HelloThere314ism

is a philosophy and political theory concerned with the disunity between the ideal and the void, the spectacle that is created from that, along with the radical political implications that comes with that. If anyone needs icons here they are: (//). You can see the theory I have read along with many other things on my user page.

=Influences=

Theorists

 * [[File:Heraclitus.png]]Heraculitus (535-475 BC)
 * [[File:Tao.png]]Lao Tzu (571-400s BC)
 * [[File:EthicEgo.png]]Yang Zhu (440-360 BC)
 * [[File:Diogenes.png]]Diogenes (404-323 BC)
 * [[File:Antao.png]]Bao Jingyan (???-???)
 * [[File:Ockhamism.png]]William of Ockham (1287-1347)
 * [[File:Hobbe.png]]Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
 * [[File:David Hume the icon.png]]David Hume (1711-1776)
 * [[File:Philan.png]]William Godwin (1756-1836)
 * [[File:Fichteanism.png]]Johann Fichte (1762-1814)
 * [[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]]Georg Hegel (1770-1831)
 * [[File:DepressionMale.png]]Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 * [[File:YngHeg.png]]Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)
 * [[File:Ego.png]]Max Stirner (1806-1856)
 * [[File:BakuninHeg.png]]Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876)
 * [[File:Karl_Marx.png]]Karl Marx (1818-1883)
 * [[File:AnYng.png]]Edgar Bauer (1820-1886)
 * [[File:Marx.png]]Friedrich Engels (1820-1895)
 * [[File:Nietzsche-icon.png]]Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
 * [[File:Indlibsoc.png]]Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
 * [[File:Freud.png]]Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
 * [[File:Struct.png]]Ferdinand De Saussure (1857-1913)
 * [[File:Goldman.png]]Emma Goldman (1869-1940)
 * [[File:Councom.png]]Otto Rühle (1874-1943)
 * [[File:Existentialist Anarchism.png]]Franz Kafka (1883–1924)
 * [[File:Heidegger.png]]Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
 * [[File:Illeg.png]]Renzo Novotare (1890-1922)
 * [[File:Ego-Existential.png]]Herbert Read (1893-1968)
 * [[File:Socan2.png]]Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
 * [[File:Marcuse.png]]Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979)
 * [[File:Lacan.png]]Jacques Lacan (1901-1981)
 * [[File:Adorno.png]]Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969)
 * [[File:Sartre.png]]Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
 * [[File:ExistFem.png]]Simone De Beauvoir (1908-1986)
 * [[File:Struct.png]]Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009)
 * [[File:Camus.png]]Albert Camus (1913-1960)
 * [[File:StructMarx.png]]Louis Althusser (1918-1990)
 * [[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995)
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]]Michel Foucault (1926-1984)
 * [[File:PostMarxism.png]]Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007)
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]]Jacques Derrida (1930-2004)
 * [[File:PostMarxism.png]]Félix Guattari (1930-1992)
 * [[File:Debord.png]]Guy Debord (1931-1994)
 * [[File:Auton.png]]Antonio Negri (1933-)
 * [[File:Anticiv.png]]Fredy Perlman (1934-1985)
 * [[File:Situ.png]]Raoul Vaneigem (1934-)
 * [[File:Bonanno.png]]Alfredo Bonanno (1937-)
 * [[File:Postsitu.png]]Jean-Pierre Voyer (1938-)
 * [[File:AnOnto.png]]Hakim Bey (1945-2022)
 * [[File:Communization.png]]Gilles Dauvé (1947-)
 * [[File:Žižekism.png]]Slavoj Žižek (1949-)
 * [[File:Anpostleft.png]]Bob Black (1951-)
 * [[File:ExistPostAn.png]]Todd May (1955-)
 * [[File:Postfem.png]]Judith Butler (1956-)
 * [[File:Acidcomf.png]]Mark Fisher (1968-2017)
 * [[File:Post-an.png]]Saul Newman (1972-)
 * [[File:Egocom.png]]For Ourselves! (1974-1974)
 * [[File:Communization.png]]Kämpa Tillsammans! (1997-)
 * [[File:DarkDeleuze.png]]Andrew Culp (???-)
 * [[File:Libmarx.png]]Jonas Ceika (???-)
 * [[File:Landstreicher.png]]Wolfi Landstreicher (???-)

Movements

 * [[File:Tao.png]]Taoism (571 BC-)
 * [[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]]Hegelianism (1806-)
 * [[File:Existentialism.png]]Existentialism (1843-)
 * [[File:Neomarx.png]]Neo-Marxism (1947-)
 * [[File:Anpostleft.png]]Contemporary Anarchism (1961-)
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]]Post-Structuralism (1967-)

=Summary=

Metaphysics

 * [[File:Skepticism2.png]]Nominalism
 * [[File:PostHegel.png]]Post-Hegelianism
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]]Post-Structuralism
 * [[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Deleuzoguattarianism
 * [[File:PostPhenom.png]]Post-Phenomenology

Epistemology

 * [[File:Poststruct.png]]Anti-Foundationalism
 * [[File:Skeptic.png]]Strong Fallibilism

Ethics

 * [[File:Ego.png]]Stirnerite Egoism
 * [[File:Nietzsche-icon.png]]Self Mastery
 * [[File:MoralNihil.png]]Moral Nihilism
 * [[File:Existentialism.png]]Existentialism
 * [[File:Absurd.png]]Absurdism
 * [[File:Tao.png]]Philosophical Taoism

Politics

 * [[File:Ins.png]]Insurrection
 * [[File:Existentialist Anarchism.png]]Camusian Rebellion
 * [[File:Post-an.png]]Post-Anarchism
 * [[File:Philan.png]]Philosophical Anarchism
 * [[File:EgoUnion.png]]Unions Of Egoists
 * [[File:Post-Autonomism.png]]Post-Autonomism
 * [[File:DarkDeleuze.png]]Dark Deleuzianism

Sociology

 * [[File:Postmodernicon.png]]Post-Modernism
 * [[File:PostMarxism.png]]Post-Marxism
 * [[File:Postsitu.png]]Post-Situationism
 * [[File:Frankfurt.png]]Critical Theory
 * [[File:Accel.png]]Territorial Analysis

=Beliefs=

WIP. My beliefs haven't changed, I just want to structure them better.

