Federal Anarchism: Core Principles

The final step in this multi-post essay pertaining to governance is thus: outlining the ideal society and state and their relation to the Libertarian Capitalist model. The statist model is Anarchist, which is hardly what many would conceptualize when they picture “anarchy.” The symbol for such is an A within an O, representing the ideal that anarchy is a system that itself is found within order, and that is exactly what I aim to represent in my philosophy of Federal Anarchy.

What first must be spoken of before I may divulge the totality of the state is my philosophy of Objective Constitutionalism. What I have seen in much of anarchy is despotism of the majority against the minority in terms of criticism that may laid against the general understanding of the system. The criticism most often comes in the way of matters of controversy, such as racial or sexual tensions that may exist within competing social factions. For instance, suppose a community is in its majority white and thus supposes to propose local legislation against the minority of Africans or Hispanics that may exist within it or vice versa. Common Anarchy would state that the will of the majority is an absolute: because the legislation has been created democratically, there is no tyranny at play here. What a Republican Constitutionalist would propose in response to such an arrangement would be much the same as Soviet Socialist to an arrangement in the market: planners must make a decision based upon what they believe is right. The Republican will say that these planners are the peoples’ representatives within the state, the Socialist that such planners are the same. The only difference between the two is that the Republican believes this to be in the way of liberty of right while the Socialist believes it to be in the way of liberty of commerce. I’m not one for planning of any sort, but I do instead propose a view that should aim to synthesize the two competing perspectives, which I have determined above should be referred to as “Objective Constitutionalism.”

As opposed to Republican Constitutionalism, what makes my philosophy objective is that it looks upon law in terms of its utility in its providence in the way of happiness. Let us suppose that racial segregation in the long run provides not only for healthier communities of whites and blacks socially, but politically and commercially as well. Who are we to state that this is bad? What is bad about it? Is it that the segregation is being enforced by the law? Well, what exactly may be said to be bad about segregation if the ends it provides for are demonstrably better than racial integration? I see no “liberty” that may be spoken of as being lost in such a setup as we must question what liberty itself is at play in the integrated society. Suppose the integrated society has no manner of coming towards acceptance of the “other” within it. Where exactly is the other’s liberty of self-action? The other will always be limited socially by the failure of acceptance that may take place inherently in the minds of those around him. Suppose the African wishes to start a business in a society that is majorly white and the business fails. Where is his liberty to start this business? Sure has his inherent ability to do so, but if the business will always fail, this inherent ability sees no true actualization and thus that ability may not be spoken of as an actual liberty. If a thing does not actualize, it surely is not.

What a progressive may speak of this scenario is that there must be dealt with is a re-education of the populous towards the end of accepting a racially integrated society. But I find issue herein because again we are speaking of a planned societal setup: how exactly do the planners of the society know that racial integration is good? How may they objectively determine that racial integration will unanimously provide for a society that serves utility in the way of liberty? And towards that same end, what of such a society’s utility in the way of happiness? What is the metric by which the progressive planners may state that something is good while another is bad? I propose that there is no metric but that our planners, as those of Republican Constitutionalism and Soviet Socialism, seem to be making decisions and planning based on such decisions with little more than a subjective emotion in mind. “Racial integration is good because segregation breeds hatred.” Perhaps in that society wherein the segregation was rooted in a systemic means of racial abuse. But how may we know this is true for all societies? How may we know this is true for all peoples? We may not, unless the people’s communities are directly given the wherewithal to demonstrate to their representatives and lawmakers that such a system does or does not provide the greatest deal of utility in the way of liberty and / or happiness.

This is what I speak of when I aim to represent my philosophy as an “objective.” It does not adhere to the subjective whims of the planners of the Republicans, Progressives, or Socialists, yet it simultaneously is not beholden to the subjective whims of the people as in purely democratic anarchism. It, instead, synthesizes both. Within the early days of the anarchist state, democracy must be temporarily absolute. At local levels, those things that may be determined at a local level via democratic means should be as such. Supposing that those things that become law at a local level provide for proper function, whether that entails segregation or not (or anything of a similar nature that by today’s standards would be considered heterodox), then it must be that these things be established as absolute, unbreakable law in a federal constitution. Now supposing that these democratic setups provide for results that do not see utility in liberty and happiness, it must be that the will of the people is questioned and reworked. The Anarchist state must collect information based upon the failures of the democratically arranged law and, finding that such law lacks utility, it must utilize such data to find legal solutions towards the end of that utility. Once a set of legal codes is determined that provides for the greatest deal of utility, such legal codes enter the realm of Constitution. Hence, the system aims to be “objective” in that its law is determined by means of utility, and “constitutional” in that the maximum deal of utility is absolute.

Now, key to Anarchy is the bottom-up power structure and is what separates it from the modern liberal state, which experiences a top-down power structure that alleges itself to be bottom-up. In the original days of the US Republic, federal power was bottom-up: the federal government had power as a result of the willing consent of the states. However, the conception of those apparatuses that existed within the states themselves still existed in a fashion that was itself top-down in its structure. With Webster the federal government quickly turned towards the top-down structure we see today, such government being the actual government with the states being more akin to provincial bureaucracies. In order that the bottom-up structure become manifest, the Federal Anarchist state must first adhere clearly to the principle of consent. Such a principle was that sought after by Jefferson and Madison when they presented their Resolves to the states of Kentucky and Virginia, and it aimed to make clear that the government was to adhere to a model that derived power from the “consent of the governed” and not that the governed should accept all of those things that those in governing positions should put before the populace. It is thus that for the federal anarchist model to see itself through, consent must be organized and systematized. Rule from the bottom means organization at the bottom, through what I call the “Agreement.”

The “Agreement” is a local constitution of sorts. It sets out the wills and whims of those individuals within the community that have proposed it, and it is to consist of a variety of matters that the local area finds belief in or sees entitlement towards. Such an agreement must consist of ideals in local affairs towards three ends: the political, the social, and the commercial. The Political: This facet of the Community Agreement determines the political apparatus of the Community itself. As per Objective Constitutionalism, communities may first seek to establish by democratic means any sort of setup that they desire. If this be absolutism in some communities and direct democracy in others, then this shall be the law of these communities. Now, supposing that democratically-arranged absolutism leads to tyranny in certain communities, it becomes the matter of the greater state to intervene and place upon the people a system with greater utility as determined by those other communities that have utilized such systems. Ideally, this system will be democratic, as the numerous democratic city-states of the western world have demonstrated time and time again that decentralized power locally provides for the greatest political setup. In addition to the local political apparatus, the community should also make provisions for the election of a delegate to a greater congress of cities, which will be discussed in the coming paragraphs. Provisions should also be made for city ideals towards the powers of the congress and congresses above it. Certain things should also be said of the community’s understanding liberty and security of rights, policing, etc. The Social: The social (and the commercial) are both facets of the political. Social policy includes the aforementioned protections in terms of liberty and rights. It also speaks of the community’s understanding of children and their legal rights, the elderly, etc. etc. It looks at the community’s dynamic according to race, religion, belief system, etc. and determines how the individuals within the community see these individuals. Ideally, the community should make no provision against individuals for their inherences however if utility proves otherwise then such should become law as there will be no objective measure other than utility to determine as such. The Commercial: Ideally, commercial affairs as determined democratically by the community should determine that commercial affairs at a local level would be accountable to the decisions of the community. However, these matters are again left up to the people, objective constitutionalism making them law as per utility. Writings should also be made of the community’s ideal towards the commercial system of the entire state.

