PDA

View Full Version : Anarchemy: anarchy + alchemy



Awani
01-04-2009, 01:51 AM
This is a Phoenix-thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7) from the old site (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/forum.htm).

I've expressed this opinion in other forums as well, but since it is alchemical at its core it should be included here! Now I place it in general discussions because I feel that it is also about anarchy...

Emma Goldman writes in Anarchism: What it really stands for (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html):

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.”Alchemy, together with all great ancient knowledge, teaches us that we are all one. The great comedian Bill Hicks beautifully states that “we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.

When Emma Goldman hails anarchism as the “liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government…” she could just as well have been speaking of alchemy and the mental process because its completion grants the practioner access to another state of being free of all material bonds.

She explains anarchism (or if you will alchemy) as “an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.”

Comments?
In all honesty, I do believe that Anarchy is, oddly enough, the goal of bodhisattvas and alchemists alike, and as with the Great Work, the state requires many many revisions and workings within the process to reach. If we were all so responsible with ourselves and amongst ourselves to require no over-arching law, this would be perfect. But, before instituting anarchy, I myself prefer to find ways of helping myself and others become the sorts who can live in that sort of society.
Anarchism is an interesting subject, and by far one of the most profound. It brings to mind something Crowley said in The Book of Law; if we all do our own will, there would no clashing, and everything would orbit in a perfect manner.

However I feel that all attempts at instituting such a thing in modern society is in vain. There are just too many people, with too many views, and they are tied tightly to the spokes of the great societal wheel.

In the end, massive population reduction is the only way to obtain such a goal, and even then it might become difficult to obtain true anarchy in its highest sense.

However I feel that all attempts at instituting such a thing in modern society is in vain. There are just too many people, with too many views, and they are tied tightly to the spokes of the great societal wheel. In the end, massive population reduction is the only way to obtain such a goal, and even then it might become difficult to obtain true anarchy in its highest sense.
Yeah, there needs to be less people. Instead of getting pregnant wanna-be parents should adopt a child that is already here, and unwanted. Let's share the weight.

Alchemy is deeply personal and individual, as is anarchy. That is why it matters little what the masses think! Fuck 'em... let them bury themselves!

Not to rule, nor be ruled!
* Walks in waving a black flag *

Yeah, this is the kind of thread that lets me know I'm in the right place!

As it happens, in addition to a book on alchemy, I am also writing a book promoting anarchist ideas, and ideas that might help move democracy back in the right direction (ie towards anarchy). I plan to release this second book as Open Source, or Creative Commons, in keeping with the politics it preaches...

Yeah, this is the kind of thread that lets me know I'm in the right place!That you might be, but I am sure there are plenty of non-anarchists here too. I am one of these myself, although I must admit there is a lot in anarchy that I agree with.

Creative Commons... if society was different all books/films etc could be published in this format!

Ah... the utopian dream!



That you might be, but I am sure there are plenty of non-anarchists here too. I am one of these myself, although I must admit there is a lot in anarchy that I agree with.

Well, I don't necessarily call myself an anarchist either. I just find those who adhere to some kind of anarchist type system of thought (from anarcho-syndicalists to libertarians) much more pleasant to be around than authoritarian types...


Creative Commons... if society was different all books/films etc could be published in this format!

Ah... the utopian dream!



All books end up in the public domain eventually. Copyright does expire. Until we have a system of wealth distribution that doesn't require money, authors will still need to be paid. Not that I'm the kind of author that would pursue someone for copyright breach, although my publisher might...

Awani
04-08-2009, 03:57 AM
When McKenna spoke of the Archaic Revival:


What the Archaic Revival means is shamanism, ecstacy, orgiastic sexuality, and the defeat of the three enemies of the people. And the three enemies of the people are hegemony, monogamy and monotony!

...one could also be speaking of an Anarchic Revival.

:)

theFool
04-10-2009, 08:00 AM
Alchemy could provide to individuals (or small groups) independency from central structures by allowing them to produce their own energy, food and medicines. Thus, all the pathological relationships that form in a society because of need, will be diminished.

