La conciencia es un vacío

La conciencia podría ser semejante a un vacío que absorbe, una negatividad de materia que se apropia del mundo sin causarle efecto aparente.

Podría ser como un agujero negro que atrapase la luz y al resto de entes de la realidad. ¿Podríamos percibir alguna perturbación causada por esa absorción que realiza la conciencia de la realidad? ¿Sería esa misma perturbación la que captamos cuando alguien o algo nos mira sin que lo veamos realmente? ¿Ese sexto sentido del que en ocasiones se habla?

En la antigua concepción de la visión era el ojo el que emitía, no el que recibía, un “algo” que permitía ver. Irradiaba el mundo haciéndolo así visible. Como una “mano” que tocara las cosas y nos diera una idea de cómo es. Y ni mucho menos se trataba de una estupidez. Muy al contrario, solucionaba muchos problemas que presenta la visión, como la perspectiva.

Pero la conciencia es también la configuración de un “algo”. Es una forma, no tanto un ser, la conciencia no es un ente sino la infinita configuración de cualquier ente. Podemos soñar “ser” no solo otra persona sino también otra cosa. La conciencia se parece así a una potencia plástica.

En cierta manera es posible que también pueda salir, de hecho es posible, que los ojos, los oídos, etc., en vez de captar lo exterior, sean esa “salida” para la conciencia. Algo que sale y configura. Pero que sólo es detectable en esa misma configuración.

Es por todo ello paradójica pues tanto sale al mundo como lo absorbe, sin saber dónde empiezan o acaban ambos procesos. Si es como un vacío, no es un vacío inerte, tiene potencia, tiene la potencialidad del “formar”.

La conclusión parece, por tanto, que la conciencia no es un ente, ni una energía, sino una “capacidad de configuración de posibilidades”, ¿un vacío creador?

Así la conciencia no sería “algo” sino la configuración posible de un algo. Las posibles formas que algo toma. Solamente captable en sus configuraciones.

Ser un sujeto dotado de conciencia es, también, la capacidad de ser un objeto y resulta en este sentido aparentemente contradictorio. Se puede ser alguien en la medida en que se pueda ser algo, sin que haya solución de continuidad entre ambos.

¿Quién dice la verdad?

Decir la verdad, ¿Quién está capacitado para decir la verdad? ¿De quién debe salir? ¿Quién tiene derecho a decirla?

¿Quién puede nombrar la verbum verum? ¿Es acaso Dios o sus sacerdotes?

Puede que sea el Rey o su cohorte de jueces y notarios. El Estado que actúa en su nombre. La ley y aquellos que la hacen cumplir. Sus bocas están llenas de verdad.

También se da el caso en que la verdad sea dicha por el experto. La Iglesia tiene expertos, el Estado tiene expertos, la Ciencia posee los suyos.

Pero aun así, ¿dice más verdad el hombre que la mujer? y ¿la mujer que el niño? ¿Es el rico mejor portador de la verdad que el pobre?

Cada uno puede expresar su verdad, pero hay bocas en las cuales la verdad resplandece con mayor fuerza.

¿La mente normal prevalece sobre la mente enferma?
Hay personas a través de las cuales la objetividad se expresa aún más objetiva y cuya descripción de la realidad sirve a las demás.

¿Quién es, por tanto, el sujeto que dice la verdad? ¿Qué boca anuncia el logos?

La verdad no es solo una configuración intelectual, se ejerce con el cuerpo, y a cada cuerpo corresponde un nivel de verdad. Seguramente un gesto de verdad es también un gesto de poder.

Formas de racionalidad

Si la verdad es una construcción social e histórica, entonces son sus posiciones dentro de ella, las que dotan a cada cuerpo de su nivel de acceso a la misma. Y esto nos lleva a una cuestión más amplia.

¿Se podría realizar un mapa de la forma en que piensa una época? ¿Qué mecanismos son los que dirimen como se distingue lo verdadero de lo falso?

Su relación con lo aceptable y no aceptable. Las formas en que una época justifica sus verdades, las comprueba y quienes tienen la prerrogativa de enunciarlas.

El modo correcto de su formación y enunciación. Los saberes que están implicados. Sería rastrear en definitiva su forma de racionalidad epocal.

Los circuitos de la verdad

Los circuitos de producción de la verdad son los circuitos de producción del capital, esto se ve claramente en la actividad científica.