Being now that a larger state entails some concession of liberty in the way of voting rights, as the entire populous voting upon every single issue would prove wholly infeasible, there must come forward some means to replace the liberty that has been given up. The solution I and many other anarchists have proposed is delegation, which plays into the greater ideal of consent. As spoken of before, the community should make provisions for regular elections of delegates towards a greater congress of surrounding cities within their overall region. These regional congresses would then take part in greater elections along with their constituencies in the voting of individuals within these regional congresses to a greater regional, or provincial, congress. Individuals from within the totality of the province will then elect from individuals within the provincial congress to have such an individual elected to greater provincial, or semi-world-region, congresses. The semi-world-region congresses would be equivalent to those of modern nations. Above these would be election towards world-region congresses, with eventual election towards the world congress. Bicameral legislatures based on both population and equal representation should be implemented.

There must be two requirements of delegates. The first is their accountability, the second their transparency. It is of my opinion that the latter ensures the former. Delegates, as individuals representing the public, may be spoken of as public officials and, by extension, public citizens. The philosophy of the public citizen means that participation in delegation denotes that one’s citizenship and all facets of it within the delegation must be public. That is to say, publicly accessible without encumberment. When I speak of public accessibility of all facets of citizenship within the delegation, I mean to say that all delegation meetings, legislation proposals, and delegate acceptances of such proposals must be known publicly. To ensure this, a special delegation department must be created for the purpose of office accountability, the DOA. Officials should be elected to the DOA in a similar manner as individuals to congresses. To prevent corruption and collusion within the sub-departments (city, regional, provincial, etc) of the DOA, each city is to keep whole accountability to its regional DOA delegate first and foremost. This means the complete and total transparency of the the regional DOA delegate. Such transparency is to be ensured be locals within the city affiliate of the DOA. The regional DOA delegate thus checks those individuals above him in the provincial DOA department, and so on and so forth. Further, each DOA delegate must ensure the transparency of delegates to the congresses at his department level, provincial DOA members ensuring transparency of provincial delegates.

Providing that citizens should find through the DOA some matter that they disapprove of, citizens reserve the right to immediate deposition of this delegate and his or her immediate replacement with another elected individual. There is to be no question in this matter. Provided documentation wholly exists demonstrating that the delegate has approved of legislation counter to the community agreement, the community has the responsibility to remove him or her.

The ideal of community responsibility to itself may be otherwise spoken of as community responsibility to the state, as the community, that is, society, is to be the state. Society as state means that which derive from society similarly derives from the state. The economy is not to be an exception. The principles of libertarian capitalism are to be upheld by the state, and it is through the unity of state and society that we may also therefore speak of economy being united to the former two as well. It is therefore that we may speak of such an economy as socialist, as ownership derives from society directly and as a result is accountable to this society. Participation in the economy thus means participation in the state, as the economy deriving from society means the economy deriving from the state. The state should make no provision encumbering the natural ebb and flow of the market, and thus should in no way aim to plan the economy. Rather, corporations should be thought of as state departments in the service of production to the greater delegations as elected by the people. The economy being a public matter entails that those individuals that are heads of their economic departments (CEOs, CFOs, etc) must concede the same liberty as their delegate counterparts in taking on the role of public citizen. The actions of these individuals must be public and accountable to communities and to delegations as a result. The delegations are to not place upon the economic departments quotas on production or any other sort of restriction that points towards subjective economic planning. Rather, it is through delegations that the workers within these economic departments may seek redress of grievances in pay, labor hours, or anything that may directly or indirectly incumber the liberty and happiness of the workers themselves. It is thus that the ultimate owner of the means of production is the workers themselves, and that their directly elected delegates fully accountable to them have the power to bring about those changes in the production that they wish to see.

Libertarian Capitalism: Core Principles

I will say it now: I identify with the core ideal of capitalism, being that an individual is entitled to the products of his labor. I will say second that I do not identify with the modern reality of the capitalist system at all in any sense of it nor do I identify with the modern definition of Libertarianism. Libertarianism denotes a philosophy grounded in liberty and, when I speak of it, this is what I refer to. My philosophy is that of Libertarian Capitalism. That is to say, Capitalism that has been grounded in the philosophy of natural liberty and personal governance that I have laid out in this blog. It not socialist, nor is it capitalist as we would understand it now. It far closer to leftist models of the Mutualism of Proudhon and the Distributism of the early 20th century Catholics. It is now that I’ll outline its specifics.

Having rejected the Lockean pretense of indefinite land ownership that makes the present Capitalist system possible, I propose the Proudhonian model, and in fact the Lockean model as well, of the “labor yields ownership” theory. The theory supposes that man owning himself denotes the ownership of his labor and the products of such labor. Temporarily too, the man owns the land upon which he performs his labor as well. His ownership is temporary, yet simultaneously grounded in that actual labor that he performs. When a man thus works a piece of land, he becomes the owner of that land. When multiple people work the same piece of land, they thus all become co-owners of it at the same time as a result of the labor they put forward on the land itself. It is by the same merit that, because the man who works the land is further entitled by natural liberty to the products of his labor that are derived from it, that he is entitled to a wage that is directly contingent upon the labor that he exerts. This is, of course, within the confines of a subjective capitalist theory of value. The great failure of Marxian Socialism and of all Socialist and Anarchist models prior to and contemporary to it is that they are rooted inside of a labor theory of value dynamic, whereas the human person clearly operates under a dynamic that is clearly subjective. The subjective theory of value is from whence we derive concepts of supply and demand and the related ebbs and flows of the market that may result. These supply and demand fluctuations are the result of this subjective nature nature of the human understanding of commodity, which is completely anti-objective. Man understands commodity by its necessity to him, that is, its utility, which itself is not an objective metric because it as a concept is liable to its own ebb and flow, that being of the human mind. The market is controlled by such a subjective desire for goods, and it is from such goods that commodities derive value. Value may be articulated in two fashions: immediate and real. Immediate value is the subjective value that has been spoken of and that is the basis for the selling of commodities on the market. It is the perceived value of a good to an individual contingent upon that one individual’s whims. By contrast, real value is the absolute value of a commodity towards some sort of end. Let us look at the classical model of diamonds and water. The real value of water is exponential, and is perhaps that good that experiences the highest real value the world over. Diamonds are a precious stone and thus have little real value. Yet, because of the nature of our material culture, we subjectively value diamonds a great deal more than we value water. This is taken into account alongside the fact that water is infinitely more present than diamonds on the market. Of course, we know that an artificial scarcity is created by the companies that mine diamonds, but for the sake of this hypothetical, we’ll say otherwise. The scarcity that is present means a lower supply, while a greater subjective value means a greater demand. It is this reality that solves diamond-water paradox plagued by classical economists.

