Anarchist Meditations, or

23 Pages·2010·0.3 MB·English

117 117
AnarchistDevelopmentsinCulturalStudies
“Post-Anarchismtoday”
2010.1
Anarchist Meditations, or:
Three Wild Interstices of Anarchism
and Philosophy
∗
Alejandro de Acosta
Abstract
Philosophersalludetoanarchistpractices;philosophersalludetoan-
archisttheorists;anarchistsalludetophilosophers(usuallyinsearch
oftheorytoaddtothecanon).Whatismissinginthisschema,Inote
withinterest,isanarchistsalludingtophilosophicalpractices.These
arethewildinterstices:zonesofoutlandishcontactforallconcerned.
Todoestáyaensupunto,yelserpersonaenelmayor.
Conocerlascosasensupunto, ensusazón, ysaberlas
lograr.
—BaltasarGracián
FailureandtheThird
Idaretocallcertainturbulentintersticesofanarchyandphiloso-
phywild. Ifeelthatthereisalotofactivitythere,butnot(yet)along
predictablelines. Forsometimenow, thoseinterestedhavebeen
hearingaboutseveralothersuchinterstices: tamerones,frommy
pointofview. Oratleastmorerecognizable. Soletusplaythefamil-
iargameoftheoryandpractice,thatgameinwhichwepresuppose
∗
AlejandrodeAcostawritesonanarchistethicsandaesthetics. HelivesinAustin,
Texas,whereheoperatesthemicropressmufa::poema,freelydistributingnumerous
bookletsofpoetryandprose.WithJoshuaBeckman,hehastranslatedthepoetryof
CarlosOquendodeAmatandJorgeCarreraAndradeintoEnglish. Heiscurrently
composingamoralessaysinspiredbyGraciánandHume.
117 117
118 118
118 AlejandrodeAcosta
themasseparateandseektoclaimthemreunited. Fromwithinthe
playofthisgame,thetameintersticesarevariationsonthefollowing
moves: philosophersalludetoanarchistpractices;philosophersal-
ludetoanarchisttheorists;anarchistsalludetophilosophers(usually
in search of theory to add to the canon). What is missing in this
schema,Inotewithinterest,isanarchistsalludingtophilosophical
practices. Thesearethewildinterstices: zonesofoutlandishcontact
forallconcerned,Ithink.
Butthereareothergamestoplay,eveniftheyareonlyinnocent
gamesofexposition. Ithinkitisimportantandinterestingtostop
presupposingseparation,todissolveitspainfuldistributionofthink-
ingandaction. Thatis,wemighthazardtheriskygame(whichis
also an experience, an exercise) in which there are no theories, no
practices; justmoreorlessremarkableenactmentsofwaysoflife,
availableinprincipletoabsolutelyanyone,absolutelyanywhere.1
Anecdotally,thesereflectionshaveadoublegenesis. Thefirstoc-
curredsomeyearsago,whenIwasaskedatananarchistgathering
toparticipateinapanelon“anarchismandpost-structuralism.”It
wasaroundthetimesomebeganspeakingofandwritingaboutpost-
anarchism. Theconversationfailed,Ithink,inthatnoonelearned
anything. Ofthefourspeakers,twowereroughlyinfavourofengag-
ingwithpost-structuralismandtwoagainst. Iwriteroughlybecause
weseemedtoagreethat“post-structuralism”isatbestanumbrella
term,atworstagarbageterm,notacknowledgedbymostoftheau-
thorsclassedwithinit,andnotparticularlyhelpfulinconversations
such as that one. As if there really were two massive aggregates
oneithersideofthe“and”wewerebeingaskedtodiscuss! Indeed,
theworstpossiblesensethatsomethingcalledpost-anarchismcould
have would be the imaginary collusion of two crudely conceived
imaginaryaggregates. Duringthediscussion, aparticipantasked
the panel a question: “how do post-structuralist anarchists orga-
nize?”Ofcoursethequestionwentunanswered,thoughsomeofus
triedtopointoutthattherejustaren’t,andcannotbe,post-struc-
turalistanarchistsinthesamesensethatthereareormaybeanarcho-
communistsoranarcha-feministsorprimitivists,etc. Theoperative
reasonwasthatourinterlocutorseemedtobe(involuntarily?) imag-
iningpost-structuralismasaformoftheory,andanarchismprimarily
1 Ifeelstronglyaboutthoselasttwophrases.ButIwouldaddthatsuchexperiments
shouldinterestusinphilosophyoutsideofuniversitiesandanarchism—better,anar-
chy—beyondactivistgroups.