WCH
04-22-2009, 07:31 PM
Anarchism has been something I've been contemplating a lot lately. In political discussions I've repeatedly made the argument that the "problem" is not particular institutions taking particular actions (ie, Chevron building an unsafe petroleum refinery in Ecuador, or WalMart not paying workers enough), but in the concept of the "institution" itself -- a level of organisation which is capable of producing larger effects than are individuals but which necessarily results in the sublimation of individual voices and experiences.

This is an interesting dilemma. Take the problem of suffering... people are starving; what are you going to do about that? Institutional structures provide an answer in the form of increased efficiency and therefore more crops and an easier time delivering those crops to the starving people. However, what are the latent effects? Some compromise of individual agency and identity must surely have taken place; what land was used to grow the crops, and what else would have been done with that land had this not been the case? In the interest of efficiency, how many employees of the system were forced to follow rigid guidelines and were therefore unable to express themselves freely? For those provided for, how dependent has this made them upon the structures which provided for them, and what implications does this have as far as their ability to be self-sustaining in the future?

That's all without getting into stuff like overpopulation, pollution, etc. I'm willing on some level to accept that society *might* be able to become sustainable (doesn't seem likely the way things are going, but enough people re pushing for it that it's possible), but in order to do so, there needs to be a whole lot of compromise of human freedom.

Embracing anarchy necessarily results in a reduction in objective measures of well-being for many people (life expectancy, say), in favour of woo-woo subjective intangibles like "sense of well-being," "connection to the world around you," "agency," etc. Objectivity vs subjectivity. When speaking with my Utilitarian voice, the one is clearly better, and when speaking with my Passionate voice, the other is clearly better.

Now, I've been trained in a certain way of approaching dilemmas. Basically, to look at it not as two contradictory answers to the same question (ie, what's the best for people?) but as two correct answers to completely different questions (ie, how can we best protect people and make them healthy? vs how can people best be allowed to be conscious agents?). There should, in theory, be a way to unify the two, and create a single solution which answers both.

I'm thinking here of course of Nietzsche and his Apollonian/Dionysian thing. Ideally, the two would be in balance. In our society, Apollo dominates and Dionysus is repressed; I, and others, with our anarchist tendencies, react to this by emphasizing the Dionysian, rejecting Apollo outright. Maybe this is necessary, given the societal context... maybe we as a culture have gone so far in the one direction that bringing it back to balance is impossible, and expressing the Dionysian as loudly as we can to remind people of its existence is the best we can do. I'm not sure yet.

Cephal
04-22-2009, 10:33 PM
Anarchism has been something I've been contemplating a lot lately. In political discussions I've repeatedly made the argument that the "problem" is not particular institutions taking particular actions (ie, Chevron building an unsafe petroleum refinery in Ecuador, or WalMart not paying workers enough), but in the concept of the "institution" itself -- a level of organisation which is capable of producing larger effects than are individuals but which necessarily results in the sublimation of individual voices and experiences.

This is an interesting dilemma. Take the problem of suffering... people are starving; what are you going to do about that? Institutional structures provide an answer in the form of increased efficiency and therefore more crops and an easier time delivering those crops to the starving people. However, what are the latent effects? Some compromise of individual agency and identity must surely have taken place; what land was used to grow the crops, and what else would have been done with that land had this not been the case? In the interest of efficiency, how many employees of the system were forced to follow rigid guidelines and were therefore unable to express themselves freely? For those provided for, how dependent has this made them upon the structures which provided for them, and what implications does this have as far as their ability to be self-sustaining in the future?

That's all without getting into stuff like overpopulation, pollution, etc. I'm willing on some level to accept that society *might* be able to become sustainable (doesn't seem likely the way things are going, but enough people re pushing for it that it's possible), but in order to do so, there needs to be a whole lot of compromise of human freedom.

Embracing anarchy necessarily results in a reduction in objective measures of well-being for many people (life expectancy, say), in favour of woo-woo subjective intangibles like "sense of well-being," "connection to the world around you," "agency," etc. Objectivity vs subjectivity. When speaking with my Utilitarian voice, the one is clearly better, and when speaking with my Passionate voice, the other is clearly better.