What Marxian Socialism says of value is that it is derived directly from the labor that is put into production. It is from thence that Marx may critique capitalism and call forward the ideal of surplus labor, in that capitalist contracts require the worker to work first for his own wage then further towards wage that is not compensated to him but is instead allocated towards the capitalist that employs him. The value theory hardly makes any sense whatever, as it supposes that labor derives value. It’s akin the non sequitur of Lockean property ownership really, as both simply make their claims without any logical means to their ends. I produce videos and they take hours on hours to make. Does the fact that I’ve labored so hard to produce videos give them any intrinsic value above that above that of a vlogger? Perhaps. We can construe such value as the real value that we have spoken of before, as perhaps to some such labor may produce a result that is more useful to them in some way. But this means little, as it is not upon real value that man acts in the market, but subjective value. Subjectively, my videos have no more merit than a vlog from Jake Paul, and that is the reality subjective value. Regardless, Marxian Socialism will tell the worker thus that because it is their labor that is put forward, it is they who are entitled to the products of such labor. The end result of this system would be a labor-market system, which itself would give way towards the system I will propose in the following paragraphs. The labor-market system represents a either an economy of command by necessity, as it supposes that the worker can only price his goods according to the labor that he has placed into them. American Anarchist Josiah Warren coined such a system and believed that currency would be thusly composed of labor-hour notes, with purchase price being equivalent the number of hours that went into production. Never in the history of mankind has he ever placed some objective ideal of labor hours prior to his own interests, and it is thus that we find the birth of the subjective system. If some syndicate of workers under the Marxian model sees their goods performing well on the market, I no authority other than some sort of state that could enforce such workers to keep their prices as such without raising prices due to growing demand, making for a curtailing of natural liberty.

Now on the other side of the coin, what “Capitalism” says of value is that it is most definitely subjective. The market should be free and allowed to proliferate as per the will of the people. What the system will then state is that because of the state intervention that upholds indefinite land ownership and contract, workers must concede liberty and practice work beneath another. This creates market demand for labor, resulting in the commodification of such labor. The laborer has all freedom to work at those places that provide the greatest pay; however, the nature of the procreative reality and man’s other personal governances means that he will in 99% of cases go with some opportunity that provides for his sustenance of life meaning that he is willing to sell his labor to a capitalist whenever doing so is an ability. The nature of modern “capitalism” may therefore be spoken of more correctly spoken of as “corporate capitalism” as it is by its very nature focused upon corporate power and allying with the state in order that it maintain itself.

What the liberal state aims to do in order to “remedy” the situation is turn to “Socialism.” Not Marxian Socialism, not at all. Marxian Socialism provides for direct, worker ownership of corporations by those workers that work them. That is the social ownership. What Socialism of the liberal state does is reject social ownership in favor of mediate, state ownership. There is nothing “public” about the so-called “public land” or “public monuments” or “public roads” of the United States. Each is owned not be the people, but by their so-called “representatives” in the state. And being that we’ve already made clear that the modern liberal state relies on a top-down hierarchy that is in many ways not beholden to the people, this “representation” hardly makes for “social” ownership as Marx himself would have deemed proper. The liberal state, instead safeguarding the direct ownership of workers, takes on ownership in their favor and performs contractual labor in much the same way any corporation would. The liberal state becomes a corporation much like any other, simply utilizing its place in the modern capitalist paradigm as that which is supposed to fetter capital rule as a means towards the end of many things that the flawed market that it has provided for cannot it self make manifest. Natural liberty is first limited through the precepts of the capitalist paradigm, then second through the “social” ownership that entails the removal of the products of labor from one who naturally owns them and distributes them towards “socialized” ends.

Libertarian Capitalism of my variety rejects (1) the constructions of Lockean, Corporatist Capitalism, (2) the labor theory of value and idealized collective worker management of Marxian Socialism, and (3) the wealth redistribution of the liberal welfare state. Libertarian Capitalism instead proposes a synthesis of the three, each facet grounded in the principles of liberty and self governance that have been previously proposed.

From Locke and the Capitalists. I derive a number of things from Locke, all grounded in his philosophy of rights and liberty. These may be described in the previous postings. All men are individuals, governed by the principles of Reality first and foremost, then second by those things they construct of themselves. It is from these governances that individual liberties are derived, and it is upon them that we describe those basic things that man is entitled to in his own life. It is these integral liberties that the system of capital can never usurp. It is in Locke that I firmly accept the natural right of man to private property so long as he is in use of it, and in Locke that I find labor to be the source of ownership. The capitalists provide the necessary economic model of the subjective theory of value, described above. The capitalists also provide the model for economic organization, laissez-faire, as the nature of the state described in the following post will remedy any and all issues of such a model.

From Socialists. It is from the Socialists that I derive the system’s utmost focus on labor in all of its respects. It is the Socialists that have inspired me to hold fast to a subjective theory of value grounded in labor, as it is by labor that man is able to make money, and is able to accrue some sort of wealth. It is from the Socialists that I place heavy regard for workers’ syndicates and cooperatives above the traditional capitalist corporations, and it is from the Socialists that I believe firmly in social ownership of a means of production (workers owning the production the work upon) whenever doing so is a possibility. It is from these individuals that I am absolutely steadfast in my ideal that because a man is entitled to the products of his labor, he is entitled to all revenues that are generated from his labor on the market. To reject this is to reject man’s natural liberty.

From the liberal welfare state. It is from the liberal welfare state that I acknowledge that the state must exist and that it must play a role in the economy. It is not to subsidize, redistribute or do anything of that sort. The nature of the state will be described further in the following post, yet it is from the statists that I realize that the state is a necessity, as it safeguards the entirety of society from the potential tyrannies that may result from a stateless-turned-involuntary-statist society.

The Failure of the State is the Failure of Capital

Capitalism cannot exist without both enforcement and thus a resulting limitation of natural liberty. Let me go back to the original analogy of the man who made himself king through labor. His surplus labor generated revenues, resulting in the ability to create an army via purchase, thus resulting in his kingship and thus a state. This man’s position as king would be impossible without his capital and then his ability to enforce his position as king. The modern corporation functions in a similar way; however, the ideal of state and economy have been separated. The founder of the corporation purchases land as per the principle of indefinite land ownership that Capitalist system requires for its function and which is counter to natural liberty. The founder will employ others. He will not enact labor upon his land in a manner identical to those he employs. If these individuals work in a factory, they are those producing labor and products. They are the individuals who have conceded their natural liberty of ownership towards the end of pay. These individuals cannot seek any other means of economic organization that may be considered counter to that which is present because of the state which upholds that very same organization. The state upholds the principle of indefinite land ownership with its army. The state upholds the principle of employment with its army. And again with the very same, the state upholds the contract that has been used to sign these workers into the position of employee beneath the employer. The state, in this way, is absolutely integral to capitalism and cannot in any way exist without it.