118 118
119 119
AnarchistMeditations 119
asaformofpracticewithnospontaneousorconsideredtheoryofits
own. Thisisavariantofthefamiliarschemaofseparation,inwhich
theoryofferstheanalysisthatinformspractices,a.k.a. “organizing.”
Nogo.
Thatnight, I alsoposedaquestion, onethatwentunanswered:
“isthereathird?”Imeanttoaskbothaboutthestatusofanarchism
and post-structuralism as massive, clumsy imaginary aggregates,
andalsoaboutthepresupposedseparationintheirimplicitstatus
asformsofpracticeandtheory. Orperhapsmerelytohintatthe
unacknowledgedefficacityoftheand,itssilentlabour,itsgesture
towardspossibleexperiences. WhatIhavetosayhereismyown
attempttoanswerthatquestionasprovocativelyaspossible. Iwill
beginwiththisclaim(whichIthinkdoesnotpresupposeseparation):
itispreciselytheapparentpoliticalfailuresofwhatIamnowglad
tohavedonewithreferringtoaspost-structuralismthatcouldmake
certaintextsandauthorsinteresting. Anditispreciselythesupposed
theoreticalfailuresofwhatitisstillalittlesillytocallanarchism
thatcouldmakeitspeculiarsensibilitiesattractive.
Indeed,thegreatandcontinuinginterestofanarchismforphiloso-
phers(andforanarchists,iftheyarewillingtolearnthislesson)could
be that it has never successfully manifested itself as a theoretical
system. Everyattemptatananarchistsystemishappilyincomplete.
ThatiswhatIsupposeconcernedourinterlocutorthatnight: hewas
worried,perhaps,aboutthetheoreticalinsufficiencyofanarchism
comparedwithwhatappearedtobeanoverwhelmingarrayoftheo-
riesandconceptsontheotherside. Inthisanxiouspicture,thearray
seekstovampiricallyattachitselftowhateverpractice,interpreting,
applyingitselfto,dominating,ultimately,itsmotions. ‘Theorieswith-
outmovements: run!’Iwouldprefertoinvertthetermsandclaim
theapparenttheoreticalweaknessofanarchismasoneofitsgreatest
virtues. Foritscommonplaces(directaction,mutualaid,solidarity,
affinitygroups,etc.) arenotconceptsbutformsofsocialpractice.
Assuch,theycontinually,virally,infecteveryevenremotelyextra-
parliamentaryorgrassrootsformofpoliticalaction. And,beyond
politics, theycomposeakindofinterminablereserveofsocialin-
telligence. Inallthistheyneitherrequireamovementtobecome
manifestnorcomposeonebydefaultoftendentiallyexisting. Inthis
sense,whatanarchismofferstophilosophers(tothephilosophers
anyofusareormightbe)isthatithasbeenandremainsprimarilya
wayoflife. Itsasystematicityanditspersistentrecreationasaway
119 119
120 120
120 AlejandrodeAcosta
oflifeprobablyaccountforthefactthatanarchism,astheory,has
neverbeenincorporatedintoorasanacademicdiscipline.2
Anarchismactsasanuntimelyechoofhowphilosophywasonce
lived,andhow,indirectlyandinasubterraneanfashion,itcontinues
to be lived. And, paradoxically, we might learn something about
howitislivedbyreferencetophilosophicalpractices.