La lógica de la acumulación de la propiedad también actúa en la realización científica: artículos científicos enajenados en su propiedad, revistas que acumulan, “secuestran” el conocimiento. La propiedad intelectual es la misma forma de propiedad, aplicada a bienes simbólicos.

A pesar de que la propiedad intelectual sea una de las formas de propiedad más obsoletas. ¿Cuándo el conocimiento se ha convertido en capital negociable? ¿Cómo se insertó en ese flujo del capital?

Por otra parte aunque se argumenta que el conocimiento científico actual es fruto de una colaboración “horizontal”, toda la estructura de formación de los grupos en los que se genera es altamente jerárquica, Y por tanto enraíza con orígenes que son previos a la modernidad. La Universidad sigue siendo, puede que junto a la Iglesia la institución medieval menos modificada.

Más allá de que una carrera académica sea tutelada y moldeada, es el aprendizaje de un sistema de funcionamiento de elecciones y métodos, junto al esquema jerárquico el que asegura una creación intelectual apropiable y una posición social que asegura verdad.

Máquinas simbólicas

Enfrentar máquina, perteneciente al mundo de la lógica y la extensión, a simbólica ausente de este mundo, para hacer estallar nuevos significados que como fragmentos de una fragua, enriquezcan el pensamiento y las intuiciones, puede ser una tarea lúdica y profunda.

Símbolos no son “entes” que apuntan a otras realidades, como el lenguaje o un pictograma. No son señales de tráfico. Los entiendo como entidades “reales” que se alborotan con otra lógica diferente a la que hemos manejado hasta ahora. Su formación y transformación no requiere tiempo ni extensión, ni necesita del concierto de la lógica. Tampoco interpelan sobre la existencia o la cantidad. En cierta manera se colman a sí mismos.

Decir “maquinas” en este lugar es buscar relaciones que se repitan y un vago intento de dominarlas, de poseer su “funcionamiento”. Algo que emprende la marcha de una forma más o menor ordenada.

Acceder a la máquina simbólica es acceder a un nivel de síntesis que solo podemos intuir, sería integrarse en la magia simbólica y en sus secretos. ¿Hay máquinas simbólicas en la interacción entre la voluntad y las ideas de la conciencia? ¿Es la conciencia una forma de máquina simbólica?

La máquina simbólica es el tipo de imposible que merece la pena perseguir.

¿Sería una obra de arte una máquina simbólica? ¿Y un estado de sonoridad? ¿Un artefacto dadaísta o surrealista se acercaría a la idea de máquina simbólica? ¿O bien se podrían usar las abstracciones de Kandinsky haciéndolas físicas?

La dimensión del pensamiento, fuera del tiempo y el espacio sería la dimensión simbólica frente a la dimensión de los signos, que se movería en la espacialidad.

La dimensión simbólica se parecería analógicamente a un fluido el cual se transformaría de idea en idea sin contornos precisos ni momentos de transición.

Biology is a knot of modernity

“A society of blood gave way, partially, to a new social class with its new needs for the construction of justifications of power.”

When God was replaced by nature as the keystone of the forms of rationality, the task required a few drops of empiricism and a deep examination of the natural world. If God required a theological-philosophical knowledge, nature an empirical exploration.

That nature replaces God is the same as saying that theology is replaced by a system of increasing complexity and balance (The paradigm of disaster). It is the perfected attempt to complete the Cartesian program. In its constant expansion since the eighteenth century and especially the nineteenth century, the most “speculative” knowledge was losing place.

The progressive scarcity1 of space for philosophical discourse had several consequences, one notable was the emergence of philosophies that focused on language and discourse itself, since “being” had progressively become naturalized and objectified.

The philosophies that have delved into language sought in discourses that change that had occurred outside of transcendental and philosophical knowledge.

What could we talk about if not speeches? This re-circulation of reason on itself implies a relocation of reason and probably also fed on the growth of the “texts” available since the State began the enormous task of taking note of any aspect of existence.

The proliferation of statistical texts (belonging to the State), and the creation of innumerable “scientific knowledge” left philosophical reflection hardly without purpose. The texts themselves were thus an objective material on which to act.

This could be the common thread between philosophical schools as seemingly distant as Anglo-Saxon philosophies of language and French structuralisms.
After the “Natural Histories” of the eighteenth century, the nineteenth century asked to set in motion, in a definitive way, a history that ran in the bosom of nature.

A society of blood partially gave way to a new social class with its new needs for the construction of justifications for power. The new framework of rationality had changed and the study of nature and with the passage of time, the study of life in general, must have seemed promising to a new social class that accumulated power even more rapidly than the one it came to replace.