Let us suppose the Anarcho-Capitalist has his world without the state but with capitalism with all of its indefinite ownerships and private contracts. The man who wishes to start his corporation has his land, but another wishes to take it from him. He must defend this land somehow. To do so, he must raise an army and thus create a means to enact his own absolute liberty in a manner counter to the absolute liberty of those that wish to take his land. Such was how the earliest states arose as I have spoken of many times before. In AnCapistan, this man is now the king of his land, yet individuals have all freedom to become his employees or not. He may only uphold that employment and his indefinite ownership of his land via the enforcement of his army. He has no means to do so other than threat of violence, as there remains no legitimate way to again logically explain the “liberty” of indefinite land ownership. Again, this is an absolute and not a natural liberty. Being that the liberty is unnatural, the man must utilize an unnatural end, the state, to uphold that absolute. In doing so, he becomes his own state. Albeit, he becomes one that is quite different from the modern incarnation of the state as it presently stands, as he, ostensibly, is not forcing anyone to work for him. The work remains voluntary (according to the capitalist). We as individuals with knowledge of the personal governance of the procreative reality know that man’s labor involves concession of absolute liberty towards the end of the procreative reality, meaning the work is not truly voluntary. Supposing some wish not to work, however, the lack of some sort of state upholding law that does seek concession of absolute liberty means that there now is no safeguard for the individual to choose not to work, meaning there is no material to guarantee these corporate-states do not seek slavery.

Suppose that there was no means for the Corporatist to rely upon any state, whether it is one of his own personal construction or one of external construction as in the present capitalist paradigm. First and foremost, the man could never hold on to his indefinitely. He has no means to do so. If he is not working “his” land, someone will come and take it from by beginning to work upon it. Suppose then maybe no one works on his as he himself works upon it until he seeks employment of others. He signs contracts for their employment, but because there is no state, these contracts mean nothing. A worker eventually realizes this, and realizes that it he he who is entitled to his own labor and the products of such labor. He realizes that the “owner” of such land is no longer performing labor on it and instead it is he who is performing labor. He and his fellow workers oust the “owner” because (1) their contracts have no meaning and (2) the man has no means to justify his land ownership. This scenario will be worked out with greater detail in the following posts.

Capital: The Governance of Enforcement, part 2

When I speak of enforced governance, I speak of an enforcement that is involuntary to an individual. However, when I speak of such, I speak of it in a manner that denotes an absolute involuntary position, in that the person lacks no wherewithal to reject that governance that is forced upon him. This is a legitimate description: the governance of such enforcement places limitation on the governance of realized mind, which in turn limits pure mind, which thus limits propagation, which in turn limits freedom of all movement rooted in our biochemistry. Each works to further fetter the other in a manner that produces ends that may be considered necessary or unnecessary towards some end. However, when I speak of an enforced governance, I further speak of governance that in some manner involves a limitation of any of the personal governances. When I speak of capital and what it denotes, I speak of such a limitation. 

The nature of capital is rooted in private property, defined by many as a natural right. Private property is thus defined as the land that results from one individuals labor being placed upon it: labor and land yields ownership of land and the products of labor. Deriving from such by means of Quinary and Quaternary personal governance means that man may then seek to commodify such land and such labor-products, giving way to the capital system we now find ourselves in. I, however, find issue with the theory that enacting labor unto land denotes that one may suppose that they own such a land. All the individual has done is produced labor unto land. I see no objective means by which we may make the transition from labor to ownership other than some sort of arbitrary claim that by nature of labor absolute ownership is produced. The nature of the logical argument is thus: (1) labor is produced on land (2) labor equals indefinite ownership of that land until it is sold. There is no link between these two arguments, nor is there any means to achieve this link. This is the Lockean theory of property ownership, and it fails because of the non sequitur that it entails. I agree wholly with Locke’s theory that men own themselves and thus they own the labor that they produce inherently. It thus comes second that when the produce labor they naturally own the product of such a labor. However, there is no means to equate the product of labor with the tool towards such a product. Man did not create the land, nor did he alter it. Suppose he alter’s it to create a road. This is then his road because there now exists a product upon the land that is fully the end of his labor. He does not own the land beneath the road, but the road itself. One may not seek to destroy the road under guise of public ownership of the land, as the road rests on the land and the road sees natural ownership by the man whose labor was exerted upon the land.

This Lockean theory of land ownership is what has given rise to capitalism in the modern sense, and the governance that it entails. Suppose a man has his land and seeks to employ others upon such land. Suppose there are others like him. There exists a things now that are integral to this system that must be discussed. Labor is now a thing in demand. We may perhaps go so far is to call it a commodity. The commodification of labor means purchase of that commodity, most often in the form of on-going wage-labor by the employer unto the employee. The employee, who has natural right to the products of his labor, thus willingly commits a voluntary liberty-concession for the sake of pay, as he has all ability to reject that pay altogether and begin his own labor without the need for liberty-concession. Or so the capitalist would say. What the capitalist fails to remember is that man is governed by the procreative reality: man in nearly all his decisions deriving from mind makes those decisions that act in his own best interest whether consciously or subconsciously. Man’s best interest, of course, being procreation. Procreation entails that man will most always act in a manner that is beneficial to his own life or beneficial to the lives of those with which his mind may in some way make connection to the procreative reality. Being so, man makes liberty-concession whenever he labors, even if it is his own labor that takes place. He makes the concession to the governance of the procreative reality do whatever he desires to instead perform labor, as the governance of the procreative reality entails that he must sustain his own life. In the capital system of wage-labor, he again makes the liberty-concession to the procreative reality, as he again is certain that he must sustain his own life. This “voluntary” element of wage-labor in capitalism is thus not “voluntary” in any sense of the word, but rather enforced by the very nature that governs the entirety of all of man’s actions. Man surely has the freedom to reject labor, but in doing so he will die. A possible counter argument to my position is that man “maintains the freedom to do so as he desires, as there is no thing being enforced upon him that means he must labor.” I may counter this from two positions. The first I have already said: man is forced to labor by the procreative reality. Man as biota means that man will act in the majority of times in that which he may think of his realized mind, as the tool of his pure mind is demonstrably a product of evolution that will act in the interests of sustaining its own life. I may curtly state this by this axiom: the nature of man’s order is life, and anything counter to life is disorder. I may further refute this counter argument ignoring the realities of man’s mind. The capitalist argument is that man is “free” and thus his action towards labor “voluntary” as he has the freedom to die. I may refute this by questioning what freedom we may call this: if the freedom to die is such a highly coveted, natural, and good freedom, why do there exist nearly 8 billion people in this world? 