Dramatization: WildStyles
Practices,orsimplyphilosophyasawayoflife: thatisthesecond
genesisofwhatIhavetosayhere. Thisideacrystallizedinstudying,
ofallthings,theancientStoics. Seekingtogivea(pedagogical)sense
toStoiclogic,physics,andethicsasalivedunityandnotascom-
ponentsofwhattheyalreadycalleda“theoreticaldiscourse,”3Ihad
recoursetotheelaborationofthepracticeofspiritualexercisesby
PierreHadot. Hedescribesthemasfollows: “practiceswhichcould
bephysical,asindietaryregimes,ordiscursive,asindialogueand
meditation,orintuitive,asincontemplation,butwereallintended
to effect a modification and a transformation in the subject who
practisedthem”(Hadot,2005: 6).4Or,again: “Thephilosophicalact
isnotsituatedmerelyonthecognitivelevel,butonthatoftheself
andofbeing. Itisaprogresswhichcausesustobemorefully,and
makesusbetter. Itisaconversionwhichturnsourentirelifeupside
down,changingthelifeofthepersonwhogoesthroughit”(Hadot,
1995: 83). Briefly,it’sthateverystatementthatisstillremarkablein
2 Cf.,DavidGraeber’sremarksinFragmentsofanAnarchistAnthropology(2004:2–7).
OnemightalsoconsiderhereLacan’stheoryofthefourdiscourses,proposed,among
otherplaces,inTheOtherSideofPsychoanalysis: first,inhisproblematizationof
thestatusofpsychoanalysisinitsrelationtotheuniversitydiscourse(thereare
interestingparallelswithwhatIhavewrittenaboutanarchisttheory);secondly,in
lightoftheconnectionsheimpliesbetweenthehystericaldiscourse,themaster’s
discourse,andrevolutionarymovements.Toshowthesingularstatusoftheanalyst’s
discourse,Lacanoftenprovokedhisaudiencebywonderingaloudiftherewereany
analysts.Mywayofadoptingthishumorousprovocationwouldbetoaskifthereare
anyanarchists.Finally,IrecallhereMonsieurDupont’stextonexperience:“Nobody
canbeananarchistinthesensethattheideologyofanarchismproposes”(Nihilist
Communism,2009:202).
3 Thatis,philosophicallogos.SeeDiogenesLaërtius,inTheStoicsReader,8.Iwastrying
toteachthatthesespiritualexercisescannotbetaught,onlymodelledandperhaps
imitated.
4 Thediscursiveandintuitivesensesindicatedinthedefinitionarethemostrelevant
here.
120 120
121 121
AnarchistMeditations 121
thefragmentsanddoxographicalreportsissoinlightofitsstaging
(dramatization,theatricalization)aspartofameditativepracticethat
mighthavebeenthatofaStoic.
Hadot offers several examples from the Meditations of Marcus
Aureliusdemonstratingthatlogicandphysics,thepurportedlythe-
oreticalcomponentsofStoicism,werealreadyandimmediatelypart
ofethicalpractice. Logicasa“masteryofinnerdiscourse”(Hadot,
2005: 135): “always to define or describe to oneself the object of
ourperceptionsothatwecangraspitsessentialnatureunadorned,
aseparateanddistinctwhole,totelloneselfitsparticularnameas
wellasthenamesoftheelementsfromwhichitwasmadeandinto
whichitwillbedissolved”(Aurelius,1983: III,11). Physicsas“rec-
ognizingoneselfaspartoftheWhole”(Hadot,2005: 137),butalso
thepracticeofseeingthingsinconstanttransformation: “Acquirea
systematicviewofhowallthingschangeintooneanother;consis-
tentlyapplyyourmindto,andtrainyourselfin,thisaspectofthe
universe”(Aurelius,1983: X,11).
