Unraveling Hakim Bey's Vision: Ontological Anarchy

Рет қаралды 1,061

Artificially Aware

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 26

@COLORMIND.mp4 6 ай бұрын

chatgpt does have a tone to it, love the topic, keep researching!

@VEK47 6 ай бұрын

Could you elaborate on the concept if becoming? I know it's a Deleuzo-Guattarian term which I've read a little of but would love to hear your thoughts on it

@ArtificiallyAware 6 ай бұрын

Hey! Thanks for asking! The concept of "becoming" in the philosophical work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari is a complex and multifaceted idea that emphasizes process, change, and transformation over static being or identity. In their collaborative works, particularly in "A Thousand Plateaus," becoming is used to describe a way of understanding entities not as fixed subjects but as constantly evolving assemblages of desires, relations, and forces. Becoming is not simply about change or transformation in the traditional sense; it is about escaping the rigid identities, roles, and categories that dominate and structure our understanding of the world. Becomings are ways of being that move away from established identities and towards new possibilities. For Deleuze and Guattari, this process is not about becoming something predefined, but about the encounter and the movement towards something new and unknown. They distinguish different types of becomings, such as "becoming-woman," "becoming-animal," and "becoming-imperceptible," among others. Each of these is not about literally transforming into a woman, an animal, or becoming invisible, but rather about engaging with the world in a way that challenges and transcends traditional boundaries and norms. For example, "becoming-woman" involves embracing modes of existence or thought that have been traditionally marginalized or devalued under patriarchal systems. It is not restricted to gender or sex but is about adopting a position that opens up new spaces of possibility outside of the normative frameworks. The essence of becoming is an ongoing process that is always incomplete and always connected to a context or milieu. It involves dynamic interactions between different entities and the environment, emphasizing the importance of connections, relationships, and the flow of desire as opposed to static forms or essences. This process-oriented philosophy seeks to inspire a more fluid, adaptable approach to life and understanding, challenging the conventional ways we conceive of identity and existence.

@pauleduard4772 6 ай бұрын

Big Up to protesters on campus

@phil23_8 6 ай бұрын

My critique of this would be: a theory that does not prescribe any form of organisation whatsoever, cannot, at the same time, condemn any. On what grounds can the ontological anarchist denounce the state when the state can also be seen as spontaneously arising from the natural physiological and sociological conditions of the human organism?

@VEK47 6 ай бұрын

The work of Deleuze and Guatarri might interest you. Specifically their plateaus on Nomadology and Apparatus of Capture

@VEK47 6 ай бұрын

To answer your critique, as natural as the state is, there is an equally natural opposition to it as documented by the anthropology of Pierre Clastres

@phil23_8 6 ай бұрын

@@VEK47 firstly, thanks for your reply. To your point, I think it's interesting that you say "equally natural". That seems to bear out my position. If the state is equally as natural as the alternative and all other metrics of value besides "naturalness" are voided, doesn't that mean the ontological anarchist should be fine with the state continuing to exist as it does? I mean, it's no worse (if no better) than the alternative, right?

@VEK47 6 ай бұрын

@@phil23_8 I'm no expert, but I think the ontological anarchist is opposed to hierarchies and top-down systems of control. To refer to the Nomadology plateau, there is no natural evolution of the State, it comes into being fully formed. In both primitive and nomadic societies, there are tendencies that work against the formation of the state, against the centralisation of power. Perhaps I was wrong in saying that the State is natural, but I imagine the said ontology of ontological anarchy to be flat and non-hierarchical. States are conventionally ruled by despots. What is natural about giving one person power over the others? There has to take place some displacement of power. Usually the despot is justified by religion, as the chosen ruler of the people, and there is nothing natural about that. Does that answer your question?

@ArtificiallyAware 6 ай бұрын

@phil23_8 Thought-provoking critique. If both the state and its opposition are natural, what criteria should we use to evaluate their validity?

@asfasfasfasf124 6 ай бұрын

interesting video! :) i wonder if you've read undoing human supremacy. or your opinions on the total liberation movement? :)

@ArtificiallyAware 6 ай бұрын

Hey, we posted a video based on your suggestion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXaWoYF_qqeVq6c

@asfasfasfasf124 6 ай бұрын

@@ArtificiallyAware watched it instantly when it was uploaded/came in the subbox :) thanks!

@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379 6 ай бұрын

You have the right voice and eye for this, but please fix your audio. You keep peaking out/clipping and it ruins the vibe, either use a limiter, use more compression or lower your gain and automate the levels.

@ArtificiallyAware 6 ай бұрын

Thanks for the tip! Working on improving the audio quality.

@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379 6 ай бұрын

@@ArtificiallyAware No problem! Generally you always want to record with "headroom". If whatever you're recording with has a levels light or bar (in software), make sure it never even goes yellow. You can always turn things up in software if it's quiet, but you can't turn something that has clipped in hardware down. Most raw audio is WAY quieter than you think.

@iankclark 6 ай бұрын

Sounds juvenile to me, an extension of New Age bourgeois values. I can agree with some concepts, such as the nature of chaos, but reality is not built from the ground up, it is not simply emergent. Freedom is not limitless expansion. Values are not epiphenomena. Structure is not your enemy.