So what of this system of capital? In my eyes, it is one of many systems of liberty-concession that results in an enforced hierarchical economy.  In many ways, yes, it is rooted in personal governance as all enforced governances should be, yet it is the non sequitur of labor product to indefinite land ownership that ultimately brings its illogic. Let me probe my theories of liberty, labor, capital to further explain why I detest the system. As stated, I agree with Locke’s theory of natural ownership as articulated in my theory of personal governance. Man is governed by his mind and, being so, he is his primary ruler and owner. Man is his own naturally, and always shall be. What man may make with what is naturally his own is thus his own. What man makes with his hands out of rock that he may move thus makes the rock his own rock. What he makes of a tree he has cut down makes the tree his own, provided he may then use it and produce further labor products with it. Without fetter, man owns himself, his labor, and the product of his labor naturally. These things are his own. These pieces of ownership are integral to his natural liberties, which are those things integral to him. I call them “natural” as they have their bases in the pure mind, the simultaneous tool and end of evolution, itself natural. Now in addition to man’s natural liberties of ownership, man has further the natural liberties of action. All action is considered to have natural liberty when it does not in some way threaten the personal governance of another individual. This includes things like the core family unit, itself the epitome of un-libertied organization. However, as stated before, there are necessary some concessions of liberty towards the end of security. We concede liberty of action when we perform labor. We concede liberty of action when we maintain a family. Etc, etc. We have all power to do neither by faculty of our realized minds, yet we concede such power to the propagative reality to maintain our own lives.

It is from thence that we derive the natural liberties towards many things. Speech derives from these liberties as it is first a product of our labor within ourselves: we exert force upon our vocal chords and perform labor in both mind and body to make the speech. The product of the speech is audio, which we own. Speech further is a course of action which can in no way seek to limit another individual’s personal governance with, as speech is merely an analog vibration made electric within our minds. It is a piece of immaterial that in no way can perform actual limitation upon the liberties of another. Capitalism, as stated, directly involves the limitation of liberty in a multitude of ways and is thus counter to natural liberties of man.

However, there seems to be contradiction here. I spoke of the “liberty to rule via capital” in my previous post. And it is herein that I must delineate between the types of liberty that truly exist. The liberty of that sort is what I would refer to as an absolute liberty, or an ability. We all have the absolute liberty to murder someone. That is to say, we all have the ability to do so. However, we do not have the natural liberty to do so, as a natural liberty is again that which does not threaten the life of another. It is thus that the liberal state seeks to limit absolute liberty, and not natural liberty, when it comes to its limitation of capital. The state goes further and, through enforcement, begins to limit natural liberty.

Capital, in a similar way, also limits natural liberty. The principle of indefinite ownership of land limits the natural liberty of man to produce labor that is his own, as indefinite ownership outside of labor means that there exists the potential for all land to be bought at a given point in time there always exists the potential for all land to be bought. This being so, there always exists the potential for that natural liberty of man to have right to the products of his labor to cease to exist and, being that this natural liberty is integral to his person, we can wholeheartedly propose that Capital in this manner is counter to the natural liberty of man’s possession of his own goods. The principle of indefinite ownership within the capital system denotes contractual obligations in that individuals may employ others without performing any sort of labor, entailing that there must exist some external means to logically support that perpetual ownership. It is herein that the state comes into play to limit natural liberty towards men owning the products of their labor and wherein law must state that men owning their own labor is counter to the ownership of land. It is only through a state that a man who does not perform labor may speak of land ownership outside of his own labor, do to the non sequitur spoken of before. It is herein where we again find issue with the Capitalist system in its present form, as it is again counter to natural liberty. Capitalism thus forces upon individuals first through the illogical position of inherent land ownership and second through the state’s enforcement of that ownership that capitalism constitutes an enforced governance, one enforced both through the state and through the procreative reality. These will be touched on in the next post.

The Governance of Enforcement, part 1

First was the Governance of Reality, second was the Governance of Construction, and now third is the Governance of Enforcement. I had originally placed enforcement as a tier within the Governances of Construction, however there exists a crucial difference between enforced governance and real & constructed governance. Both Real Governance and Constructed Governance are the governances of individuals as individuals. Chemicals govern what specifically man can do based on his material nature, propagation governs him as a part of the biota, pure mind governs what he has the potential to make of himself via his inborn faculties, and realized mind governs what he may do further with his pure mind. Realized Mind is the only Constructed governance. That is, it is the only personally constructed governance, as its many constructs only govern that individual whose mind constructed them. The Governances of Reality are also Personal Governances, as they again only govern an individual as an individual. However, there exists a key difference between Real Governance and Constructed Governance. Despite the fact both are personal, man may reject bits and pieces of the governances he has imposed upon himself within his own mind, and construct his own. Through such constructions movement from individual to individual, a voluntary culture develops itself still most oftentimes guided by the propagative reality.

We see this a great deal when it comes to many cultural facets of society. The ritual burial of the dead, for instance, arose from the necessary burial of individuals in order that those living would not become sick. Through modification of this original action, itself an application of pure mind towards the stimuli of disease amidst dead bodies, constructs formulated ritualizing these basic actions. One can talk in much the same way of absolute gender roles within pre-agrarian societies, women and men experiencing division of labor according to gender. The constructed ideal rooted in that reality came about as a means to provide ideal function towards the end of propagation, in the same way the family unit did as well. The family unit is far more grounded in biological realities, however in such a way as the child impressed by his fathers’ beating of his wife turned such realities into logical concepts, so too did man do the same with the family unit, biological sex (and its’ hallowed nature), and things of such a sort. These “traditional” values were concepts that arose organically due to their utility in terms of propagation of the race and as such became norms to be taught and practiced, through the process of Quinary personal-personal governance. This governance, however, remains voluntary, governing a person as a person. There exists no other thing dictating an individual’s action beside his own mind and what has been placed upon it in reality and concept. A woman without any state has, in theory, all power to reject gender roles, just as a child in a location without any state has, in theory, all power to reject the nuclear family unit.

It is this scenario, wherein the final governor of man is his realized mind, that the purest form of anarchy resides. Herein there is no society, no hierarchy (save for the natural hierarchies found in most all early societies of the family unit), no state, and no economy. Each individual does so as he pleases, growing his own food, having his own children, living in his own house.

From thence, the world of capital and enforcement arises. That is, modernity. Surpluses denote commodification, thence denoting a market. In the market, things can then be bought and sold, a process referred to as mutual association. Mutual association without the safeguard of some higher accountable authority thus gives way to the concept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution” in that the hardest workers may sell the most on the market, and thus find revenues from their surplus labor. These revenues may be used to purchase land, services, and people, giving rise to slavery, wage-labor, armies, and the state. It is herein that the first kings and their first states are born, out of voluntary association turned towards involuntary, enforced association via the exchange of capital. It is herein that we find the very first involuntary governance, rooted in capital by its very nature. The need for management creates bureaucracy, religion, and more complex markets. With time individuals demand greater rights, and law becomes codified. With time other wealthy individuals under the earliest kings usurp him and establish oligarchies, and eventually in the smallest societies democracies of those individuals that have seen traditional power, men, while in others scope begets election and representation.