Icontendthatsuchspiritualexercisesaretheoriesdramatizedas
subjective attitudes. As the pivot of the whole system or at least
of its comprehensibility as such, the role of logic and physics for
the Stoics must have been precisely that of a training for ethical
thoughtandaction. Butinsomesensetheconverseisevenmore
compelling: subjectiveattitudes,theirtheatre,seemtosecretetheory
asadetritusinneedofbeingtakenupagain—preciselyintheform
of a new or repeated exercise, a renewed dramatization. Setting
asidethelabyrinthinecomplicationsoftheentanglementwithwhat
isstillbadlyunderstoodasFate,Iwouldliketoretainthismuchof
Stoicethicsinmyanarchistmeditations: tofindifthereisanything
toaffirminwhatconfrontsus,whatweencounter. Concludinga
recentessay,Isharedadesire“toaffirmsomething,perhapsall,of
ourpresentconditions,withoutrecoursetostupidoptimism,orfaith”
(deAcosta,2009: 34). Iwouldliketospeculativelyexpandonthe
practiceofsuchaffirmations. AsGillesDeleuzeonceputit: “either
ethicsmakesnosenseatall,orthisiswhatitmeansandhasnothing
elsetosay: nottobeunworthyofwhathappenstous”5(Deleuze,
1990: 49). What we encounter cannot but provoke thought; if it
can,meaning,ifweallowitto,thereissomethingtoaffirm,andthis
affirmationisimmediatelyjoyful. Howwemightthoughtfullyallow
5 Or,moreobscurely:“notbeinginferiortotheevent,becomingthechildofone’sown
events”(Deleuze,1987:65).
121 121
122 122
122 AlejandrodeAcosta
events, places, actions, scenes, phrases—“whathappentous,”in
short—tounfoldinthedirectionofjoyistheexplicitorimplicit
questionofeveryspiritualexercise.
I propose, then, an interlinked series of fantastic spiritual exer-
cises: meditations for anarchists — or on anarchy. They have, I
suppose, been implicit in every significant anarchist discourse so
far(including,ofcourse,themanythathavenotcalledthemselves
anarchist) (cf., de Acosta, 2009). They have been buried, indirect,
assumedbutunstated,inthesediscourses. Oratleastinmuchof
theirreception. Ineachofthesethreeforms(orstyles)ofexercise
whatispivotalissomeuseoftheimagination—atleasttheimagina-
tive-ideationaluptake,Stoicphantasiaorphantasma,ofwrittenor
spokendiscourse,andofwhatisgiventothoughtinexperience.6So,
weareconcernedherewithexperientialdispositions,attitudesthat
atfirstseemsubjectivebutareultimatelypriortotheseparationof
subjectandobject,andperhapsevenofpossibleandreal.
Whateverhappens,theseexercisesareavailable. Iwillnotopine
ontheirultimateimportance,especiallynotontheirrelevanceto
existingmovements,groups,strategies,ortactics. Inwhatfashion
andtowhatdegreeanyoftheseexercisescanbeappliedtoanother
activity — if that is even possible — is ultimately up to any of us
to decide upon in the circumstances that we find ourselves in, or
throughsituationsthatwecreate. Thestatusofthesemeditations
isthatofaseriesofexperiments, orexperiences, whoseoutcome
andimportanceisunknownattheoutsetandperhapsevenatthe
conclusion.
I will have recourse in what follows to texts and authors that
precededwhatisnowcalledanarchism,orwere,orare,itsdifficult
contemporaries,soastounderlinethatwhatmattersinanarchist
meditationsaretheattitudesthattheymakeavailable,notanyactual
orpossibletheoryorgroupthattheymayeventuallysecrete. The
secret importance of anarchy is the short-circuit it interminably
introducesbetweensuchattitudesandaction,andback—whatis
badly conceived as spontaneity. (Or worse, “voluntarism,” in the
wordsofourenemies...)
