OBJECTIVES:
(A) To introduce four concepts which may be of interest to reformers, libertarians, and anarchists: "buffering," "soft spot," "schismogenesis," and "competence to respond."
(B) To pose certain questions that may be profitably asked when attempting to change a system
(C) To indicate the possible relevance of the above four concepts to philosophical anarchism.
(D) To indicate who underlying thought patterns serve to maintain systems.
(E) To tell the story of my meeting with an extremely radical libertarian in Luxembourg.
(F) To present the basic notions of "ultimate libertarian purism."
(G) To rewrite Patrick Henry's famous speech as it would have been delivered by an "ultimate libertarian purist."
(H) To suggest that you "suck it and see" what happens.
(I) To relate all the above back to the notion of context.
Four concepts from general systems theory/catastrophe theory may be of interest to those attempting to change or reform systems:
A system is said to be "buffered against change" when attempts to change the system result in compensating or countervailing forces or tendencies that inhibit or prevent the change. A crude example of buffering can be found in the governor of a steam engine. If the load on the engine is increased and it starts turning slower, the governor releases more steam into the cylinder, which speeds up the engine. This engine is buffered against change.
A "soft spot" is an aspect of a system that, if influenced, is particularly prone to result in major changes in the system. An example of a soft spot is the lock to the front door of a fortified house. If you don't have the key, it is very difficult to get in. Possession of the key, on the other hand, makes it possible to unlock the front door (influencing the sofft spot) and to enter the house. (In the case of the steam engine, is the governor also a soft spot? Think about the significance...
"Schismogenesis" is a term invented by Gregory Bateson. It relates to a system in which the intensifying of a force brings about the proportional increase of an opposing force. An example is a feud between two neighbors who both love (their own) loud music: In turn, they acquire more and more powerful amplifiers and loudspeakers...the genesis of schism.
QUESTIONS:
(A) The system that you seek to change - how is it buffered?
(B) Where and what are the soft spots?
(C) Is it possible that your thinking, communication, and behavior constitute part of the buffer that stabilizes the very system you want to change?
(D) How do you go about finding the soft spots?
(E) Those who coercively control and parasitically live off certain systems - how do they go about concealing their soft spots?
(F) What can you do to prevent schismogenesis?
(G) What have the "solidarity" people achieved, so far, other than schismogenesis?
(H) Could it be that the absurd notion of "law" constitutes both a buffer and a soft spot?
(I) What about language?
(J) What about context, paradigm, and mindset?
(K) How does all this relate to holdcept and jumpcept?
(At this point, you may care to return to Section 9, "Philosophical Anarchism" - specifically, to "the entire conceptual, foundational paradigm (set of concepts) on which political thinking, communication, and behavior are based," and "the abstractions that constitute the basic paradigm of politics"...what is the significance of all this?)
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There's so much talk about the system - and so little understanding.
That's all the motorcycle is - a system of concepts worked out in steel. There's no part in it, no shape in it, that is not out of someone's mind. - Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance")
Sometimes, it is possible to perceive or predict that a system will be likely to change during some period in the future. This is called, in biology, the "period of competence." In general, it is no use to attempt to change the system before it has reached a condition in which it has "competence to respond." As Waddington said, "Effective revolutionaries, like Lenin, have been brilliant in choosing just the right time to give a push to a society coming up to a branch point in its stability system."
Maybe there are always revolutionaries pushing the system - those who happen (by chance) to push at the "right" time are called "brilliant;" those who push (also by chance) at the "wrong" time are "stupid." - "AS"
Recently, I met the most radical libertarian you could possibly imagine. Originally, I thought this fellow was quite crazy, but the more I reflect on his outlandish philosophy, the more I suspect that all libertarians could benefit from heeding his words.
We met in a bank in Luxembourg. We were both buying silver and gold (it's theft-free in Luxembourg). I invited him for a coffee in a nearby café. I told him I was a libertarian.
"Libertarian!" he snorted. "Practically all so-called libertarians are still so conditioned and so far from the truth - they don't know the first thing about liberty."
I looked at him in surprise. I considered libertarians to be the leading edge of human evolution. There followed a sometimes heated discussion about many aspects and principles of libertarianism. Time and time again, thos most extreme radical questioned even the words I sued - for example:
"What about the laws of a country?" I asked.
"Haw, haw, haw," my friend laughed almost hysterically. I thought he would fall off his chair. Several people in the café looked at him in bemusement. "What about the barking of copulating baboons in the zoo?" he replied.
I was bewildered. "What's so funny?"