Through cultural inculcation, logical reasoning, and understanding, the philosophers and politicians of the race came to the conclusion that this final end is that which is to be desired, the concept of liberty-concession. Prior to capital was ultimate liberty, free association among all individuals in the pursuit of the sustenance of life. Unfettered capital brought slavery, and the autocratic state. The solution to this issue to the statists of our day and of the past 300-400 years has been thus: fetter capital. The means towards this end have been overwhelmingly democratic, however Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy both provide exception to this rule. The understanding has been that personal, voluntary governance does not go far enough, and that being that we’ve moved from the tyranny of singular individuals over all via capital, what must be done is the election of accountable individuals to fetter the abilities of capital over other individuals to dictate what they may or may not do. I don’t mean this in a Marxist sense, as the ideal of a democratic state inherently means the ability of capital to rule has already seen fettering. Let me explain that. The ideal of democracy, or representative democracy for that matter, is the rule of the people. This denotes first and foremost the liberty-concession of capital: one lacks the liberty to rule via capital. That is the ideal. The capital-based autocracy of old is replaced with a state that itself is not rooted in a singular individual or individuals’ ability to pay bureaucrats, but in representatives’ ability to uphold popular interest. This is, in theory, the very first duty of the liberal state: to fetter the rule of capital.

The liberal democratic state moves further than this, however. The conceptualization of “rule of law” in nearly all democratic republics further entails another liberty-concession, not by a select number of individuals whose capital gains entail a liberty of oppression, but by the entirety of all those individuals that find themselves beneath the state. This liberty-concession of law denotes a popular concession of the absolute autonomy of the anarchism that preceded the first monarchies. Such anarchy meant man’s governance only by personal government, thus denoting his ultimate natural freedom within the confines of those things that are both integral to him and constructed within him. The liberal state calls forward certain individuals from anarchy to codify those things that have not seen profusion in culture, yet simultaneously provide for necessary ends. It is the necessary end, or security, that is the hallmark of the liberty-concession of law, and is the reason the state becomes entrusted with duties outside of the liberty-concession of capital.

All growth of the state derives from the this secondary liberty-concession, and is the means that allows a consolidation of power to exist within liberal state itself. As spoken of before, the liberal state in practice is an iteration of the classical state: it supposes a top-down hierarchy that is enforced upon a populous without that populous’ total consent. For instance, when the Federal Government of the United States passes law that the popular will would be against, this supposes an instance wherein the Government does not represent the people and wherein we may consider the “democracy” of the republic to by a total failure. This law that the people reject is forced upon them, enforced by means paid military, and thus to voluntary in any sense of the word. The proponents of the liberal state openly accept the growth of the liberty-concession towards this end, as it is they that state that it is the politicians who have more knowledge than the yeoman, and thus it is to be expected that popular sentiment may reject law. It is herein that I take issue with the modern liberal state. The theory behind the liberal state is that the state fetters capital power in order that power may be accountable to a large number of individuals as opposed to a select few. It is the accountability of the modern state, or at least the theory of such accountability, that provides for an order that the people accept, as the people, in theory, are in some sort of way in control of that order. The passage of law that is counter to the popular sentiment takes two forms: legitimate and illegitimate. What we determine as either or comes much to personal preference. For instance, some may see taxation as a legitimate law counter to popular will as it provides for many necessary ends. These ends include constructed materials owned by the state itself which would not otherwise see construction without that taxation. Others may ignore the necessary end and hold the position that if people do not desire certain constructions (roads, public schooling, etc) then the law must be defined to be illegitimate, as it is counter to popular will rejecting the taxation and provides for no necessary end. From this hypothetical I conclude that a legitimate law is always one that provides for a necessary end, while an illegitimate law is one that does not.

The question of the liberal state in its modern incarnation is thus: who is the arbiter of the necessary end? Such has been the question of all enforced, involuntary governance. In the earliest monarchies, the king. In bureaucratic monarchies, the king and his bureaucrats. In oligarchies, a select few. In plutocracies, the rich. In aristocracies, the best. In democracies, the people. In democratic republics, the people with limitation. In the modern liberal state, a select few. These select few of the modern liberal state, in theory, are accountable to their constituencies, however there fails to exist a multitude structural elements in the liberal state that safeguard this accountability, thus leading to the multitude of legislatorial action by the state that the majority of individuals governed by such a state would find to be wholly illegitimate. However, enforced governance is not limited to the state.

The Governance of Realized Mind: The Governance of Construction

The box of a baby boy is nearly empty when he is born, as is that of a young girl, save for a few basic tools. The boy’s box may be larger than the girl’s, or perhaps the girl’s box may be larger than the boy’s. Perhaps their boxes are of the same capacity, their inborn tools of the same merit, yet the girl becomes a millionaire while the boy merely became a street sweeper. Their boxes were filled in all such cases with different tools built from those inborn basics, as different circumstances gave way to different realizations of mind making for persons of different overall merit and ability. The realization of pure mind comes about through interaction and it is, being that what is realized within man is not innate to him, that man may accept or reject what becomes realize within him while seeking realization of other parts of himself, as the governance of realized mind may be otherwise referred to as the Governance of Construction. By contrast, primary governance is that of chemical. Secondary governance is that of propagation. Tertiary governance is that of pure mind. These forms of governance, as stated, are real, as they are both embodied in man and are of his internal reality. They are thus the Governance of Reality.

Constructed governance constitutes those pieces of the pure mind applied to circumstances and scenarios that require such mind’s application. Such scenarios may take two forms: personal, and impersonal. When pure mind is impersonally realized, Quaternary Governance begins to take shape. As opposed to pure mind which itself arose from evolution, realized mind is the interplay between the pure mind and external stimuli. It is what man may take in from the pure mind that the realized mind is made, constructed. It was not of pure mind that a primate of old took to himself a stick and smashed it upon the dirt. It was of pure mind that he saw the stick, pure that mind that reached for it, pure mind that moved his fingers to grasp it, and pure mind that raised it towards the air. It was then what he gathered from this touch, the qualities of it, that his pure mind could digest such information and arrive at a result. The result is the mind having been actualized, resulting in understanding of that thing he has grasped. This mind is not within him inherently, and is of each individual independently due to different sensory access, making it contingent. Such governance, therefore, includes all things that he may comes into contact with. It is through such governance that young children become acquainted with the world, and through which things that may be colloquially referred to as “common knowledge” may come to be understood. For instance, the knowledge that “fire is hot” is a direct result of the application of pure mind towards a logical end. Quaternary governance first brings a child to something that is hot. This child experiences heat using the sense-perception of his pure mind, then is further able to make subconscious note of this sense-perceptible feeling also via his pure mind. It is then through Quinary governance, discussed next, that the child may grasp the concept of fire and then, through Quaternary again that the child may experience fire itself. Using the first constructed mental record of heat and comparing it against the new sensation of fire itself, the child may construct within his mind the reality that fire is hot. We may juxtapose this against a feral child, who may never have had access to heat or fire. The child, never having experienced heat, lacks the constructed knowledge via sense-perception that both “fire” and “heat” both as concepts and as realities exist.