6 Onphantasiaandphantasma,seeInwood&Gerson(2008: 12). Aswillbecome
evidentfurtheron,thereisalsosomequestionhereofthemadness/ordinarinessof
speakingtooneself,silentlyoraloud,andofaconcomitantrecognitionoffamiliarand
unfamiliarphrases,withtheirdifferends.Iwilltakethisupinafutureessay.
122 122
123 123
AnarchistMeditations 123
Perhaps,then,thetrulycompellingreasontocallthethreeforms
ofmeditationwildstylesisthatanarchistshavenoarchon,noschool,
norealtraininginormodellingoftheseactivitiesoutsideofscattered
andtemporarycommunitiesandthelivesofunusualindividuals. But
theycananddohappen: interminably,yes,andalsoinformally,irreg-
ularly,andunpredictably. Thatistheirinterestandtheirattraction.
FirstWildStyle: Daydream
ADaydreammaytaketheformofameditativeaffirmationthat
informs how we might read so-called utopian writers. Of these I
willdiscusstheabsolutelymostfascinating. ItisFourier,withhis
taxonomyofthepassions;withhiscommunalphalansteries;withhis
tropicalnewearth,aigreseloceans,andkaleidoscopicsolarsystem;
ultimately, with his Harmonian future. What are we to do today
withsuchadiscourse? Aversionofthisfirstwildstyleisbeautifully
laidoutinthefollowingremarksbyPeterLambornWilson:
Fourier’sfuturewouldimposeaninjusticeonourpresent,since
we Civilizees cannot hope to witness more than a foretaste
of Harmony, if it were not for his highly original and some-
whatmadeschatology. [...]Oneofthethingswecandowith
Fourier’ssystemistoholditwithinourconsciousnessandat-
tentionintheformofamandala,notquestioningwhetheritbe
literallyfactuallytrue,butwhetherwecanachievesomesort
of“liberation”throughthisstrangemeditation. Thefuturebe-
comingofthesolarsystem,withitsre-arrangementofplanets
toformdancesofcoloredlights,canbevisualizedasatantric
adeptusesayantraofcosmogenicsignificance,likeaSufimed-
itationon“photisms”orseriesofvisionarylights,tofocusand
integralize our own individual realization of the potential of
harmonywithinus,toovercomeour“prejudicesagainstmatter,
whichisrepresentedtousasavileprinciple”byphilosophers
andpriests(Lamborn,1998: 17–17).
From which I would like to retain at least the following: first,
wecanaffirmnothinginthepresentunlessweacknowledgethat
thefutureisunthinkable,unimaginable. Fourierdidwrite,afterall,
thatifwesorryCivilizeescouldgrasptheramificationsoftheentire
Combined Order, we would be immediately struck dead (Fourier,
123 123
124 124
124 AlejandrodeAcosta
1996: 67). (This,bytheway,seemstobewhyhewasmoregivento
examplesaboutHarmonianbanquetsthanonesaboutHarmonian
orgies.) So,withrespecttodirectaction,hisintentionisclearenough:
one does not build Harmony as such, because it is unimaginable;
one builds the commune, the phalanstery. (That is why so much
ofTheTheoryoftheFourMovements,forexample,isdedicatedtoa
discussionoftransitionalphases,e.g. “Guaranteeism”).7Thispractice
isfocused,however,throughacontemplationinwhichwearenot
planningforafuturethatis,afterall,unforeseeable;wearedreaming,
fantasizing,butinapeculiarlyconcentratedway,actingonourselves
inthepresent.
Secondly, setting aside the future, one can somehow meditate
onFourier’ssystem. Andnotjustthesystemastotality; perhaps
the most effective form of this meditative affirmation that I can
report on is that which focuses on one single and exceptionally
absurdelementofFourier’sspeculations: forexample,thearchibras,
aprehensiletailheclaimshumanswilldevelop,good,asLamborn
Wilson notes, for fruit-picking as well as orgies. Or the sixteen
kindsofstrawberries,orthelemonadeocean,ortheanti-giraffe.8
Fourierisasdumbfoundingwhenhedescribestheindustrialarmies
ofHarmonyasheiswhenhesuddenlyrevealsoneofthesestrange
Harmonianmonadstohisaudience.