Now, I've been trained in a certain way of approaching dilemmas. Basically, to look at it not as two contradictory answers to the same question (ie, what's the best for people?) but as two correct answers to completely different questions (ie, how can we best protect people and make them healthy? vs how can people best be allowed to be conscious agents?). There should, in theory, be a way to unify the two, and create a single solution which answers both.

I'm thinking here of course of Nietzsche and his Apollonian/Dionysian thing. Ideally, the two would be in balance. In our society, Apollo dominates and Dionysus is repressed; I, and others, with our anarchist tendencies, react to this by emphasizing the Dionysian, rejecting Apollo outright. Maybe this is necessary, given the societal context... maybe we as a culture have gone so far in the one direction that bringing it back to balance is impossible, and expressing the Dionysian as loudly as we can to remind people of its existence is the best we can do. I'm not sure yet.

As a collectivist, a proponent of the Order/Chaos theory, a supporter of the concept of "the state" and "government," and someone who spends endless amounts of time studying social sciences - I will explain my views. First and foremost - Anarchism is the lack of the state and therefore government with the argument that things can be done without established administration in the trust that the people can handle their own problems and provide for their own needs without use of a "state" while coexisting. However, many inherent flaws exist in such a system - The first is to make the realization that it is based in the spectrum of "chaos" and therefore is harmful to the collective for a prolonged period of time. We are all zero until united as one, we are a collective - Which means that everything should be placed for the benefit of the all over the benefit of the one. Following up with that statement, if the collective were accounted for, then the individual would be handled in the process. A good example of an anarchistic system would be capitalism. With or without state intervention, this system ultimately bases upon principles of the "individual" and their aims, often stemming from that of greed or desire to accomplish their own aims or to do for their own benefit. Everyone in the system essentially does for "self" whether they agree or not. Those at the top make profit from heading corporations and guiding the decisions, and those going more toward the bottom make a "wage" to fulfill their own needs or desires - From the obtaining of luxuries to simply survival. The entire principle is based upon the concept of "the self" and will always degenerate the collective into a harmful existence, as we see in modern times. Though there has been state intervention, capitalism eventually carves way into controlling the very government that is meant to keep the system in check - manipulating the system to the aims of capitalist intent. Another point of argument is that the majority of humanity is far from obtaining "enlightenment" and even if they held such a thing, there will be those who will use it to their own aims. For instance, in an anarchistic system: the lack of state will progress for a time until some sort of a coalition forms that wishes to reshape or control the society to their will. Another fault of anarchy is the inability to provide for the needs of the collective, especially with the requirements that are necessary to sustain the current size of the collective. For instance, people in an area such as New York City receive the majority of their food mostly from imports and areas on the other side of the country - even with alchemy being unlocked, the same factor would be implied. If there is no established system to regulate the efficiency and prosperity of the collective, then the collective will be hurt.
Individualism cannot exist in a society where we are all one, a collective. As long as the individualist concept is propagated and followed in enough of a proportion, the collective will suffer and the concept of greed will remain in such a large base as to hinder our progress and our species wide path to enlightenment.

As for any arguments that will be brought up about the ineffective nature of "Government" and how it is harmful to the people - I again say that it is often as a product of individualist thinking and the prolonged existence of a primarily individualist society. If the collective actively wills individualism, then it is unconsciously willing conflict, suffering, greed, and hindrance of progress. And if the collective unconsciously wills said things, they will receive it thrice of which they expected. The will, the power of the collective is strong and a very interesting thing. To tap into it would grant power and strength, and the ability to reshape the world, as our collective is part of an even greater collective that is existence. As such, it is that link to the collective that will lead us to prosperity, not the furthering away from it - Which individualism causes whether you wish to believe or not.

Ultimately, Individualism = Extension of the Chaos spectrum, Collectivism = Extension of the Order spectrum.

I hope my words were amusing enough - I'm done for now.

WCH
04-23-2009, 04:43 AM
Here's an interesting thought for you to mull over: radical individualism is identical to universalism. Does that make sense to you? It does to me...