When I speak of “governance” in this sense I again speak of how such constructions further limit man’s potential actions. That feral child, for the sake of hypothesis, never having experienced heat may seek to place his or her hand inside the fire as that individual has never constructed the understanding that such heat may be deleterious to him. Now this being said there are innate reflexes that have evolved within us that seek to remove ourselves from extreme heat; however, I am speaking here in the hypothetical. This individual lacks the understanding that governs him not to take such a course of action as he inherently has never been able to make mental record of it within his mind that then allows him to apply it towards other situations still further via the use of his pure mind. It is these mental records via direct interaction with an a piece of the world around an individual that I refer to as “realities,” which are a type of understanding. I can then take this a step further again via the testimony from Genie and posit that that application of mind, ie. logic, itself is in part the result of the development of understanding (both a combination of quaternary and quinary governance) via social interaction. It is thus that because the feral child both lacks the sense experience and the logical to apply such an experience, he or she inherently lacks a fundamental piece of understanding that would, in an individual who was able to experience such interactions, govern his or her action.

Quinary Governance is the governance of pure mind that is personally realized; that is to say, realized via the interactions that an individual may have with other individuals. I subdivide this sort of governance into impersonal-personal and personal-personal. Such divisions may seem contradictory, however it is worth explanation. The governance of personally realized mind is bound to the governance of realized mind, as propagation entails that there be some sort of relation with another akin to self. Even so, these forms of governance within the mind remain contingent on something that remains external to the self, as with all mind-made governance. What distinguishes impersonal-personal realization from impersonal realization is that in such external relationships two beings are conscious, as opposed to a man and what his mind may govern him to do with an unconscious knife. The external is not self, but is nearly self. The external, further, is it’s own self that perceives the original self being discussed as it’s own external. In this way, a unique relationship is had between 2 or more selves immediately in which one action of a single self impacts the other as the secondary (tertiary, quaternary, etc) self experiences that action in some manner. Oppose this again to the knife analogy wherein the knife does not experience that action as it has no means to perceive due it’s lack of mind. Depending on who this self or selves may be, however, the mind may direct each individual towards a different end due to that which we perceive in it and experience from it. This being said, however, such an interaction may be called impersonal-personal as, first, the direct interaction that a person may have with another individual is personal, ie. that they are interacting with a person. It can thus be distinguished from impersonal realization (Quaternary Governance) as there exists the component of the recognition of external-self that determines what may be realized, opposed to the recognition of external material facilitating such determination in Quaternary. Yet at the same time, I may call it impersonal because the facet of “person” that begets the realization is not mind, but body. While an external-self is recognized, it is not the mind of the self that is making for some sort of realization of pure mind within another individual. Now it may be said that all understandings of body are understandings of mind as the mind regulates the body. Such regulations are pieces of the pure mind, which is merely a singular facet of the totality of a human person, the whole of a human person being both pure mind and realized mind.

Such a governance, in this case, denotes the development of some sort of mental record, a reality, that thus becomes present within the mind after some sort of interaction with the other individual. These realities may be spoken of in the same way as realities that are made present from human interaction with material objects as what is brought about is a real sense through immediate interaction. Yet, I again distinguish it from the realities of Quaternary governance as such realities merely impact how an individual perceives other material, whereas the realities of this facet of Quinary governance impact how the individual perceives the self, as the recognition of external-self thus allows the individual to transpose that which he sees in others upon himself. These interactions, whether pieces of the Quaternary or Quinary, simultaneously shape pure mind and by extension logical reasoning. Some may find this position difficult to understand as modernity typically sees logic as counter the more innate innate responses of emotion, yet it is through social interaction (ie. impersonal-personal realization) that the bases of what emotions we express and how we express them are in part built within us. In such a way, our conceptions of what should or should be expressed and when form axioms from which logical reasoning may derive further concepts. For instance, if a child sees his father beat his mother through anger, he may develop the tendency to express his anger through the beating of his own future spouse. This may form axiom within him that the expression of anger publicly is norm to be accepted and perhaps further built upon as logic or other interactions in the Quaternary and Quinary may necessitate. In such a way, emotion connects itself wholly to logic.

There exists different grades of individual that may be recognized by the self, which fall within 2 categories relative to the propagative reality: immediate propagation, mediate propagation. Individuals of immediate propagation are those directly involved in some manner in such propagation. These individuals include the core family unit and other individuals that have the potential to be added towards such a unit. The parental figures are the direct influences that mitigate actual propagation in and of itself. They are the inculcators of norm. It is from them that mind is made whole, and from them that the self forms: not only literally in body and the physicality of mind, but in the consciousness of mind as well. Let me elaborate on this. Parents fulfill their role as the inculcators of norm in terms of both impersonal-personal and personal-personal realizations. In terms of the impersonal-personal, as may be understood from the aforementioned hypothetical pertaining to the child who watched his father beat his wife, that interaction with external-self sees a greater degree of importance than an external-self within the grade of mediate propagation due to the deal of prolonged access with which the individual in question has contact with these external selves. Because the greatest contact is had with those that rear the child (whether those be parents or guardians of a sort that take the place of a parent) the greatest realizations of pure mind take place around such individuals, as it is with these external-selves that the individual in question will draw from to manifest the highest number of realizations, or realities. Because the greatest deal of realities derive from the parents (or those in their place), the term “inculcators of norm” abjectly fits their role in the child’s life, as “norm” is determined by that which constitutes the highest proportion relative to all other things in question.

The norm in question that is derivative from impersonal-personal realizations may be spoken of the “real norm” as it is the sum total of those realities that are manifest from the interactions that this child has from his or her parents via his or her recognition of their pure minds. However, the totality of real norm also makes its way towards an individual based upon his or her experiences with other external-selves’ pure minds, however to a lesser degree due to their position within the propagative reality as individuals mediate to propagation. Interaction with these individuals will be lower in importance further due to the patterns of cognitive development within children, such development being centralized within the first 10 years of life, wherein an individual likewise sees that the majority of contact be with his or her parents.