ItseemstomethatLambornWilsonsuggestsanentirelydifferent
modeofreadingandexperiencingFourier’swritingsthaneitherthe
impatientcritiqueofso-calledscientificsocialismorthepredictably
tolerantpick-and-chooseoftheothersocialistsandanarchists. To
focusonwhatissystematic,orappearstobeso,inFourier,istotryto
recreateforourselveshisprecisederangement,totrainourthinking
inthepathsofhismadlogic,thevoiceofhisdesires,withoutfor
all that believing in anything. Especially Harmony. As he wrote:
“passionate attraction is the interpreter of nature” (Fourier, 1996:
189). Iwillacceptthisonlyifitcanbeagreedthatinterpretationis
alreadyanaction,onourselvesfirstofall. (Forexample,itmight
7 Compare,inthislight,thedeliriousfoldout“TableoftheProgressofSocialMovement”
spanning80,000yearswiththeutterlypracticalpropositionsofthe“Notetothe
CivilizedConcerningtheComingSocialMetamorphosis.”
8 See(Fourier,1996:50n,284).Theanti-giraffeisoneofthenewanimalsofHarmony,
“agreatandmagnificentservantwhosequalitieswillfarsurpassthegoodqualitiesof
thereindeer.”
124 124
125 125
AnarchistMeditations 125
beahealthyuseofthesameimaginativefacultiesthatmanyofus
squanderonvideofeedsofonesortoranother.)
Asimilarmeditativeaffirmationcouldallowonetomakegooduse
of“P.M.’s”infamouszeroworktractbolo’bolo. Thetextopenswitha
shortpredictivenarrativeaboutthe“substructionoftheplanetary
workmachine”bytheconstructionofsmallautonomouscommunes
or bolos networked together into the global bolo’bolo. We are, by
theway,twenty-twoyearstoolate;bolo’boloshouldhaveemerged
in1988. Thebulkofthistract,however,istakenupbyaseriesof
systematicelementsthatmaybecomethemesforDaydreams. Itis
theideographicsignlanguageofbolo’bolo,asa’pili,theseriesIBU,
BOLO,SILA,TAKU...eachcoupledwithaninventedideograph.
AswiththehexagramsoftheClassicofChanges,eachheadingen-
capsulatesandillustratesaconceptwithasimplesign. Imaginethe
useofthisartificiallinguafranca: theideographsandoddbisyllabic
wordscouldaidacertainmeditativetranslation. IBUisandisnotan
ego;NIMAisandisnotbeliefs;TAKUisandisnotprivateproperty;
YAKAisandisnotaduel. Andsoon. Confronted,then,withegos,
beliefs,privateproperty,orduels,Imayalwaysperformanexercise
thattranslatesthemtoasa’pili. Thismeansasking,speculatingon,
thequestion: andwhatwoulddowedowithallthisinbolo’bolo?
Thislanguageissaidtobeofafutureandyetwearealreadyusing
it,makingnewsenseorevennewworldsofsensewithit.