"My friend," he said, "like most so-called libertarians, you don't have the foggiest notion of what exists and what doesn't. You believe in magical 'laws' like a spiritualist believes in supernatural 'ghosts'...except...except that your belief is possibly even more absurd than that of the spiritualist. You see, I've heard of people who claim that they have seen 'ghosts;' there are even purported photographs of 'ghosts.' But I've never head of anyone who claims that he has seen a so-called 'law,' never mind photographed it."
"Anyway," I said, "what does all this have to do with liberty?"
"My aspirant libertarian friend," he replied, "when you free your mind from the false concepts, the misconceptions that fixate your thinking within the mental grooves fashioned by those who seek to enslave you, then you will discover what liberty really is; then you will be able to live free. Most so-called libertarians are like pigs hopelessly floundering in a cesspool of statist concepts. Just as it is almost impossible for a fish to imagine life on land, so it is difficult, if at all possible, for an aspirant-libertarian locked into statist concepts, to conceive life outside his or her self-created cesspool..."
For a while, we were both silent. Then, he continued, "In actuality, the whole world is libertarian. Individuals are supreme, whether they know it or not. We all have virtually unlimited choice all the time - we may assume beliefs that limit our choice, we may also get ourselves into situations where choice is limited; but those are also choices. Objectively, there are no so-called 'states,' 'governments,' 'kings,' 'queens,' etc.; there never have been, and there never will be. I have asked many people to show me a 'govern-ment' and to tell me what it looks like; nobody has been able to do that. Of course, there are hucksters who call themselves 'government,' 'King,' or 'President'...just as there are suckers who believe them, who blindly obey them, who blindly oppose them.
"One needs to live one's life in accordance with actuality: What is, what exists, what occurs. So I live my life out of a context of liberty, a libertarian enclave, an anarcho-libertarian enclave. I carry it with me like an aura. I have rights: A right to life, to own property, to produce, to exchange, to communicate. And my rights do not depend on the agreement of others. I am supreme. I am responsible for every aspect of my life. My self-esteem, my power, and my liberty can only be curbed by my own limitations. There are, of course, those who think otherwise, who would seek to violate my rights. When making choices, I take that into consideration."
Suddenly, he stood up. "I need to go."
"One last question," I asked, with more sarcasm than I had intended, "Isn't it lonely having escaped from the cesspool?"
"No, my friend," he laughed gleefully, "it is not possible for a truly liberated libertarian to be lonely."
Then I realized that I didn't even know his name. "Please, tell me your name before you go."
"Malaclypse," he replied.
"Not THE Malaclypse," I asked in wonderment. "You wrote 'Principia Discordia'?"
"No," he replied. "That was my boy, Malaclypse the Younger; I am Malaclypse the Elder... and ???."
Then, he wafted out the café - like a disappearing dream - out the door, happily swinging his briefcase, heavily laden with silver and gold, as if it were a feather...
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of is laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away -
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
- Lewis Carroll ("The Hunting of the Snark")
"Ultimate Libertarian Purism" (ULP):
Basically, ULP developed out of my repeated and persistent attempts to answer the question, "Why have libertarians, in the long run, consistently failed to bring about lasting conditions of liberty in the world?" For centuries, some of the world's greatest minds have addressed the issue of individual liberty - what have they achieved, besides "swings of the pendu-lum"? - "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose'?
The fundamental insight of ULP is that statist thinking, communi-cation, and behavior stem from a very basic "systematic pattern of thought" (as suggested by Robert Pirsig above), or "some terrible plastic memory" (as suggested by James Herbert in the "White Plague," Section 7). What is this systematic pattern of thought or terrible plastic memory? Why have we been unable to cure ourselves from this malignant affliction?
I have spent thousands of hours researching these and related questions: Philosophy, psychology, brain physiology, history, politics, fiction, science fiction, sociology, etc., etc. ...I have also spent hundreds of hours in an isolation tank, attempting to consciously reprogram my own brain and nervous system...out of all this grew "ultimate libertarian purism" (ULP).
During August, 1982, I was a speaker and a panelist at the first "World Libertarian Convention" in Zurich. There, I attempted to communi-cate the basic notions of ULP - the rejection of the "totality of statism." That totality is like a big iceberg. Nine-tenths of it is hidden below the surface of the sea, and invisible. Above the surface are the "problems," like "unemployment," "inflation," "crime and punishment," "war," etc. Just below the surface are the popular statist fallacies: "Government must provide essential services," etc., etc. Deeper down are more basic notions, like: "Making laws," "external authority," "obedience as a virtue," etc. And still deeper down are "predispositions" to slave-master behavior, sado-maso-chism, self-victimization...and below that? The brain and the nervous system. Do we have to dive even deeper, or is this "rock bottom"? Remember Swift: "Vision is the art of seeing things invisible."