[[File:PostPhenom.png]]Being In Itself[[File:Ego.png]]
Being in itself as a doctrine has a very diverse history, being used by thinkers, even if they don't use the term itself, such as Kant, Fichte, Hegel,, , and many others. While many of these conceptions of being in itself are explicitly anti-essentialist, especially and other Existential Phenomenologists such as, Merleau-Ponty,  Levinas, etc, they share a common sense of teleology towards the structures of consciousness. While in later sections we will outline specific modes of ontology we can identify and which are important to an exploration of consciousness in relationship to the other, which we will explore in an anti-teleological sense, we must first outline the source of all self creation, all property conceptions, etc, that being nothingness. This nothingness is not a lack of being as is explored by Hegel and, this type of being will be explored a bit in the ontology section but if you want to see my full views it is quite similar to work Being And Nothingness, but a lack of expression more in line with  unique or the Deleuzoguattarian body without organs. It is what identifies as the creative nothing, both nothing and everything. It holds no essence, no teleology, and out of it all essence and structure is created. While we will go over the specifics of property, self creation, etc in later sections, we must first explore this radical nothingness we are diving in to and how it compares to other beings in themselves. Now the creative nothing is a being in itself, being described by as the source of all creations, which of course constitute all definitions, all teleology. This is not to be confused with Fichte's absolute I, as Fichte constructs that I am I, while simply says I am. Instead of some dogmatic principle of the individual over all, instead in we see a tearing down of all principles, all foundations of metaphysics. Why then do we associate being in itself with, as being in itself at first glance to be an absolute dogma, forcing a large source of all other beings over all metaphysics. To those who view it like this, you are in many ways correct, yet in this case the being in itself is sourced not from any identifiable concept or Hegelian notion, but rather something beyond all expression, the unique. To quote, "What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is neither a word, nor a thought, nor a concept." This forms a being in itself with nothing as its principle besides being itself, what we will refer to as being as itself. This brings Phenomenology beyond its essentialist teleology and towards the phenomena itself. Doesn't this contradict the base foundation of all Phenomenology, that being phenomena being viewed in a subjective context, with phenomena being external? Yes. This brings us into a Post-Phenomenological view, a view beyond classical Phenomenology.

[[File:Skepticism2.png]]Nominalism[[File:Poststruct.png]]
While we have just outlined how nothing is at the source of all being, what does that mean exactly? creative nothing is the source of all creation, all being, but is not an expressed notion itself. Without oneself outlining of Hegelian notions and Deleuzian repetition, everything remains an unexpressed form, no essence, nothing. This is not to say that after construction the unique is lost, rather the creative nothing is in Heraclitian flux, always in the process of becoming and always more that the labels given to it. This case of all objects having no inherent essence, nothing that makes it it, is known as Nominalism. In Nominalism, all things are nothing more than the labels given to them, there is no base essence. Of course we are operating on a Nominalism derived from, wich does not use the same nothingness described by Nominalist thinkers such as William of Ockham and Willard van Orman Quine, but a creative nothing, not devoid of being but rather expression. That being said, we still follow the general Nominalist sentiment that we can only recognize things in their labels. This gives us a general philosophy of a soft Nominalism, a Nominalism not characterized by a Nihilistic sentiment towards being, an ontological nihilism. What of the relationships of these labels, how do we recognize a meaning without any inherent meaning? Of course it is the creative nothing that constructs meaning, but to recognize meaning in a word or notion, one must have other words or notions as a cross-reference. This is not to say that meaning requires other meaningful entities, the unique is a fully self contained being, but that these notions that assert themselves as these things are not, rather they are structurally related to other notions. You cannot just point at a tree and say tree, a tree might signify nature, the specific part of the tree, etc. One cannot recognize a tree as tree without another notion. This, in the case of individual identity structure, is related to look and Levinas' conception of the other. Definition is always in the realm of the other, a detail that will become crucial in later sections. This structure, unlike in orthodox structuralism, is rhizomatic. While the rhizome will become crucial in later sections, what should be known for now is that the rhizome is a body with the organ of the multiplicity, it is an unteleological system, with no hierarchical systamization. Along with this, there is no source to this structure, not in the sense of the structural creation through the creative nothing, but rather of hierarchical relations and order in structure. This again relates back to the concept of a rhizome, which is formally defined by an unordered, unhierarchical structure of multiplicities. Overall notions are forced beings and they are all that can be recognized. These structures of notions will be the base aspect of our study of modes of ontology. Even with these objects of study on the horizon, it is always best to dig down and explore this radical nothingness, to explore the world of Nominalism.

