Poemander

Shall we begin with the premise that any critics is baseless unless weighted by the counter argument, and likewise assume that an agreement can only be stipulated by the presence of a disagreement? It seems commonsensical, yet the question itself harbours an oxymoron: the nonconsensual agreement. We, however, may be faced with the critics that an agreement is essentially a reciprocal consent, yet such critics falls short in the absence of a counter-argument, namely, the consensual disagreement.

Plurality is one of such arguments. One shouldn't underestimate the pronoun 'we', for it is the active dimension of a latent identifier 'I', carrying the similar, if not maximized, power of implication. It is implicit that 'we' has a de facto consensus which makes an agreement a matter of fact rather than matter of proof. The question is wether 'I' can have a critical disagreement while still remaining a part of 'we'?

Our utilitarian mind, by training mainly, will try to carve out a definitive yes to such question processing the justification through the lens of pluralism, tolerance, the greater good for the greater number etc. The nature, however, tells us a different story. Has wolf a disagreement with a sheep? Not the slightest, tells us the ecosystem of the forest where the wolf and the sheep are the 'we' of the animal kingdom. Neither do they have an agreement within the same ecosystem. What transpires between them is pure existentialism, which is nothing else but a vetoed fragmentation of 'we', as a whole, with a singular and unanimous consent to exist. This consent is necessarily shared by all participants of the 'we' and, therefore, wolf will eat sheep and the sheep cannot 'disagree' whilst under the de facto consensus of ecosystem. They are unequal and yet fully equalized by the system. Thus is the paradigm: a discord within accord, inequality within equality and de jure within de facto. This shift happens as a focal point transgressing from 'we' to 'they' and so forth.

As mentioned, 'we' is a dimensional extension of 'I', 'they', however, is always ever a fragmentation of 'we', because 'they' cannot be outside of 'we', always remaining blanketed by 'we' of a higher magnitude. In the multilayered existence, identity is that focal point which shifts by will through the clusters of consensus. Societies, organisms, ecosystems, nations etc exist solely due to such implicit consensus. We can say it is pretty much a perfect symbiosis, where anyone regarded as a parasite is simply a myopic misinterpretation of what is a symbiosis of a higher level. Such myopia of identity lies at the core of misconceptions and conflict between otherwise similar ideologies.

Not surprisingly, the postulate of Darwinism, aka the survival of the fittest became embraced by both, the capitalist and the communist ideologies, having in principle very little difference except for the focal point on the spectrum of identity and consensus. Having 'stuck' in their focal paradigm, they fail to reconcile self-interest with altruism praising one and condemning the other. Existentialism as a precondition, on the other hand, has no point of fixation and travels along the continuum with the expansion or contraction of identity. It has no contradiction in representing compassion as selfishness and vice versa, empirically recognizing the practical symbiosis across the clusters of beingness.

Anarchism, either, is no foreign to existentialist realities. Anarchism is a resultant structure of a matured democratic society where the “demos” ultimately diffuse the “kratos”.

Democracy, as a tool of consensus is, however, susceptibly deceptive. The word itself is yet another oxymoron since two parts hardly relate: demos is predisposed to fragmentation yet kratos favours consolidation. Imagine people on the bus, they all are demos and the engine is kratos (power). Can they all operate the engine at a given time or does everyone want to? Thus they need a driver who may or may not follow their requests. They can vote, collude, sabotage yet the point is that they, willingly or not, do not have the direct linkage with the kratos – the engine. Hence springs the concept of fiduciary duty and the carving out of de jure from what is already de facto. Things don't stop here as demos continue fragment in the pursuit of their share of 'power'. Some, if not most, will look for ways to get into personal cars and start having a direct say over their engines. However, they'll discover that despite the powerful engine, they can only travel at sixty kilometers per hour and have to obey multiple traffic rules, occasionally getting stuck in traffic jam or doing a needless detour. All becomes a mess, again, demos are not in possession of kratos; the power of their engines seems to have become useless as the kratos has consolidated into a higher power layer of the traffic regulating system. They can pursue it further and endlessly chase the fleeting control or run to the fringes seeking a carte blanche only to realize that most of the virgin pastures have already fallen under the jurisdiction of an ever-strengthening powerhouse. Paradoxically, but the quickest they can come to democracy is by slowing down the chase. By relinquishing the unnecessary controls and taking just the immediate matters into their own hands, i.e. getting on a bicycle, single speed, or walking even – having a direct say over their own power and with it an immediate responsibility over their own progression.

