Hints On Intellectual Honesty While Splitting My Atomic Britches

16 Jul

5x7kubhlai

In Paris, November 2000

samplex

I had nothing to add to this note originally published on the SWORG SWILL listserv on June 21, 1999, but I must say this note was an absolute gem to find in the mush of data recovery I am still mining, if for no other reason than to reinforce the notion that I always tended to agree with Kube, and this snippet was no exception. While he still writes from what is generally considered a leftist niche and mindset, his own summaries as fit in rather nicely into the right of center libertarian mold, where I have stood for a long time. So rather than two hippies in a tent, we’ve got two excavators in a hole.

But what fantastic treasure are we mining but a self-organizing return to traditional values grasped at the individual then wholistic level, without using the apparatus of state to force a groupthink upon a naturally flowing cooperation of human individuals armed with a mutual respect, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that includes all those who would be king, queen, or even the party feen who should be operating within the epic conditions of the whole. But all good things come to an end in this world of entropy and collapse. The Swill label died a natural death after three of the five of us spent two weeks together in Paris and Amsterdam. Nothing like the sharpened elbows of ego economies to corrupt the stodgy idealism of mere scribblers.

Crash writes: I'm glad that you are so clear on your political position.

Kube writes: This was a joke right? Here are a few clearer generalisations.

1. that everyone is and should be out for themselves (individualism)
2. that everyone is mutually interdependent and only equity (of opportunity to develop what you are) can ultimately deliver what anyone needs (communism, self-interest). That is, the nurturing of the parts is the nurturing of the whole.
3. that such an interdependent and complex system can only work on the basis of control by the people (anarchism, efficiency.)
4. that the task is immense and cannot be perfected overnight (revolution, pragmatism) (also see my position on violence)
5. that human relations are inseparable from material conditions (sociology, biology)
6. that all that is springs from material conditions (materialism, religion)
7. there are loads more, but the above will do to fill in most of the traditional boxes.

Crash writes...
Because I'm still working on my position and feel that I'm constantly evolving, I'm not willing to throw my hat into the standard groups (situs, anarchists, marxists, whatever).

Kube writes...
Well I've been *trying* to throw in my lot with some kind of standard group or other for longer than I can remember, for the simple reason that I felt it necessary to organize and coordinate in order to have a benign effect upon a hostile social order. But the trouble with all these groups is simply that they're all fucking wrong.

Inevitably therefore, the basis of action, or of any cultural or political system which is its objective, must be individualism. In order for other people to be what you want them to be (whether you imagine this to be "sharing", "obedient", "enlightened", "beautiful" or whatever) you must create the conditions for them to make this of themselves.
And writes...
This is not to say that I disagree with Situationism (I want to live in situations!), Anarchism (I want to be free!) or Marxism (we must work together!), but as doctrines they fail to ensure the enlightenment of their own members let alone society at large, and therefore, one must induct that as worldviews they are not necessarily wrong, but they are certainly lacking. My opinion is that they all lack much the same thing—a sufficient comprehension of relationship and its role in the creative process (that is, in its creation of the future).

And writes...
Anarchists simply refuse to acknowledge the dynamic expansive essence of human nature—they fall back onto small fragmented self-contained worlds (two hippies in a tent on an allotment); the Situationists fell into the pomo Sargasso of 'going with the flow', everything is permissible and utopia will build itself out of nothing at all; the Marxists developed dialectics—but only to the size of a blastocyst, then stopped. All those libraries of paper, all those pyramids of ponderings on what should be done in Somalia, Timbuktu, Peking when the truth is that their members couldn't collectively make a chicken casserole out of a casserole and a chicken.

And writes...
Inevitably therefore, the basis of action, or of any cultural or political system which is its objective, must be individualism. In order for other people to be what you want them to be (whether you imagine this to be "sharing", "obedient", "enlightened", "beautiful" or whatever) you must create the conditions for them to make this of themselves. A world held in the shape you want it to be only by your own expenditure of energy is a world in which you suffer eternal hunger, toil, conflict, frustration and boredom. In other words, it's a paradox, or more to the point, an enigma not a trifle.

And writes...
This is the world we live in (reality on the ground, as Gabriel puts it).

And writes...
Even the honest desire to control others "for their own good" leads to a contempt for others, whom do not desire "their own good" any longer—therefore THEY must instead be punished for being the projected object of YOUR own dissatisfaction.

© 2007 - 2013, Gabriel Thy. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses

  1. Gabriel Thy says:

    Kubhlai is a mad, mad Englishman, father of eight children, the best writer we had. From Nottingham, we met personally in Paris. Crash is an American from the Midwest, although the last I heard he had relocated to San Diego. It's been a decade since I've communicated with either of them, although it would be wonderful to reconnect.

    Two-fifths of the International Swill.

  2. Gabriel Thy says:

    I had nothing to add to this note, but to say I agree with Kube as usual. While he still writes from what is generally considered a leftist hole, I see him, and raise him one as I see his arguments as fitting in rather nicely into the right of center libertarian mold. So rather than two hippies in a tent, we've got two excavators in a hole. But what is it we are mining but a return to traditional values grasped at the individual level, and not using the apparatus of state to force a groupthink upon a naturally flowing cooperation of human individuals armed with a mutual respect, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that includes all those who would be king, queen, party feen...

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

S A M P L E X

"Ignorance and virtue suck on the same straw. Souls grow on bones, but die beneath bankers' hours.""


Top

Login