[[File:Absurd.png]]Concepts And Disunity[[File:PostHegel.png]]
Now, though we have mostly discussed the creative nothing itself, wich of course is impossible, seeing as the creative nothing is not expressed, but we have at length analyzed its relations and implications for metaphysics, it is only natural to analyze the constructions of the creative nothing. Seeing as derives heavily from Hegel, the constructions of the creative nothing are in dialectical process. This was mentioned in the previous section, being described in Heraclitian terms. This is the most important thing to remember about these constructions, they are constantly in the process of being destroyed and created. There are two conceptions of constructions that will be relevant here, Hegel's and Deleuze's. In Hegel's Science Of Logic, Hegel describes the notion, a construction of thought. The notion is in contrast to a passing, prerequisite notion, being inherently new. The passing notion is analogous to Žižek's idea of ideology in the sublime. This essentially new aspect of the notion is central to the creations of the creative nothing, as the creations of the creative nothing are fundamentally in the process of becoming new, never sinking into the past. Hegel's idea is a subset of the notion, being held in the realm of truth. Now, this is quite confusing, as the notion is already held to be as truth in the realm of the subject's being and essence, but the idea is held similar to Plato, forming the basis of Hegel's metaphysics. In general, Hegel's notion, while diffrent from creations, holds great influence towards are idea of concepts. Now the second matter of discussion is Deleuze's idea of repetition. While Hegel's notion is inherently tied to a present focus, Deleuzian repetition is a more wide sweeping concept. At the heart of Deleuze's metaphysics is the idea of difference, that there can be no generalization of entities into categories. Repetition is the forceful categorization of beings into different conceptions. This repetition is a forced one, being placed upon the body without organs. This will be expanded on in later sections, showing how territories and machines form concepts, though all that is needed at the moment is that Deleuzian concepts are formed by stratification. While this is not necessarily specific to our being in itself in the form of the creative nothing, in the context of it, it provides crucial insight to the nature of these creations. With these two conceptions, we can form a unified idea of creations. Creations are in flux, a state of becoming, they are always in a perceived context. Along with that, they are forced, with unique beings becoming striated and classified through creation. With this unified theory, we must consider the relation of this nominalism and expressed creations. There is conflict between them, leading to the absurd. Now, to this is a far cry from conception of the absurd, being the disunity between the human desire for meaning and the inherent meaninglessness of everything. conception of the absurd is essentialist and, while our's is a generalization of the conflict towards the creative nothing. While we may have deteritorialized from the absurd, its implications remain the same. As the absurd has been deterritorialized from from its human origins, we will refer to it as disunity. That being said, we will continue its exploration in the concept of meaning, of course with an anti-essentialist lens. This disunity forms the basics for the vast majority of the remaining sections, as it forms the complete picture of our metaphysics, showing both the unique being in itself and its creations.

[[File:ExistPhenom.png]]Conceptual Breaks In Subjectivity[[File:Self.png]]
To begin analyzing the concept, we must first establish what a concept actually is. A concept at the simplest level is a totalized collection of thought. When one thinks one is not necessarily creating a concept, even if one uses a preexisting concept in ones thought, but only when one recognizes the thought as a thought, alienating itself from subjectivity, into the object. The concept is thus the result of a partial, where a subjective thought becomes judged by the subject, turning it into an alienated object. This creates quite an interesting dynamic in this sartrian conception, as Sartre in The Transcendence of the Ego outlines both the basis for his anti-Kantian notion of being in itself and the stratification of the subject between the I and the me. The me is when the entire subject is objectified by the subject, creating an ambiguity between subject and object, while the I is somewhat of a simulacra, the I lacks any recognition of any essence behind oneself, but rather refers to somewhat of an empty signifier. outlines this as such: "When I run after a tram, when I look at the time, when I become absorbed in the contemplation of a portrait, there is no I. There is a consciousness of the tramneeding-to-be-caught, etc., and a non-positional consciousness of consciousness. In fact, I am then plunged into the world of objects, it is they which constitute the unity of my consciousnesses, which present themselves with values, attractive and repulsive values, but as for me, I have disappeared, I have annihilated myself. There is no place for me at this level, and this is not the result of some chance, some momentary failure of attention: it stems from the very structure of consciousness." Subjectivity in can only be in its unstratified form when one does not recognize the subject. This represents a turning away from Husserl in, with Husserl asserting that consciousness can only come into being when one has consciousness of consciousness. This makes the conception the alienated subject, while when the subject is made into an object it is alienated yes, but it is never severed from the subject, seen as outside the realm of the subject. For those accustomed to the works of, this is an ambiguity between the subject and object, crucial to Existential Phenomenology, but in this case between the objective thought (concept) and the subject.

[[File:Postsitu.png]]Spectacle And Hyperreality[[File:PostMarxism.png]]
Spectacle is the reaction to disunity, to the absurd. It seeks to place some order on the world, to dilute the reality of pure uniqueness. It places things such as metanarratives and structures to reality just as a form of escape. These spectacles inherently have the effect of transforming being to appearing. , while falsely placing spectacle wholly at the hand of, shows correctly that spectacle transforms from being to appearing. Take the conception of meaning,  himself saying that life is like a melody. We construct stories and live for the appearance of the story While spectacle appears individually, much of spectacle is determined by facticity. The ideals of our current age forms other spectacle. consumerism is tied to the Baudrillardian system of objects, resistance in the form of heaven storming is inherently tied to it, etc. These form the modes of spectacle. Spectacle could be compared to conception of ideology as ideology is a state of distraction from the logic of the dialectic, yet unlike what  suggests it does not arrive from the mode of production; some like  share a similar thought - "The Only Illusion in Capitalist Society is the Apparent Freedom of the Slaves. The Only Spectacle is That of the Freedom of the Slaves", on the contrary, the mode of production arises from spectacle. provides a great analysis of spectacle, not falling into the essentialism of, yet he fails to consider its source. While spectacle might be constituted around the current mode of production, the mode of production and the structure around it is spectacle in itself. They are self constituting, as spectacle arises from the mode of production, yet regarding a mode of production at all is inherently spectacular. While I have been focusing on the mode of production, it is not the basis of all historical modes of spectacle. Previously in times, religion was the justifier of the spectacle of, the mode of production is constituted by exterior forces. It is similar to how it is today, as economic forces are revered as the new god. What of the reactions to the mode of spectacle, are they themselves spectacular? Yes. It could be considered a meta-spectacular predicament as it is a layer down from the original basis of spectacle, yet placing itself in relation to the mode of spectacle creates a situation where the antithesis of the mode of spectacle is pursued, falling into contorted visions. Some reactions, such as situations, give realization of spectacle yet can never replace it. To finish this section off, we must consider our conception of spectalce's relation to Baudrillardian hyperreality. Hyperreality is the collection of simulacra, a copy of the real. Hyperreality is based on symbolic value, wich is an extension of Saussurian structuralism to value. The mature Baudrillard rejects the dichotomy of market value and use value, saying that value is based on its relation to other objects value. It is a conception of value outside of production, arguing that the age of production is over and that we are entering a Post-Modern reality of hyperreality. Baudrillard in Simulacra And Simulation says that we have left the age of the spectacle as descrided by the, as that is based on commodity fetishism, rather then a symbolic fetishism. Of course our conception of spectacle is far more in line with Hyperreality, but generalized throughout all modes of spectacle. Hyperreality is more "real" then reality, not in the sense of it being more important, or a basis of metaphysics, but that it has replaced reality with simulation and simulacra. The simulacra is a copy, a copy without the authenticity of the original, and the simulation is a conception forced upon a body without organs, a structural void. Overall I find the conceptions of spectacle (our conception, not the one of the ) to be quite ideosyncratic with Baudrillardian hyperreality.