The problem for me is sublimating your identity to something larger than the self but smaller than everything. Creation of an ingroup necessitates an outgroup, and leads to tensions... Nationalism, for instance, always leads to bigotry and violence. Rabindranath Tagore wrote about this... I recommend the collection of his essays titled Toward Universal Man.

Your point about the emergence of states is important to remember. Hakim Bey proposes Ontological Anarchism... a tautology: you are capable of doing anything you are capable of doing. Of course, one thing that people are free to do is to make rules for how others should behave, and to use persuasion and coercion to get them to do follow these rules. In other words, while it is simply the case that you are free to do whatever you'd like, the same is true for the police officer who can, if he chooses, beat you down and take you to jail. That's an exercise of freedom.

My approach is to emphasize that freedom. For that police officer for instance... he has the choice of whether or not to enforce the law, and therefore the law is, on some level, irrelevant. I would like for society to move in this sort of direction... grant individuals as much agency as possible, not doing things simply because that's what "has" to happen. Everything should be context dependent, suited to the needs of the individuals involved, and be based on the will of those individuals, not rules in a book. This is what I mean by individualism, which is the other side of the same coin as universalism. Treat everyone as people, not as cogs in a machine.

Play_Dough
04-23-2009, 09:32 PM
The Tao Te Ching advocates an enlightened method of governance.
Here (below) are the relevant excerpts from the Tao Te Ching pertaining to 'how to govern'.

17
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.

19
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.

29
Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

30
Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn't try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.

The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control...

46
When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

49
The Master has no mind of her own.
She works with the mind of the people.

51
Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.

57
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

58
If a country is governed with tolerance,
the people are comfortable and honest.
If a country is governed with repression,
the people are depressed and crafty.

When the will to power is in charge,
the higher the ideals, the lower the results.
Try to make people happy,
and you lay the groundwork for misery.
Try to make people moral,
and you lay the groundwork for vice.

59
For governing a country well
there is nothing better than moderation.

60
Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.

Center your country in the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that it isn't there,
but you'll be able to step out of its way.

Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.

61
When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.

If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.

65
The ancient Masters
didn't try to educate the people,
but kindly taught them to not-know.

When they think that they know the answers,
people are difficult to guide.
When they know that they don't know,
people can find their own way.

If you want to learn how to govern,
avoid being clever or rich.
The simplest pattern is the clearest.
Content with an ordinary life,
you can show all people the way
back to their own true nature.

72
When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend upon authority.

75
When taxes are too high,
people go hungry.
When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit.

Act for the people's benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.

80
If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time in saving time.

81
The Tao nourishes by not forcing.
By not dominating, the Master leads.


From (link) http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html.

Awani
07-23-2009, 03:23 AM
Great points from all perspectives... I like the Tao twist also.

The universe is, at least to such insects as humans, a chaotic realm so there is no point in trying to control it. Much better to move up and down, in and out, at will - just as the serpents do along the famed Caduceus (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=17)!

:cool:

Awani
11-13-2012, 12:50 AM
Jesus Christ was the supreme example of authentic anarchy — the creative non-violent anarchist par excellence — working … to empower people and enable them to realize their potential… - Dave Andrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Andrews)


All good men are anarchists. All cultured, kindly men; all gentlemen; all just men are anarchists. Jesus was an anarchist. - Elbert Hubbard (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Elbert_Hubbard)

Good points and fits well with the subject of this thread; that alchemy and anarchy are strongly related... in that they both are about empowering the self (IMO).

I personally dislike labels, I don't call myself an Alchemist nor do I call myself an Anarchist. Any concept does not need to be morphed into the name of who we are... instead alchemy/anarchy is a state of mind.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/Anarchy_Heart.jpg

Let me finish on a lighter note:


We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules. - Alan Bennett (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Bennett)

Awani
06-25-2014, 01:03 AM
The true chaos is the orderly illusion of society, state and system... not anarchy.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/209262_469061176467134_1418529321_o_zps5a8ce06b.jp g

:cool: