November 20, 2017
November 17, 207
November 3, 2017
I've been interested for a while in a political Center which would be far more radical and removed from the 'centrism' claimed by moderate politicians of the establishment. The position I envisioned would be radical, not in its fusing of radical elements from both the Left and the Right, but in its reading and interpretation of history through the lense of an attitude of 'apoliteia,' along with emphasizing a theory of sovereignty designed for the projection of a configuration of society in which people could be 'freed from the political;' a phrase Marxists might suppose could only happen through a form of bureaucratic socialism as Zizek contends, Traditionalist conservatives might suppose could only happen through tribal culture and the family unit, and anarchists will resolve themselves to experience in some Fleeting Autonomous Zone.
Now, granted, each of these apolitical-political schemes might work for specific covenant communities, but the question remains, how do we get to this panarchial Garden of Eden in which radically different neighbors can share the same countryside without butchering and bombing one another? You've already gotten the question wrong if you suppose that your own favored form of sovereignty would be the best for every group.
Max Stirner's egoist from his major work, The Ego and It's Own, found a home in a community he called the 'union of egoists.' Far from the simple solipsism that Stirner is often accused of, this union provides the egoist with a group of like-minded people for an indefinite time for one specific purpose or a set of purposes. It is based, not on a constitution or contract, but on voluntary, mutual self-interest. Each member is encouraged to serve himself in the interest of the group, with the self interest of each member maximized through combined effort.
Some say that a writer's ideas should be separated from his life. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with ideas which are highly individualistic, we have little option but to assume that the laboratory of that writer's ideas was his own life.
Max Stirner turns the idea of the ego and property themselves into metaphysical principles. The ego, often regarded in psychology language as a terrible master, is reified as the center by which property is appropriated and into which meaning and value appear from and disappear into. Stirner declared, 'All things are nothing to me,' and that the world is full of 'spooks' or 'fixed ideas.' Not only is the world full of these spooks, but according to Stirner, it is haunted by them.
This idea seems radical at first, until we tease its utility from its actual content.
In his interview with The Paris Review, Roberto Calasso said the following:
I feel thought in general, and in particular what is unfortunately called “philosophy,” should lead a sort of clandestine life for a while, just to renew itself. By clandestine I mean concealed in stories, in anecdotes, in numerous forms that are not the form of the treatise. Then thought can biologically renew itself, as it were.
It would appear that Roberto Calasso’s own works set out to do just that. The 49 steps alluded to in the title of Calasso’s book refer to a sequence of meaning in the Talmud. Here, however, the sequence, or something like it, is used not on the Talmud but on the