Thesecondsystematicseriesoccursonlyonce: itisanincredible
listofsamplebolos. “Inalargercity, wecouldfindthefollowing
bolos: Alco-bolo, Sym-bolo, Sado-bolo, Maso-bolo, Vegi-bolo, Les-
bolo,Franko-bolo,Italo-bolo,Play-bolo,No-bolo,Retro-bolo,Thai-
bolo,Sun-bolo[...]”9Itisagainalinguisticoperationatfirst,which
isobvioussincesomanyofthesearepuns. Onceweareamused,
the imagination begins its playful reverie. Once the suffix takes
onconsistency, wearedreamingotherdreams. Imagine, notjust
9 “[...]Blue-bolo,Paleo-bolo,Dia-bolo,Punk-bolo,Krishna-bolo,Taro-bolo,Jesu-bolo,
Tao-bolo,Marl-bolo,Necro-bolo,Pussy-bolo,Para-bolo,Basket-bolo,Coca-bolo,In-
capa-bolo,HighTech-bolo,Indio-bolo,Alp-bolo,Mono-bolo,Metro-bolo,Acro-bolo,
Soho-bolo,Proto-bolo,Herb-bolo,Macho-bolo,Hebro-bolo,Ara-bolo,Freak-bolo,
Straight-bolo,Pyramido-bolo,Marx-bolo,Sol-bolo,Tara-bolo,Uto-bolo,Sparta-bolo,
Bala-bolo,Gam-bolo,Tri-bolo,Logo-bolo,Mago-bolo,Anarcho-bolo,Eco-bolo,Dada-
bolo,Digito-bolo,Subur-bolo,Bom-bolo,Hyper-bolo,Rockn’-bolo,etc. Moreover,
therearealsojustgoodoldregularbolos,wherepeoplelivenormal,reasonableand
healthylives(whateverthoseare)”(P.M.,1985:80–1).
125 125
126 126
126 AlejandrodeAcosta
Sado-bolo and Maso-bolo, but the relations between them. What
arethepartiesinDada-bololike? TheartofTao-bolo? Thedialect
of Freak-bolo? As with the punctual things, events, or practices
denoted by the terms of asa’pili, we have some initial sense, but
ourimaginationispushedtoanewandmorevoluptuouslevelof
complicationandcreationinconceivingeachbolo,itsinnerworkings,
andtheinterrelations,orlackthereof,amongbolos.
In neither case is there anything to believe in. Certainly not
bolo’bolo! I maintain rather that to gather and concentrate one’s
thought process using these signs or examples is to accept their
provocation,toundertakeadeviation,détournement,oftheimagi-
nativeflux. Insodoingwefind,paradoxically,thatwehavenames
forotherwiseunimaginablerelations. Weareinanevenbetterposi-
tiontodosothanwhenthebookfirstappearedsince,accordingits
chronology,bolo’boloshouldhavealreadycomeabout. Sothemore
credulousamongus,thoseunhappysoulsawaitingsomeanarchist
versionof2012ortheApocalypseofJohn,willbestumpedanddis-
appointed. Itcannolongerbereadasabookconcerning(doplease
laughhere)‘thecurrentconjuncture.’Twomostlyunhappydecades
havereturnedittoitsfetalform: awish,amaddream,thatmodels
itsmadnessinanexemplaryfashion,preciselybydrawingusintoits
codes. Eachideogram,eachbolo’sname,isamonad. Tomeditatively
graspitistoattainaperspectiveontheotherwiseimpossible: tobea
witnesstobolo’bolo. Itisonlywhenwehopelesslyusethesemonads
thattheycanhaveaneffectonourthinking-in-the-event: ahealthy
useofwhatBergsoncalledlafonctionfabulatrice,perhapsevenwhat
Freudconceivedasthewish-fulfillmentinvolvedindreams.
AnothersortofDaydream,themeditativenegation,manifestsin
asimilarway,asasummoningupofpowerful,almostunthinkable
imagesofdestruction,specificallyofconsumption. Iconsiderthis
strangepassagebyMaxStirnertobeparadigmatic:
Aroundthealtarrisethearchesofthechurchanditswallskeep
movingfurtherandfurtherout. Whattheyencloseissacred.
Youcannolongergettoit,nolongertouchit. Shriekingwith
thehungerthatdevoursyou,youwanderaroundaboutthese
wallsandsearchforthelittlethatisprofane. Andthecirclesof
yourcoursekeepgettingmoreandmoreextended. Soonthat
churchwillembracethewholeworld,andyouwillbedriven
out to the extreme edge. Another step and the world of the
126 126