[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Deleuzian Bodies And Machines[[File:Poststruct.png]]
While we have discussed the metaphysics of the concept in a previous section, we have eluded to something below it, the components of a concept. Isn't this the purest structuralism at all, to structure the structure? To be frank, this is only due to an observation of the different things that align outside conceptions, to form anti-conceptions like the unique, or the Žižekian organs without bodies. This is no mere blind structuralism, but an analysis of what the concept is a subset of, that of the Deleuzoguattarian multiplicity. Before we can view that, we must explore territories and machines. To begin, let us explore territories. Territories are not literal territories, though they certainly can be, but rather a means of association. To territorialize is to become associated with a territory, while to deterritorialize is to lose an association. The territory has no expressed content on its own, the territory, without any machinic components, is unique. As was mentioned previously, there is deteritorialization and teritorialization, which is how objects operate through the land of territory. While we have offered a brief definition to these actions, a more in depth explanation will do good. Deterritorialization is the process of breaking associations, to approach the creative nothing in the terms of. The process of deterritorialization is known as the line of flight, how one dissasociates and reassociates. This forms the basis of Deleuze's exploration of repetition, with lines of flight playing a key role in that. In terms of how territories work in themselves, there are two main types, the abstract territory and the body. The body is often used as a term far more, being used in terms such as body without organs or the aforementioned Žižekian organs without bodies, even though those concepts aren't exclusive to the realm of the body. Even with this, the body in a technical definition would be a physical territory, not necessarily a territory in its pre-Deleuzian sense, though again it certainly can be, but rooted in physical phenomena. The abstract territory, while not named by Deleuze and Guattari, with them using the term body as a all inclusive term, is necessary to note due to their relation to abstract machines, a phenomena deeply important to the philosophy of Guattari. As we have alluded to in a previous section, Deleuzoguattarian philosophy is rooted in flow. This is not flow in the physical sense, but rather a free movement of desire. The machine is a blocking, stratifying entity controlling desire into some actualization. This gives something its expressed content, with the territory and machines coming together to form a conception. The machine is the most important to our current task at hand, as it is the source of the expressed content, to the stratification and alienation of oneself. The machine comes in multiple expressions, the organ, the desiring machine, and the abstract machine. We have already explained the desiring machine, so it will not be restated here. The organ, like the body, is a physical machine, physically regulating flows contingent to desire. Finally the abstract machine, the most complicated of the machines. The abstract machine is just as it sounds, it is abstract. It is neither corporeal or semiotic, but diagrammatic. These two categories are how we will explore being.

[[File:Ego.png]]The Unique And Its Expression[[File:Skepticism2.png]]
While we have discussed the creator and creation at length, in this case being the creative nothing and the concept, we have not yet explored how these concepts are expressions, and how they relate to the unique. While this has been beaten to death at this point, let us first explore anti-concept of the unique, as it will be necessary to understand the upcoming content. The unique cannot be described, it is being without expression, without content. That being said, it is not nothing. Oneself is a being, that much is a priori, seeing as I am in a state of being right now, yet we are a being in a far diffrent way then saying we are this or that, rather we are unique. There is a motif that is quite relevant here: look into oneself, do you see anything? This simply means, if you look into oneself, deteritorializing from all assumptions and essentialism, you find a self devoid of anything. The slight deviation from this that offers, more similar to Taoist teachings, is that, rather then the self being simply nothing, it is a creative nothing. We create ourselves in our lives, similar to view of self creation through actions. We create expressions of ourselves in everyday life. This is the core of the unique, it is not nothing but everything and nothing simultaneously. It is an expressive nothing, only nothing due to us living in the world of conceptions and spectacle. With this in mind, we can explore the unique and its expression in a base, ontological level. This is difficult, as in our conception of being in itself, or rather being as itself, we have already deteritorialized to this point, being is not without its being in itself. Even without the context of the creative nothing, we can still explore the unique on the level of sublime objects, objects without the context of the creations of the creative nothing, a being as itself. At an ontological level, the base is the unique and expressions are placed upon the unique. When one affirms a definition or context to an object, we are placing an expression upon that object. This constitutes a Deleuzoguattarian reteritorialization of the deterritorialized unique. This is the core of ontology, that all essences, all definitions are forced ones. This puts into context conceptions, ideology, spectacle, etc, by showing them as forced, a false consciousness. If the base of ontology is the creative nothing, conceptions, ideology, spectacle, etc are not on the base of anything, like said they were with political economy, but rather a formless social construction. This is in line with idea of ideological statuses independent of a base, a conception of ideology not as Nominalistic as our  and /Baudrillardian one, but more then the Žižekian conception. The relationship between the unique and its expression, beyond its context in ideological relations, also is very important in self definition, wich is its base context, seeing as expression is as the result of the creative nothing. As stated before, this is simular to view.