The “best adaptation”, “better capacities”, “biological superiority” … thus became very powerful anchors within the new structure of nineteenth-century rationality in which to grasp a discourse of dominance that is still in full force.

If Darwin himself was a fan of liberal capitalism or if his travels were financed by powerful bankers, they are nothing more than appendages of an age in search of their own truths. An imposing metaphor that of the boat trip for a social class that began its initial accumulation with commercial companies around the globe.

His complaints with various curiae are the fireworks of an underground celebration, the feast of a society that could no longer be conceived from theology or the aristocracy.

“It is not my fault that I have better genes”

Natural selection was the new mode of support and justification for a secular class society like the bourgeoisie that made its way with strong inequalities and needed new justifications in the face of an old regime of blood and noble inheritances.

Medieval theological rationality appealed to a full and self-sufficient order, the world was ruled in harmony as long as the divine plan that kept kings and priests at the top was fulfilled. But this divine plan ensured worldly and spiritual order.

Certainly the Modern Era with its absolutist kings provide other concepts of power, but the inclusion in the history of the thought that a war had unleashed in nature (as in human society itself) only needed a further step: “animalization” or “naturalization” of the human being. To include him, in that way, in that incessant war for survival.

An idea very much in harmony with a new way of managing populations, and with a liberalism that once the order of the “Heavenly Jerusalem” was crushed, considered every population suspected of vagrancy and laziness.

Biology, beyond an activity of knowledge, is a knot of the Modern Era in which numerous forms of rationality and justification of our current world are tied as the nerve center.

Biology is a knot that ties an important part of the rationality of our time. It functions as an individual and social discourse and is behind and in the last place as an axiom of numerous ideologies. Unmasking it, showing its limits and alliances would be a vital task to open horizons.

Notas:

1) Scarcity was and is a central concept in economic “science.”

Silence the noise

Before returning to the world, we must leave it. To be able to get out of the web of confusion that the human world, its education and its constant influence weave around us. Leaving the world is essential to see yourself in its pristine essence.

The noise is the constant affirmation of the compulsion that has us trapped. Getting rid of noise is the appearance of an initial emptiness, it can almost be scary at first. The “silence” is only the beginning and we are not talking here about “sounds” for our auditory system, although it is clear that they have their importance. It is a silence of the human sense that is everyday for us.

The demands of those around us build walls and bars around us in such a way that when we come to be aware we no longer find a way out. Many times they are delicately woven, day by day for many years, they give us warmth and company, but they deny us the deepest essence of facing the mute real essence of the world.

Noise prevents us from knowing who we are, and it prevents us from knowing the oppression that surrounds our spirit and our material reality. The noise is orchestrated, it is composed of historical layers of oppression that have made us usable objects by a power that in essence despises us in everything that goes beyond our immediate usefulness to its petty purposes.

To get out of the world of noise we have to silence the rhythm of consciousness and time that has been set for us. Replacing it with another rhythm and temporality alien to the usual one.

The hearing of non-everyday sounds, rhythms or noises (looking for an avant-garde sound creation will help us, as long as we do not know it previously and that we do not give it any kind of cultural load on what it “means”)

If we accompany this hearing with a slight relaxation of the senses, we will lead our consciousness to break with the logic of meaning that prevailed in us and to discover that our universe is reconfigured in unusual possibilities and opens up to an infinite number of possibilities and configurations, and in all of them we are the center. A journey of no return.

The supreme intuition must then arise, the very subtle sensation that there are relationships between all things, internal and external, small and large, visible and invisible.

That the world is barely explored, that the names of things are worn out and are huge weights that keep us from moving forward, that everything is not already invented, that everything is yet to be done and that this task is only achievable by those who stop Be themselves and transcend the limits.

There must be a unity between the material revolution and the revolution of consciousness, they can no longer go their separate ways.

After all, a machinable world is a world for capital.

Psychology as a social device

(If you use psychology, you trust its functioning, you feel sick, etc … probably this presentation of ideas may not be for you)

Psychology (as a social device) abstracts all the concrete conditions that make us up in an abstract and unreal way, in this sense it mocks reality and denies it.

Its purpose as “science” is to create a series of abstractions and generalities that describe the “human being”, regardless of any characterization that makes it concrete. All scientific or knowledge methodology tends to seek the most general concepts of its “field of knowledge”, this choice is always a critical moment, a selection, an elimination of other possibilities.