The task, as I see it, is to melt the iceberg - for individuals to melt their own iceberbs, and to become generally more effective in the process. As you melt the top of your iceberg, the rest of it tends to rise to the surface - unless you build a heavy mountain of "answers" on top of your iceberg. As soon as you say, "Now I have all the answers; all I have to do is to communicate them to the rest of the world,"as soon as you say this, you are lost; you have to keep questioning yourself, because you can never be sure that there isn't more iceberg below the surface.
The trouble, I think, is that practically all libertarians tend to reject the surface statist assumptions, but not the more basic - such as "the government makes laws," and "Ronald Reagan is President of the United States of America!" ("America, Shamerica; Dutch Reagan is parasite of the United Fates of Amnesia; shmucks!") When it comes to the underlying conceptual framework of statism, I found that most libertarians seemed incapable of even questioning the validity of concepts like "King," "President," "Prime Minister," "Emperor," "country," "state," "government," "institution," "Constitution," etc., (Their brains seem constipated with absurd statist concepts - I'm so tempted that I have to add: Grotesque statist shit!) I found that, by and large, libertarians couldn't distinguish between the concepts inside their skulls and the objects around them; while libertarians could argue that "the Emperor is naked," they didn't seem to be able to recognize that a naked man is a naked man.
Brothers and sisters, we have a long, long way to go...
The principal notions of ULP can be summarized as follows:
Ends do not justify means, but rather means justify means, and means have a way of becoming ends, so it is well to be scrupulous and uncompromising as to means. - Albert Camus
During the Zurich convention, Bruce Evoy, Vice Chairman of "Libertarian International" (who staged the convention), suggested that I rewrite Patrick Henry's famous speech from a ULP point of view:
Mr. Imposter: No man ridicules patriotism more than I do; no man pities more the unworthy gentlemen who have just addressed this house of iniquity and deception. Different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I do not mind that it be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to the people of this continent. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to ourselves. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of betrayal of myself, and an act of disloyalty to my own integrity, which I revere above all pretended authority.
Mr. Imposter: It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things which so dearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have three lamps by which my brain and feet are guided: The lamp of clear vision, the lamp of reason, and the lamp of experience. I know of no way of seeing the future but by the light of these three lamps. Those who set themselves up as pretended authorities can only rule by the darkness of deception. Gentlemen, having deceived the people of this continent, let us at least not deceive ourselves. Let us not expect the blackguards of the so-called "British ministry" to conduct themselves in a manner different from that we have used to enter this House. What hope can we derive from the behavior of these "English gentlemen," what solace? Is it that insidious smile with which our misguided petition has been received? Trust it not, gentlemen; it will prove a snare to your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed by a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our stupid petition comports with the war-like preparations which cover out waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called on to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, gentlemen. These are the implements of war and subjugation, the last arguments to which imposter "Kings" and "Presidents" resort. I ask you, gentlemen, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentleman assign any other possible motives for it? Have the British brigands any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, they have none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and to rivet upon us those chains which the English slavemasters have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? We have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable, but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty a humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?
Let us not, I beseech you, gentlemen, deceive ourselves longer. We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the so-called "throne;" and we have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the thieves, robbers, and murderers who call themselves the "British Parliament." Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt (well-deserved, in my opinion) - from the foot of the killer on the "throne." In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free - if we wish to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, gentlemen, we must fight! An appeal to arms and the patriotism of our subjects is all that is left to us!
Mr. Imposter: This is what we must tell our people: "They tell us that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when a British blackguard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of the means which the government of this nation has placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, he active, the brave. Besides, we have no choice. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat it, let it come!
It is in vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, 'Peace, peace!' - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that free men wish? What would they have? Is it life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Mr. Imposter, fellow ungentlemen of this ignoble house: I assure you that the credulity of the people of this land is such that they will be persuaded by our words to take up arms and fight our war for us; they will sacrifice their lives for our glory. Among the gullible of this land, there is no man who knows that he is free by his very nature. Let us then decive them into believing that liberty is ours to bestow upon them - but only if many of them lay down their lives in glorious battle ("for God and country")!
And under no circumstances whould we let them discover that the true issue is whether they will be ruled by the British butchers or by our noble selves!
And should, perchance ("by the grace of God"), they win the war for us, then we will be the heroes who drove off the foreign usurpers!
Mr. Imposter, gentlemen of this glorious house: I beseech you, give them death and the illusion of liberty to the survivors. After the war, we will be secure; we will live off their toil and the sweat of their brow. Our names will be immortalized in the history books for posterity. Statues will be erected in our honor. We will be idolized. Future "libertarian freedom fighters" (at least, the most gullible) will repeat my words: "Give me liberty or give me death" - like unthinking mechanical contraptions - "Give me liberty or give me death" - "Give me liberty or give me death" - "Give me liberty or give me d e a t h."