[[File:Ego.png]]Being As Itself[[File:AnOnto.png]]
Now we have thrown around the term being as itself, explaining it as a being without expression, being simply as itself. Now this is crucial to our understanding of the unique, the body without organs, and our eventual exploration of, as such, we will need a deeper exploration. Being as itself, as mentioned earlier, is a untransendental being in itself, being instead a base to all creations, such as structure, definition, etc. This being in itself is a Post-Phenomenological being in itself, differing from our yet to be explored modes of ontology. This means that there is no dichotomy of the subject and the phenomena, with the subject being a phenomena above being as itself. This is simular to Deleuze and critique of the subject, but has a crucial difference. In Deleuzoguattarian philosophy the subject is simply an illusion determined by phenomena, with the question of whether desiring machines are subjects or objects not being relevant or useful. Our divergence is that these phenomena are rhizomatic creations of the creative nothing, our being as itself. Deleuze and in A Thousand Plataus advocate the acceleration of deteritorialization to the body without organs and the rhizome, which of course is not fully deteritorialized but can be interpreted in a  sense to be the interworkings of the creations of the creative nothing, creating the basis for most of modern. Now for a complete picture of being as itself we need the theories of and. We will start with, as we are already quite familiar with him. further deteritorializes thought from  down to the unique. outlines how religion is an extension and alienation of the human, while extends this to all fixed ideals over the unique individual. The unique is being as itself, an unexpressed being. This unique has already been outlined in a previous section so there is no need to elaborate here. What does need further explanation is the relationship between Hegelian property and the unique, synonymous to our analysis between the unique and structure. As was mentioned previously, the creations of the creative nothing, Hegelian property, operate in a rhizomatic fashion, with diffrent associations and self definitions all circulating in a non standardized multiplicity. This is of course synonymous to view on meaning and definition, of course in a more non standardized fashion. This creates a view of the relation of structured being to being as itself. Now we must explore the views of. has a notion of ontological anarchy, an not in a political sense but rather an ontological sense. is a being as itself, a being without any standardized systems, a being of freedom in itself. Freedom here is similar to understanding of freedom, which is also on an ontological level. The political implications of this will be explored in a later section, but what is relevant now is that being as itself is located in the astructural subject, not a subject in the standard sense, but rather more similar to unique. Overall, being as itself is the base of ontology, a being in itself without structure and transcendentalism.

[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Rhizomatic Creation[[File:Ego.png]]
We have explored how unique, the creative nothing, is the untranscendent being in itself, a being in itself that has no separation from everything else in its being, making it not a being in itself in the eyes of Hegel, but rather a being as itself, a being whose being is purely its own, yet is unstratified from all others because everything is its own. This is what means when he says that one owns everything, to quote him: "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing." This being as itself, as implied by the name creative nothing, is creative, it creates. This is not by any sense of nature, as of course the creative nothing is a nothingness of sorts, it has no essence, but rather by the fact that any action, physical or mental, is an act of creation. This is what and the  mean when they say we construct ourselves through our actions, every action building a genealogy of our ego, ego here referring to Freud's conception of the ego as an individual's idea of oneself. Now these acts of creation are why we refer to the unique as a creative nothing, a nothingness that constructs somethingness, yet these constructions are not conceptual. Each construction can be viewed as a Deleuzoguattarian machine, an object producing an actualization. Now this is not to say that the creative nothing is a machine, as that would contradict the non-essence of the unique, seeing as the machine is something that is inherently territorial. The constructionist machine rather comes into being when a construction comes into being, the construction being a machine. The actualization of this machine is the concept, a conceptual explanation of the creation. When this machine has not reached its actualization, it is part of a rhizome of these creations, floating the subconscious. This is not to say that the unique is rhizomatic, seeing as the rhizome is a concept itself, but rather that before a micro-look occurs, as described in a previous section, a flow of these constructions are our psyche. When we create concepts out of these creations, we exit this rhizomatic zone of the psyche. Creation is thus a rhizomatic act, one that simply lies in flux waiting to become conceptualized. To give an example of this, think of when one is lost in a deep quandary, one that is more of a fascination then any internal diolouge, one is always coming up with some ideas over this object of fascination, yet it is never materialized into a concept until one recognizes the quandary. This again ties back to our micro-looks, in which one constructs ideas from notions only when one recognizes the process of ones thought.