Have you observed a busy market square? A seeming disorganization of participants doesn't in fact inhibit the ongoing affair. There is no rule of the road, yet people seem to miraculously avoid collisions with others, the stalls and the carts. Occasional bump gets ignored and any damage gets sorted right on the spot. Some conflicts may erupt with the fight but resolved with or without the help of bystanders and the activity is restored back to normal almost immediately. Is this a near-perfect regulated system. If yes, than by whom? Apparently, this can be an example of anarchy in action; an order of a a seemingly disorderly and self-regulated system. Can this be true? Possibly, but there is one guiding principle which has been ignored or misunderstood by the utopian proponents of anarchism and misinterpreted by the existentialists: the implicit consensus of the 'we'. This implicit consensus is the democracy in action, where no voting, no representation, no matters of agreement or disagreement are necessary for its clockwork functioning. The functioning of such a powerful and unanimous consensus is based on a very strong, if not the strongest out there incentive: participation. Any monetary incentive, in this context, is only a remote (mainly time-delayed) claim on the very same participation. Participation or inclusion in the ecosystem of the 'we' of whatever magnitude (cells in the organism, organisms in the vegetable or animal kingdoms, people in the organized or informal societies etc) is the strongest incentive equating to nothing else but existence as such.

Quite remarkable is that the multilayered existence allows us to participate in the multitudes of 'we' of various magnitudes. This is how the earlier mentioned sheep eaten by to the wolf, cedes its participation in the 'we' of the flock but continues to remain in the 'we' of the forest's ecosystem. The greater the fixation on a particular layer of existence, the greater is the need for the superstructures of control and delegation of authority ( because you can only have this much of control) within a particular layer.

“They” has proven to be a terrible word, something to be scared of, somebody to protect from and lash against. The entire history of mankind is squashed, like a ping-pong ball in the relentless contest of “we” and “ they”. “They” is a product of fragmentation; however, it is a mistake thinking that “we” must than be the product of a consolidation, no. “We”, too is a fragmentation of a grater “I”, so there you go, now you have a counter-argument of consensual disagreement:

“I” is a consolidated “we”, an accomplished symbiosis capable of self-awareness. Thus, power, being a resultant of awareness, always consolidates into “I” and never truly belong to demos who remain in “we -they” state. Instead, demos fragment, further breaking “we” into separate “they”. The fragmentation occurs again, due to self-awareness, only this time as a step down, a retreat from the awareness and power of a greater “I” and into the power and awareness of a lesser “I”; as above, so below. “We” and “they” are a stepladder, an interim flight of stairs descending and climbing up the levels of “I” identities of the multilevel existence.

Wolf can never be equal with the sheep whilst both are trapped inside the “we – they” intermittency, and only upon succumbing to the wolf does the sheep gain “equality” – by regressing to the lesser “I” of the wolf and progressing to the greater “I” of the ecosystem at the same time. Life beds inherent inequality while death is a great equalizer. Physical or archetypal death, but only the relinquishing of identity can lead to equality. Realized identity of “I” is the state of latent consensual equality, a state characterized by physical or archetypal death. Unrealized identity of “we” is an active state of transformation and nonconsensual inequality characterized by living or actioning. Existence is neither equal nor unequal because it is both, the life and the death, the “I” and the “we” are continuously progressing and regressing in the looped circuit. While this cycle may sound like a terrible fate, nevertheless, this too is

a great opportunity for action, and the greatest action out there is awareness. By being aware of own acts one transgresses the identity assigned to them by existence and is now in position to act at will from a different layer altogether. Unless such opportunity is realised and taken, identities continue to fragment further, distancing themselves from the very same power and the very same control they were chasing all along.