After the Zurich convention, Vince Miller, Chairman of "Libertarian International," very kindly sent me "A New Dawn For America" by Roger MacBride - I quote from page 2:
Government is humbug. There is no government. Behind the noisy, smoke-belching, larger-than-life illusion of government are ordinary human beings. It isn't accurate to say government "is composed of" people; government is simply people. They may be good people, but they are very bad wizards. Mortals have no magic.
Individuals are the only human reality. All groups are fictions. That is, groups have no concrete existence; they are not beings or entities in themselves; they exist [occur]only in the abstract, in the mind. Governments, nations, classes, tribes, Cub Scout packs, football teams, corporations, labor unions, proletariats, political parties, majorities, elite minorities, communities, civilizations, and such are all fictions. Those words only describe, or try to describe, a relationship between persons. Nothing new or superior is created by the use of such terms, for obviously one hundred heads together do not make one "great head."
Individuals are the only reality; groups have no body and soul, no rights and responsibilities. Groups cannot think, breathe, sleep, eat, or drink. Groups cannot act morally or immorally; they can't act at all. Only individual humans have body and soul, duties, and human rights. Only individuals are capable of moral or immoral behavior. - Roger MacBride ("A New Dawn For America")
The notions of ULP have implications that are frightening and horrifying - extremely threatening - to many. To fully grasp them, you may have to confront the possibility that you have been a gullible sucker of extreme proportions for most of your life; furthermore, you have been personally responsible for practically all your victimization; and, finally, your attempts to promote liberty may have been mostly counter-productive.
Also very important: These notions have been developed and tested by living according to them. The rewards have not been inconsiderable; and that you have to discover for yourself!
"Suck it and see." Note that this advice contains two parts: Act on the system in some way - suck it; and then "see" what the result is and modify your actions accord-ingly. Polysyllabalizing - apply some defined input to the system and monitor the results so as to obtain informational feedback of its reactions. - C. H. Waddington ("Tools for Thought")
Recall the reactive stimulus-response merry-go-round discussed in Section 6? Maybe we need to go beyond the system to locate and identify the context out of which the system operates? Then, maybe, we need to transform or transcend that context or create a new context?
In order to do that, we need to examine the most basic holdcepts, abstractions, and paradigms out of which the system occurs. And we have to create new holdcepts, abstractions, and paradigms that constitute a transformed context, out of which a superior system can be born; and that takes us back to Maslow's words in the introduction, remember? It also requires consciousness. - "AS"
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
(A) A system is buffered against change if it has the capacity to counter external influences in order to restore itself (this is called a homeo-static system).
(B) A soft spot is an aspect of a system that, if influenced, is particularly likely to bring about major changes in the system.
(C) An example of schismogenesis is the so-called "arms race."
(D) The meaning of "competence to respond."
(E) What Robert Pirsig wrote about "systematic patterns of thought."
(F) What the radical libertarian from Luxembourg said.
(G) The basic notions of ultimate libertarian purism.
(H) What Patrick Henry should have said (!).
(I) What Roger MacBride wrote about groupcepts.
(J) Living in accordance with the notions of ULP.
(K) Suck it and see.
(L) Creating a new context for a superior system.
CLARITY CHECK:
(A) What is buffering? Can you give your own examples?
(B) What are soft spots? Examples?
(C) What do you think is the softest soft spot in politics?
(D) Could this also be a holdcept? If so, does it indicate a jumpcept?
(E) What is schismogenesis? Can you give some examples?
(F) How are political systems buffered?
(G) How can soft spots be concealed? How can they be located?
(H) Does all this indicate the power of questioning?
(I) In attempting to cure the disease of politics, does it mean that we must find the one way that works and stick with it? Or do we need to invent numerous approaches and methods that we change randomly?
(J) What does Robert Pirsig mean by "systematic patterns of thought"?
(K) Can this notion be applied usefully?
(L) What is meant by "competence to respond"?
(M) Surely, it's very easy to photograph a law - just take a law book and take a snapshot?
(N) What do you think of ULP?
(O) Do you think it is practical (or even possible) to live according to these notions?
(P) What do you think of Patrick Henry's "improved speech"?
(Q) What did Roger MacBride say about groupcepts? Do you agree?
(R) What do you think about the notion "Suck it and see"?
(S) The notion of "creating a context for a superior system" - does this mean anything to you?
(T) And now, what is your opinion of this book so far? Has it changed as you have progressed?
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com