But this choice becomes meaningful the moment it is made, discarding all other possible options.

“Scientific” psychology masks concretions in favor of political generalizations. Policies because they ignore the powers operating in each individual, policies because the selection of generalities is congruent with a way of operating in society, consistent with their powers.

All those characters adapted to the market and production are enhanced, which become virtues. On the other hand, it is found in deficiencies, negativities, absences, unadapted characters. Those from whom labor, capital or submission cannot be extracted.

They are political generalizations precisely because of their ability to mask differences and all the aspects that individualize each circumstance.
It equates and identifies all the factors, simplifying a model so that only individuals and circumstances exist. The funny thing is that such individuals and such circumstances are never equal to each other, and their differences would really be the key to understanding the problems.

On the other hand, a medical-administrative division by genders, races, ages, classes would only have a statistical purpose and would not go out of the scheme in any sense. In a way it would only sarcastically deepen the masking.

“Scientific” psychology acts as a biological and medicalizing closure of the explosive energy of each individual. It institutionalizes and is institutionalized, elaborates and establishes normalities and abnormalities.

If all this were not enough, medicalization and pharmacologization generate “patients” as any other industry generates its products.

It locates suffering, or what it considers an absence or lack, in an isolated conceptual place, and denies the possibility of linking that place with a discourse that links different general and concrete aspects of human life; to extract relations of power and injustice in that network where discomfort appears.

It uses universal teleological postulates, which define a priori everything that has not yet been covered by humanity.

To illustrate what I mean, I will give an example. To specific individuals who feel bad in a group or when interacting, a generality such as: “human beings are social” is blurted out, which acts as a deductive and casuistic theorem or etiology (science of causes).

It serves both to discover the abnormal and to prescribe a solution. In addition to serving as a moral and behavioral rule.

We do not know if such a statement is intended to be an ethical imperative or if it rather refers to a biological configuration as a species. If it is the first case, free choice should preside over that imperative, if it is the second we find ourselves in the murky waters of natural species and their characteristics of normality and abnormality.

Only if we could place ourselves outside the world, outside the real, outside of time could we verify this postulate about the sociability of human beings, their meaning, their need or their intensity.

In our real world, we are beings shaped by circumstances, classes, races, sexes, economic power, hierarchical relationships … and anchored to a history and a never resolved future.

How can we know in advance the content of those universals that direct the inner life of human beings?

***
An anarchist or libertarian psychology should not define human principles and capacities a priori, it should, on the contrary, denounce every micro power and subordination that generates frustration. It should point out every painful element in every vital circumstance. Show alternatives to the cultural, political and social structures that generate frustrations.

The universal index to which their universals would be directed would be a vector direction, and each atom of individual concretion would be “moments” of that nebula of directions. The universal postulates would no longer be defined but with the passage of time they would fill with meaning.

We still do not know what the human being has to be, we cannot define it according to the needs of a historically specific society. Not much less according to the structures and interests of the concrete domination system. This will never be knowledge.

***
Excursus

Depression is a warning, and a wake-up call to our circumstances, an opportunity for introspection.

Since medicalization stole our “states of the soul” we can no longer enjoy the deep feeling of introspection of our sadness.

They have been socialized in a particular and laboratoryized way. We have stopped possessing our insides, we may never have had it, certainly not now. They have stolen the states of the soul and the enjoyment of chatting with them, contemplating their tones, colors, scales and landscapes.

If I were crazy, medicalized and sick, I could “understand” what is happening to me. There would be a socially validated reason for my feelings. My interior would become part of the common and institutional discourse and thus, I, like my surroundings, could find consolation.

My ravings would have a translation in a network of normality and pharmacology would be my silent social bed. The entire network of signs of medicine, psychiatry and psychology would cradle me to rejoin reality, even from its far edge.

Not being able to translate experiences into a discursive normality is living on a different plane, at the antipodes of the human sense, in an unwanted but unavoidable exile.

If he were mad, he could be exterminated in a gas chamber or lulled by a chemical cage of pharmacology according to the oscillations of power.

If I were crazy, I should relax my passions and exaltation, so as not to force the web of reality, it would be my main obligation. Returning as soon as possible from the trip out of the meaning and accepted symbols.

If I were crazy, I would accept that my ideas have no meaning in an outside, that there is no outside in my madness, that everything happens inside me. Interiority is the place of madness, without exteriority, nor relationship with the rest of human reality.

Madness as a social construction is an immense wall against immigrants who come from the chaos within us.

La psicología como dispositivo social