[[File:PostHegel.png]]A Post-Structuralist Becoming[[File:Heraclitus.png]]
The dichotomy between being and becoming is one that dates to the begining of philosophy, being best shown in the two presocratic thinkers of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Both theorists effectively founded the extreme ends of this debate, with Heraclitus arguing that objects are in a state of flux, the state of movement. He famously said that one never walks in the same river twice, meaning that while we might think of the concept of the river as one entity, but it is always changing, never in the same state twice. Heraclitus argues that this means that the world is made of fire, the element of change. As we are more focused on the idea of flux rather than any presocratic debate on the fundamental substance, so we will discard that for the time being. Parmenides is effectively the opposite of Heraclitus in the case of their philosophies, though they were both quite Pessimistic, with him arguing, that despite how it may seem to change, the world is eternally in a state of sameness. Parmenides was the creator of deductive reasoning, wich is what gave the other philosophers of his time such a hard job in refuting his arguments, because he invented the logic by which they were to be considered. It is like a materialist critiquing Hegel's theory of history; Hegel's ideas about history all come from his idea of the dialectic, a process of immanent critique by which one analyzes. For to try and refute Hegel,  had to argue a different dialectical process, one rooted in material needs rather then ideas. While one could attack the conditions of the dialectic, as many such as Deleuze have done, if one agrees on the base system of logic, it can only be refuted within that logical system. It is the same for Parmenides and deductive reasoning. Parmenides' saw two possibilities for being, that it came from being or nothingness. If this first option is the case, then all is unchanging, as change does not change the being. The second case is seen in Parmenides' eyes as an impossibility, so by that impossibility, all things are constant and one. Now this thesis can be easily refuted by the assumption of the nature of said being, if that being has no essence, no defining attributes, then this entire argument simply loses its foundation. Of course we have discussed the lack of essence previously so there is no need to reiterate it here. Now that refutes the argument for being from Parmenides, but what of all other advocates of being, of fixed concepts? While advocates of being such as Kant may not have some deductive proof of why things remain constant in their essence, but is instead caught in some dogma of why essence is constant. The same thing we used to refute Parmenides works for Kant and most others; simply, we can assert our previously discussed lack of fixed essence to assert a contradiction in the heart of their system. Since we have already refuted the base logic in this case, there is no need to go forward in any elaborate refutation. Instead of that, we will have to build our own notion of flux, one that goes beyond the dialectical dogma of Hegel or the substantial dogma of or Heraclitus. To accomplish this, we will go through three thinkers: Hegel, Deleuze, and. Each of them are very different thinkers, with each of their conceptions of becoming directly contradicting the other. Hegel talks of the dialectical process, Deleuze talks of flows and multiplicity, and talks of the creative nothing. While I consider each of these thinkers very important, I think is the most anti-essentialist out of the bunch, not sticking any fixed ideal upon his metaphyiscs, like Hegel does with his dialectic, or what Deleuze does with the rhizome. This being said each of these thinkers are philosophically useful in a Deleuzian sense, i.e. they may not be agreed with and may fall to many numbers of refutations, yet their ideas are useful to construct our own. We will be exploring these ideas in sections of their own so these introductions will be brief. Hegel proposed the idea of the dialectic, though many such as Heraclitus and are huge dialectical thinkers in their own right. The dialectic is best summed up by the idea that an object is not defined by what it has in common, but rather its contradictions. In his book The Science Of Logic, Hegel explains it through simple mathematical equations, that we will reiterate here. The ussual conception of the object is that A = A, but Hegel's is that A = A, A = B, and A =/= B. What does this contradictory idea of being have to do with becoming? Well, Hegel applies this to history, coming up with a dialectical process of spirit and ideas that explain history. History to him is all coming towards the nation, which of course inspired many Right Hegelians and eventually provided a basis for. What is important to take from this is that to Hegel, the contradictions in a stage of history, an object, etc lead to a process of synthesis, a moving beyond the contradictions currently found within the object. That is Hegel's idea of becoming, that an object is always going in a dialectical process towards some synthesis, just to be grasped in another dialectical process. Now Deleuze's idea of becoming is perhaps the direct opposite of Hegel's. Deleuze has many conceptions of becoming, as almost every element he constructs is made with becoming in mind; because of this, we will be focusing primarily on his idea of flow and of the war machine. Flow could be said to be simular to our being as itself, though perhaps with more of a metaphysical dogma. Flow is Deleuze and idea of the base state of desire and other forces. For example, desire is territorialized into machines that stratify the flow of desire. Flow is the unstratified form of the things Deleuze deals with, with machines and territory being his idea of how these flows are stratified, though of course, many Deleuzian ideas such as the Rhizome are flows of machines. This flow is, as the name implies, always in a state of becoming, though there is no essential process, besides the connotations Deleuze and give to these flows. Without the specific abstract concept that "flows", flow is just our being as itself, though Deleuze and often, for better or for worse, prescribe some connotation to these flows, which is very useful for sociological analysis yet delves into essentialism. The war machine is effectively the opposite of the Hegelian idea of the dialectic, as in the dialectic there is a unified concept that within lies a contradiction, yet the war machine is itself a contradiction against whatever concept it is dealing with. This will be explored far more in a future section so I will not delve further. Finally there is. does not delve into any metaphysical quandary into change with objects, but instead deals with change in the essence of an object. With his idea of the creative nothing, says that we are constantly in a process of creating ourselves and everything around us. The essence of some object is always in a state of flux because we are in the process of creating that object. Now this is very rudimentary, but because we have already explored in depth previously, there is no need to expand here. I think that all of these are very useful, seeing as despite my criticisms of Deleuze and especially Hegel, I still use them and see their ideas as useful. It is the same with our idea of flux. To properly come to an adequate idea of flux and becoming, we will have to consider the flux of being as itself, i.e. the unique. We can use our tools we have built up from many thinkers to do so but being as itself must be the main priority for this. Seeing as everything is created from the unique through the process of the creative nothing, each of these positions on flux are able to be applied when the situation warrants them.

[[File:PostHegel.png]]Rhizomes, Dialectics, And War Machines[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]
WIP

[[File:ExistPhenom.png]]Modes Of Ontology[[File:PostPhenom.png]]
WIP

[[File:Poststruct.png]]Anti-Foundationalism[[File:Skepticism2.png]]
WIP

[[File:Egonihil.png]]The Unique And Knowledge[[File:Skepticism2.png]]
WIP

[[File:Analytic.png]]Strong Fallibilism[[File:Skeptic.png]]
WIP

[[File:Postmodernicon.png]]Knowledge Entrenched In The Mode Of Spectacle[[File:PostMarxism.png]]
WIP

[[File:Skepticism2.png]]The Circular Reasoning Of Belief[[File:Nihil.png]]
WIP

[[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]]Hegelian Dialectics[[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]]
WIP

[[File:Frankfurt.png]]Negative Dialectics[[File:PostMarxism.png]]
WIP

[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Rhizomatic Logic[[File:Poststruct.png]]
WIP

[[File:Situ.png]]Avant-Garde Art[[File:Avant-garde.png]]
WIP

[[File:ExistMarx.png]]Politicized Art[[File:Situ.png]]
WIP

[[File:Absurd.png]]Art In Camusian Rebellion[[File:Existentialist Anarchism.png]]
WIP

[[File:YngHeg.png]]Art As The Ideal[[File:Ego.png]]
WIP

[[File:Postmodernicon.png]]A Deleuzofoucaultian Conception Of Power[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]
WIP

[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Societies Of Control[[File:Postmodernicon.png]]
WIP

[[File:PostMarxism.png]]Capitalist Realism[[File:Postmodernicon.png]]
WIP

[[File:StructMarx.png]]Ideology Ingrained In The State[[File:Žižekism.png]]
WIP

[[File:Postmodernicon.png]]Social Phenomena As Historically Contingent[[File:PostMarxism.png]]
WIP

[[File:Frankfurt.png]]Critical Theory[[File:Post-an.png]]
WIP

[[File:Ego.png]]Conscious Egoism[[File:Self.png]]
WIP

[[File:Tao.png]]The Silent Observer[[File:Ego.png]]
WIP

[[File:Absurd.png]]Life For Life[[File:Tao.png]]
WIP

[[File:Nietzsche.png]]Masters Without Slaves[[File:Situ.png]]
WIP

=== Moral Nihilism===

WIP

[[File:Post-an.png]]Anarchism As Prerequisite[[File:Philan.png]]
WIP

[[File:EgoUnion.png]]Egoistic Union[[File:Ego.png]]
WIP

[[File:Existentialist Anarchism.png]]Camusian Rebellion[[File:Absurd.png]]
WIP

[[File:Communization.png]]The Abolition Of Capital[[File:Post-Autonomism.png]]
WIP

