Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
nonser15
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 *
* *
***********************************************************************
