Tuesday, 13 May 2014

On "Baser Forms" of Truth

The width and breadth of knowledge available for mass consumption since the advent of the digital age, lends itself well to the reproduction and dissemination of this abundant raw material in the form of various competing "truth fetishes", principally because of it's coinciding with the individualistic Neo-Liberal global revolution in economics, (demanding the colonization and subjugation  to the market of every aspect of human existence)

This excerpt from the website of aspiring truth fetishist Charles Veitch highlights the use of this valuable raw material to advance his agenda, which is given as the attempt to "place Statism in the history books", but is more likely to be eeking out a living through his production of a particular type of marketable commodity.

In bold I have highlighted the truth fetishes, which is to say factitious, seemingly intelligently deployed but overall empty words, conveyed to make them seem to be "the embodiment of a potent spirit" (of truth), underlined are various explicit contradictions that it is Mr Veitch's aim to introduce to the reader:

"The Hegelian Dialectic between the "rational" and "moral" West and the "hysterical" and "superstitious" East provides the perfect setting for the evolution of humanity. The work of Indigene is to place statism in the history books alongside religionism and the baser forms of control."

Ignoring for now the erroneous cultural stereoptypes, in order of occurrence let's look more closely at these reified concepts, factiously constructed to provoke "unquestioning reverence" in their target.

The Hegelian Dialectic
As though highlighting specifically for our benefit the inadequacy of this practice, whereby a small piece of a far more intricate subject, ie a Cross, the Swastika, etc,. can become a fetish object of fascination, superficially appearing as immediately tangible, but actually abounding in habitually ignored metaphysical and theological subtleties.

Mr Veitch has constructed, or more accurately appropriated a reified concept, from information reproduced devoid of content in superficially appealing and fetishized form, "The Hegelian Dialectic" is taken as some all encompassing general truth emerging out of the void, forming the basis of the misunderstandings Veitch seeks to impart.

His use of the term is clearly intended to construct the facade of an intellectual or philosophical substance to his words, still it is ambiguous, does he mean for instance to refer to the "Dialectic" as ascribed to Hegel, in the conspiratorial literature of David Icke, a three-fold process of "problem-reaction-solution", utilized by a hierarchically estranged elite to control the attention of the populace, the world and course of their history?

If so he makes an elementary and fundamental error by listing only a thesis and antithesis, with no trace of synthesis to the various distinctions he has made, indeed Icke's theory is that this hypothetical elite use false dichotomies, duality or false "paradigms" to divide and control the populace, if we look deeper at this text from his Indigene website, we can see it is nothing other than the introduction of dialectical antagonisms, contradictions, false dichotomies and confusion, expounded in the most hyperbolic fashion.

"Indigene is a self-affirmation of Being - taking the best of quantum mechanics and applying it to subjective a-priori sentience that we all have. Somewhere between reductionist materialism and outright idealism lies the truth. We can help you explore these questions."

I think it's more likely he alludes in a veiled manner, to the Hegelian concept of the dialectic between consciousness that considers itself Master -through recognition of the slave as an object- and the Slave who considers himself thus through his conciousness of the master -a separate, antagonistic, self consciousness.

In Hegelian philosophy there is no "thing in itself", no sheltered consciousness free from dependence on the other, the otherness of the Master to the Slave creates a totality of which both are part, but the unity of which is negated by the subjugation of the other by the master to substantiate his self affirmation of being, he must put the other into a position of object which can be owned, grasped and used; a self delusion of "being in itself" derived from the treatment of the other as an object of his will devoid of independence, this totality of which both are part is like a potential for a "genuine humanity" beyond exploitation of itself "as another", but it contains an inherent contradiction the sublation of the "Master's" dependence on the other to the other.