Back when I spoke of logic, I stated that the end of properly reasoned logic was a concept, and not a reality. Similarly, when I speak of Quaternary governance and impersonal-personal realization of Quinary governance, I state that their own end is a reality. Realities are defined by immediate sense-perception, whereas concepts are defined by mediate understanding. Personal-personal Quinary governance thus represents the formation of concepts within the mind via interactions with another individual’s realized, not pure, mind. As spoken of before, parents teach both realities and concepts to children: realities immediately through impersonal-personal realization, concepts mediately through personal-personal realization. Parents remain the inculcators of norm in terms of the sum total of all those concepts that an individual may find within his mind, what I refer to as “conceptual norm.” The norm forms in two ways both part of the same process: first through what is directly taught to the child and second through what is impressed upon the child through realities. The process from reality to concept was discussed earlier: impression through impersonal-personal actualization results in reality, which becomes the axiom for logical thought when further Quaternary and Quinary interactions arise. It’s this concept that’s often spoken of as children being taught through example. Children are taught concepts directly through actual inculcation of concepts themselves in the recognition of realized mind in another external-self by means of personal-personal realization I now speak of. This takes place when the parent speaks of concepts to this child and when the child accepts them as truth. It is thus that realized mind is recognized within another individual as the application of pure mind towards the acceptance of a concept is recognized in that external-self. These concepts include anything that may be related to the child that he or she his or herself did not experience through some sort of sense-perception. We may therefore not call them “real” in the same sense that the realities of the aforementioned forms of realization may be considered real, as there is an element of faith that is placed into the truthfulness of the concepts that are related to the child, as there is no immediate, actual experience that the child may call upon to be certain to himself that the concept is real. It was told to him, but he has no experience of it. It is through these concepts that man finds himself in culture, as the widespread inculcation of ideal vertically, from parent to child, and horizontally, from person to person of the same position in society, creates commonality. Realized mind is thus always bound to culture in such a way.

These concepts govern the mind and the person as they too are often used as springboards for the pursuit of rational thought in the same way realities are. In such a way I can refer to both realities and concepts as the “constructed axioms” of the human mind, collectively then referred to as realized mind. The constructed axioms are what is filled inside the box of pure mind, placed inside it by the very same. These new tools created via the application of the inborn basic tools of pure mind may then be used to build new tools still, bringing forth the three-pronged interaction of stimuli, pure mind, and realized mind, each interacting with each resulting in the growth of the realized mind in the process. Man is governed by all three (stimuli being the primary governance of chemical), the latter two making up mind in total. What I will discuss next is the governance of enforcement, or what most of us simply call “Government.”


The Governance of Pure Mind

When I speak of mind, I speak of it in it’s totality. However, such a discussion encompasses two beings of mind: the pure mind, and the realized mind. When I discuss the three Real Forms of Governance, I state that “mind” as a whole is the only true final governor of man, yet this is not the case due to the two distinct realities that encompass mind itself. However, as the title of this post relates, the topic being discussed here is only the pure mind, and rightly so, for reasons that will be addressed in a few moments.

The pure mind is a tool. As discussed previously, the pure mind a tool of evolution. But further, it a result of evolution. The biota-abiota interplay discussed before is what gives rise to all evolution and thus, being that mind of the biota (and the biota itself) is of evolution, the mind too must be of evolution, therefore meaning the mind, too, is a result of the very same interplay. In terms of the macroscopic, the interactions that man-like organisms carried with their environment over time was the mind as we know it now. These interactions, as stated, all take the form of some means of furthering the propagative reality. Advances in tooling made themselves manifest for the greater pursuit of resources to sustain life. Advances in language made themselves manifest for the pursuit of interaction towards the end of sustaining life. And, likewise, advances in the early sciences, yet again, came about towards the end of sustaining life. One may posit that it was the interaction directly that gave rise to the modern mind, but this is untrue. The function of evolution denotes that there exists chance variation within communities of organisms. It is thus a single individual in a certain community of primitive man happened to be innately born with a certain facet of the modern mind. It was only through his interaction with the abiota that this innate reality was realized, giving rise to some sort of ease with which this advanced man could reproduce, and meaning thus that this innate mutation became the norm.

The interaction itself did not produce the tool, but only allowed it be brought about. The tool of that innate faculty of early man, his pure mind, had already been within him and was therefore contingent on nothing else but himself. Let me elaborate. The conscious mind (which is what I am always referring to when I say “mind” as all animals within clades close to our own technically have “minds” yet they function in ways more unconscious than conscious) functions in a variety of ways that are innate within modern man, the most apparent and basic of which is consciousness itself. From consciousness all other innate faculties of the mind develop. These faculties, collectively called “pure mind” thus denote that consciousness is the sum total of pure mind. Defining consciousness thus defines pure mind, thus defining the faculties that make up pure mind. Consciousness is first the recognition of self, and second the recognition of nonself. What may be derived from this initial and innate capability of recognition is due to interaction, and for such reason may may speak of the derivatives of consciousness, ie. the derivatives of pure mind, as realized mind, the post that will proceed after this one. When I speak of derivatives, I speak of those things not intimately bound, that is to say, not integral to, the pure mind.

But all of this being said, what encompasses these “faculties” of mind that I talk about? To answer, I must define my understanding of the human brain. Inside the brain lies potential, ie. cognition, and it is this cognition (otherwise referred to as consciousness) that I speak of when I discuss pure mind. Pure mind is not any conscious ability, nor is it anything that we may speak of in primitive man that could be considered to be a conscious ability. I may state such because there have existed throughout the world many an instance wherein individuals have been raised solely on pure mind, isolate from other individuals in a variety of ways, from complete and extreme to minor. In many of these cases of “feral children,” individuals often come to adulthood experiencing characteristic mental retardation. Genie, the anonymous name of one of these children, provides a great example for what I mean to illustrate here. Genie had been socially isolate until the age of 13. In such time, she developed no social skills and more notably, never developed the ability to speak. From this, I can conclude that social skills and the ability to speak are things that are not integral to the pure mind, as they failed to develop without the factor of other individuals. Therefore, I can similarly say that it is the inborn cognition (consciousness, pure mind)  that gives man the ability to develop language under proper circumstance yet without this circumstance, the tool towards that realized end atrophies.

But what of this? What do I mean when I speak of the “governance” of pure mind over man? Chemicals govern man’s actual action as he cannot defy the atomic bonds (easily, that is) and propagation governs man’s action as he is now and forever will be part of the biota. But what of pure mind? I may say that pure mind governs man similar to how a toolbox governs the amount of tools a man may place into such a box. A larger box may allow for more tools, a smaller box will allow for less. A properly constructed box will allow for a proper organization of what tools are present, while a simple box with a lid will result in an unorganized mess of tools that, to the owner of the box, will be largely inaccessible. Now as for mind, a gifted mind will bring an individual many talents as his box is large, while a weaker mind will bring such an individual less. An ordered mind will bring an ordered individual, while a disordered mind will bring a disordered, mentally ill, individual. An individual may not fit more tools into his box if he has purchased one that is small; similarly, an individual may not grow in cognition and fit more talents into his mind if his was poorly borne within his mother’s womb. Yet some smaller boxes may be organized properly, and the tools placed in those smaller boxes may prove worthwhile for those of weaker mind than the tools placed into the boxes of those with intelligent mind. Genie never placed the tool of language into her box because she was unable, that part of her box left unopened. To open this facet of the box that pure mind must now be realized.