[[File:Post-Autonomism.png]]Politics Of Everyday Life[[File:Situ.png]]
WIP

[[File:MathTheo.png]]Mathematical Objects[[File:Struct.png]]
WIP

[[File:Poststruct.png]]Mathematical Incompleteness[[File:MathTheo.png]]
WIP

[[File:Skepticism2.png]]Mathematical Nominalism[[File:MathTheo.png]]
WIP

[[File:IdealismPhil.png]]Pure Categorization[[File:Poststruct.png]]
WIP

[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]A New Mathematics[[File:Skepticism2.png]]
WIP

=Relations=

[[File:Mega_Yes.png]]Based

 * [[File:HelloThere314Icon.png]]HelloThere314ism - Duh.
 * [[File:TipuiSmall2.png]]Tipism - A mix of individualist and collectivist philosophies, paired with egoism is great.
 * [[File:Ultro.png]]Ultroneism - Your philosophy is great, though it differs to mine in some aspects. You've dropped the philosophical anarchism, which is a shame, though your political analysis is still very interesting. I of course always like the egoism. Pretty based.
 * [[File:Smallinneralism.png]]Inneralism - While egoism is great, your theory of ideals and beliefs is amazing. The unpopulistic manner by which you express that you are following your own cause, your own ideals.
 * [[File:Ioist.png]]Ego-Progressivism - We agree on most things, but while I am queer myself, emphasizing it in a liberation from binaries merely creates a new binary. Instead I think that a simple deteritorialization in everyday life will work better. That's only a small quarrel though.

[[File:Yes.png]]Good

 * [[File:Bsaheedism-icon.png]]Bsaheedism - Post-Leftism generally is pretty good as it seeks to move beyond the ideological boundries of leftism. Besides that your ideas don't seem that constructed, though mutualism is alright as an economic framework, though it can easily turn into a commodity system if one lets oneself be sucumbed to the spectacle of the market.
 * [[File:SituBlart.png]]Situation-Blartism - Syndicalism, even only in practice, creates a structure that creates some abstraction of communitarianism, which in the sensablilty of Voyer is inherantly embroiled in spectacle, wich you claim to go against. Your conception of spectacle is narrow, failing to see the capitalist mode of spectacle as a subset of a larger concept. However it is nice to see a fellow situationist.
 * [[File:RG.png]]RaGhoism - A ranting egoist on weed, what can I say but based. In all seriousness, your focus on revenge is troubling as revenge can often become a sacred cause, a forced cause to some higher ideal of equalizing the situation.
 * [[File:Postean.png]]Mariaism - Egoism is based, and your political apathy is justified. Only thing I can find to be problematic is the nihilism, which as a metaphysical position is great, but in individual life it is best to rebel against it. Nihilism is the ideology against meaning structures, yet as Beuavoir points out, this creates a meaning structure in one's critique. If it is impossible to avoid meaning structures, yet meaning structures are inherantly alienating, shouldn't one seek to simply live and embrace oneself as a cause, rather then pretending to have no cause at all?
 * [[File:PostAlphadonialism.png]]Post-Alphadonialism - Intresting combonation of ideas, but while I like Deleuze, the anti-civ (in this case refering to the goal of abolishing civilization, rather then being against it philosophicaly) seems to be somewhat of a sacred cause, destroying civilization just to create a rhizomatic one. While it may free desire, it is viewed as sacred. We are already living in a Deleuzian assemblage, whether it is free and rhizomatic is up to the individual and its deteritorialization. Still pretty based.
 * [[File:SamTouseyShading.png]]Neo-Touseyism - We share a lot of similarities but also a lot of difference. I don't really like the overemphasis on Marxism and the lack of a stirnerite base, but we're both deleuzoguattarians.

[[File:Kinda_Yes.png]]Fine

 * [[File:Ashley.png]]AshleyHereism - Anarchism understood as a system is very flawed, but at least you like Camus.
 * [[File:NguyenreichismIcon.png]]Bruhman Thought - Best orthodox marxist on here by far. While I'm personally an anarchist, I've always held a respect for council communism and left communism in general. Your understanding of dialectics in the marxist sense has the same problems of Marx's understanding of dialectics, that being the placement of survival on a purely material plane, associating the production focused nature of capitalism to apply to all stages of society. Along with that the problem of the ideolization of some state of society still stands, with revolution being advocated. Overall alright.
 * [[File:BasedMan.png]]BasedManism - I fundamentally disagree that the existentialists tell one how to live. The only one I could see that does this to some extent is Beauvoir in her ethics of ambiguity, which while offering a great coverage of ambiguity just throws in her own personal ethics without much justification. Most existentialist critique of Beauvoir is that existentialism is incompatible with ethics. Sartre supports Marxism in his later years, yet he never argues that marxism is the fundamental cause, arguing in Critique Of Dialectical Reason that dialectical materialism is not a metaphysical backdrop, but a cause one can pursue. In Camus's rebellion, Sartre's Marxism, Beauvoir's feminism, etc, these are mere suggestions towards liberation, it doesn't infect their metaphysics, which is one of the least essentilist in the history of philosophy. The occultism is worrying, along with the kantianism. You also fall into much metaphysical essentialism, not considering the stirnerite unique; without it your analysis of dialectics is incomplete and falls to essentialism and idealism
 * [[File:NeoLukko.png]]Neo-Lukkoism - Not really a post-leftist, seeing how you're a communist and support a systematic anarchism of direct democracy. Anti-Work isn't the destruction of industrial work, but rather Black's expansion on Vaneigem's idea of the revolution of everyday life and play. As such, I just see you the same way I see classical anarchists.