It is to the Slave to overcome this by asserting his self mastery, to obtain through his consciousness of "being for another", the realization of the other as self consciousness, to the Master the slave is merely object, an aspect of his will from which his sense of "being" is derived, the process of exploitation has equipped slave consciousness with the tools required to transcend it's subservience, if only it would use them instead of remaining fixated by the mystificatory aspects of them.
In encountering the consciousness of Hegel expressed through the "Dialectic", Mr Veitch has attempted to deprive it of it's existence, to recreate it as an object for Mr Veitch, now it's self asserted "Master", any independent character it may have had is negated, even misrepresented, it's reified form consumed, assimilated and put to work in constructing the facade known as Indigene.

Bringing me back to the original point, the inadequacy of this semi-mystical, pseudo-profound reproduction, having being stripped of it's content and meaning Hegel's logic symbol becomes a reified concept, an empty vessel for the reception of 'subtle fluids' and fetishization ascribed with values in accordance to the will of it's master.

'Fetishism' is about relations among people, rather than the objects that mediate and disguise those relations.

Perfect [Setting]
The term "perfect" is fetishism prima facie, but implicitly contains an inherent subjective relevance, combined with any object ie; meal, weekend, spouse, child etc,. it evokes a particular meaning for each self consciousness that uses it, taken in the context of the paragraph it's use actually may well contain a degree of truth, he posits the "perfect setting for the evolution of humanity", to be "between the "rational" and "moral" West and the "hysterical" and "superstitious" East", between is a strange position to be in here, one is either in one sphere or the other, it is in this interplay that development becomes necessary one sphere consuming and extinguishing the other, otherwise there are three spheres with one between, but is this non-position in a false dichotomy not, although descriptive of nothing but error, paradoxically indicative of the reality that "perfect settings" would actually inhibit "evolution" in any natural sense of the word, and that in an evolutionary universe such reified concepts as the perfect, transcendent truth, environment, lifestyle only exist as imperfect, abstract "Hegelian" 'certainties'.

Statism is an unusual term taken here as some general truth emerging out of the void, it has no meaning beyond it's derogatory implications, which is to say a term was required with which various diverse forces could attack and undermine the concept of checks and balances, in order that they may substitute a liberal-parliamentary government for the regime of personal rule, hoping thereby to divert the advancing revolution that threatens the remaining privileges of the western, white European patriarchy and property owning classes.

This is another negative fetish object akin to "statism", just an abstraction of various things Charlie dislikes to a degree of inhibiting coherent thought about them, termed Religionism it acts as a voodoo doll into which he sticks the figurative nail he considers Indigene to be, "The work of Indigene is to place statism in the history books alongside religionism and the baser forms of control", but if we take him at his word, does the negative interpretation of these terms actually stand? Being that neither term actually exists in the history books, should we take this as his attempt, rather than neutralize them actually to ascribe to them some concreteness, some form of recognition as "viable" but infact meaningless designations?

Quantum Mechanics
Stringing together series of terms and phrases from quantum physics, and asserting that they explain something in our daily experience, is something people like Icke or Veitch spend a lot of time doing in their various theoretical presentations, in the words of American Physicist Richard Feynman*; "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.", neither, being as they are serial "truth" (and love) fetishists, would be quite as honest, or in all likelihood as self aware as Prof. Feynman.

In truth all of these aspects could be far more excessively elaborated upon, I mean the actual coherent message Veitch attempts to convey is not yet clear, that may be as I think his overall aim, one should not as he said in a recent video "mistake the map for the terrain", are the words just a means of cementing the Consciousness of the bondsman in his audience, what he does whether knowingly or not is reproduce the hierarchichal scheme of revealed truth, in the manner of all reactionary ideological cults appealing to the 'least' among us, they know their dogma is cynical, irrational, defeatist and often illogical, but "We can help you", they avidly assure us with hungry smiles...


There are numerous copies of Hegel's original text online to learn more about the development of Self Consciousness, Hegel's view of being for itself and being for others, and the Master<>Slave dialectic read; section B, chapter IV, paragraph 166 and onwards.

* in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

No comments:

Post a Comment