalist and socialist politics. Nationalism seems to run counter to your "collective egoism", as it establishes an artificial division between one group of people and another (This comes up with your hatered of Bolivia). But if we are all to be altruistic, if it is our "ego", why prioritize one over the other? On your dictatorship and socialism it's just heaven storming, I see no real reason to support it. This national revolution just serves to further chain me.
• Hysteria - Behind the schizo aesthetics there is a pretty understandable tendency, one that seeks to expand schizophrenic creativity in any way possible. Just as Bassier calls Land a manic black Deleuzianism, one could describe your thoughts under a manic tendency towards the expansion of schizophrenia. However, besides my general disagreement that we should undergo this transformation, after all, schizoanalysis in its creative process doesn't emphasize schizophrenia in the literal sense, I find some key systematic issues here. After all, schizophrenia is the absolute limit of capitalism, capitalism is always coded in its operations. Land states that the technocapital singularity will be reached and this will be the full deterritorialization of capital, and it is for capital, however, this same deterritorialization leads to an intense mediation of all life. What is this if not an affront to affirmation, to creativity? After all your prose you come to a standpoint of privatization and a "revolt" that is not a rejection of the current forms of domination but instead its intensification.
• Proletariat Builder - For all we disagree on, you have at least an interesting thought process. You are inspired by more modern forms of liberatory philosophy, yet return to an ancient thought process based on totalizing cultural forms. I am sure you know what I think of identifying with some cultural group and basing one's identity around it. Through it, you place it as a totalizing strata in the mind, stifling the supposed freedom you wish for. White supremacy, patriarchy, etc are all inherently essentialist divisions in the mind. Along with this, your virtue ethics are incredibly faulty in basis, but perhaps more well-founded than deontology or utilitarianism.
• MEADOWSIN - Though there isn't much on your page at the moment I thought I'd take a look at the change you've undergone. I think the contradictions I saw in your previous thoughts are still there but in different forms. You have the idea of the worker nomad, yet maintain a rojava-style confederalism. I'm sure you know that Rojava is in no way a communist project or nomadic project, and has many tints of nationalism and cult of personality present in its structure. Along with this despite your claim towards communization and nomadism you keep fundamental structures of work and governance, seeking to explain it away through "natural" homogenization and the claim that there will always be a self-sufficient outside. However, you should know how these institutions conquer and expand, and how the process of valorization remains in your structure of work. The kasynsky and thoreu outside you imagine is a false outside, really you construct the limit of cybernetic control that Tiqqun sees in the late Negri. A full communization is needed, not a construction of new institutions, seemingly "voluntary" or not.
• Kosciuszkovagr - Another figure in this pcb communizer wave. Funnily enough, me, Aycee, and Nguyen are mostly responsible for this when we added it as an ideology a year ago. Whether or not this is shopping like most or you came to it on your own I don't know. However just looking at your ideas I do find some interesting things, many of which are very close to my own views. However since you haven't elaborated on many of them I can't comment much. The situationist council form is alright, though like any form I think placing it as a form above all others ignores the reality of how these forms come about. Organic planning as you call it isn't really developed, but the placement of organic before something doesn't change the thing itself. Plus there needs to be an explanation of why that would come about organically. Then the whole idea of "ego liberation" isn't really what Stirner is about, there is no ego in Stirner after all. Also when you get around to reading Stirner I would recommend the unique and its property not the ego and its own. The latter is where many of these misconceptions arise.

Comments

• HelloThere314 Comment below. I will be deleting old comments