[[File:Meh.png]]Neutral

 * [[File:Inky.png]]Inkyism - Anarcho-Communism is alright, though some of your positions seem quite rad libby, your page is quite bare so I can't make a definitive judgment. Platformism just places structure to the supposedly anarchic societies. The usual problems with social anarchism and revolution also apply, ideolizing some state of society over some ideal of minimizing highrarchy or whatever, instead of asserting oneself as ones own.
 * [[File:MrsVzrFlag.png]]Chaotic Communism - Very intresting, a synthesis of the chaos apparent within us and a structured view of society. While very interesting, it falls to the pitfalls of any statist view and has many philosophical quarrels, all generally leading to the alienation of the individual. Also your critique of egoism is just laughable.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]]O'Langism - Pretty much a worse version of AshleyHere, being structurally fascist and hugely misunderstanding egoism. Very friendly though.
 * [[File:VEnlight.png]]Ultra-Enlightenment - Though I hate almost all of your political ideas, it's so well thought out and philosophically sound that I have to respect it.

[[File:Kinda_No.png]]Meh

 * [[File:Yoda8soup.png]]Yoda8soup Thought - The economics of Wolff suck. Wolff assumes that the reasons behind capitalism's problem is the boss not the firm. Commodity production still goes on when the workers are behind the wheel. Also, you completely misunderstand Bukharin, who like all marxists wanted a stateless classless society. The NEP is not some moderate market plan, but what he described as giving an inch on the economic front to ensure the dictatoriship of the proletariat. At least you're anti-authoritarian.
 * [[File:Neoairisu.png]]Neo-Airisuism - It always confuses me when anarchists praise Bookchin. Dude intentionally diverged from anarchism, and besides social ecology, most of his ideas are explicitly anti-anarchist. Then rojava is far better then the rest of syria, but that's not saying much.
 * [[File:Duckf.png]]Duck-Citizen - I like Illegalism but mind body dualism is awful. Philosophical Anarchism is good but your rejection of egoism isn't.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]]Owfism - You're politics are better than the status quo, but still fall into a ton of sacred causes. I don't like the Cartesianism or Kantianism, but you are quite philosophically literate, which I can respect.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]]Glencoeism - The largest radlib I've ever seen.
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]]Rocksism - My old critiques still apply but I like that you've become more anti-authoritarianism. Still the same very friendly bookchinite.
 * [[File:Left-Chronic.png]]Left-Chronicism - Don't like how you've become a generic left libertarian, but you're quite undeveloped at the moment so I can't judge you too harshly.

[[File:No.png]]Bad

 * [[File:Panth.png]]Pantheonism - The guild system may be more cooperative then capitalism, removing exessive theft of surplus value, yet it is still a forced system, in wich one is subjected to diffrent economic deleuzian organs. Besides that progressive conservatism falls into the same problems as progressivism and conservatism, ideolizing some state of social relations. While all of the other systems, while I don't necessarily agree with them, have clear lines of logic, with your advocacy of monarchy I don't see that. Overall your justifications for everything are not included on your page so I can't make that clear of critiques besides just the positions themselves.
 * [[File:MATTball.png]]Mattism - Quirky american progressive. Not much better than the status quo. Philosophy is alright though.
 * [[File:Revequom-newicon.png]]Atronism - How bad can one butcher Marx? Rights, equality, are given by the borgious state, both of which Marx hates. Marx and Engels hate the socialist with their goals in equality, in rights, instead material liberation from these conceptions is communism. You're just a utopian, sacred socialist.
 * [[File:Fixed autocrates.png]]Autocrateism - You seek to remove the "good" system of capitalism for government influence, using the classical liberal notion of rights protected by minimal governance to enshrine an "individualism" and protect form "unethical" activities. All of this alienates the individual from oneself, placing fixed ideals upon the individual.
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]]Neo-Kiraism - Anti-Authoritarian, but is sympathetic towards Stalinism and in the past was sympathetic to Juche? Typical Marxist problems, with an idolization of some state of society and philosophical dogmatism in the Marxist conception of the dialectic. At least you're not an ML.

[[File:Mega_No.png]]Cringe

 * [[File:GenShrekf.png]]General Shrekretary Thought - The worst part of Marxism-Leninism all combined into one ideology.
 * [[File:Vermaatism2.png]]Vermaatism - Your "individualism" is the exact antithesis to an actual individualism. You idealize some higher state of the individual, to progress the individual. This is a quintessential sacred cause, the ideolization of some goal. You don't allow the individual to follow their own cause, or follow no cause at all. Your individualism is the advocacy of some higher goal, not the sublime goals of everyday individuals.
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]]New Model Of Cheesenism - The nation is a naive abstraction, one you force yourself into. Instead of seeing that one is always one's own, as one can only exist in the context of oneself, you embrace alienation.
 * [[File:NatPolPotSmallerEye.png]]National Pol Potism - Pretty similar to above, but doesn't seem to be a troll. Honestly this makes me want to puke, every critique of systematization and prejudice I have amped up to 11.
 * [[File:ProtTheo.png]]Reginald thought - I may critique christianity as alienating and a slave morality, but you're worse! Your critique of lgbtq+ stuff is braindead and shows a fundamental misunderstanding and bigotry. Your governmental ideas fall to my previous critiques of state systems.
 * [[File:Fash.png]]Triadism - Why the fuck do people like fascism? This page makes me want to vomit.
 * [[File:Egotard.png]]True egoism - I hope this is a troll. It's so braindead! Also why did you steal my template?
 * [[File:Lanceism.png]]Lanceism - Still an edgelord and ruled by abstractions.
 * [[File:DoesntExist.png]]Nonexistism - Same as above but at least far more thought up and with legitimate principles behind them, despite how awful they are. You've been quite friendly though.

=References=

=Comments=
 * - Comment if you want to discuss or if you want to be added. I will be deleting old comments.


 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - what do you mean by new mathematics?
 * - I haven't written about this yet so this will be simplified. By new mathematics I mean mathematics without fixed axioms, but instead a philosophical exploration of mathematical objects. This is not a new way of doing mathematics, as mathematics relies on axioms in order to be able to come to conclusions, but instead is a post-structuralist approach to mathematical philosophy. It's just my personal approach to the philosophy of mathematics.


 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - add me back. how do u manage have enough time to read all those books while ur busy?
 * - I read and write quite manically in short bursts. I spend many hours reading and then don't read for a week. Just an ADD thing I guess.