💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › alnoor-ladha-mystical-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:13:16. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Mystical Anarchism
Author: Alnoor Ladha
Date: 2015
Language: en
Topics: mysticism, the left, revolution
Source: https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/mystical-anarchism-a-journey-to-the-borderlands-of-freedom/

Alnoor Ladha

Mystical Anarchism

On Beginnings

They say it takes a certain type of personality to be a radical.

Questioning of the status quo, anti-authoritarian, angry perhaps,

undoubtedly rebellious, critical rather than accepting of what is.

Complex analyses and algorithms are deployed to compare shared

psychological traits, relationships to authority figures, level of

socio-economic privilege, and even birth order. If any of this

attributive, long-form speculation is correct, I may be more of an

anomaly than my grade school report cards alluded.

I started my career under the same veils and presumptions as most youth

growing up in a Western, capitalist state—seduced by rationalism,

consumption, growth, and competition. I wanted to be a lawyer or some

such technocratic, middling career that would satisfy my immigrant

parents’ desire for white acceptance and simultaneously uphold the logic

of the system that put the whole house of cards together. I grew up in a

poor part of the relatively affluent city of Vancouver, Canada. I

maintained mediocrity with the occasional hints of rebelliousness that

would be produced in any sentient being living in the Canadian suburbs.

It was not my love for Trotsky or Proudhon or Sankara that radicalized

me. Even if I had read fragments, I couldn’t fully understand them in my

state of pre-consciousness. It was, in fact, the influence of my

mother’s spiritual values that seeded my initial morality. The influence

of her brand of Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam, self-cultivated

within me, even though I explicitly rejected Islam from a young age. I

started to adopt some of its principles as the basis for my own

spiritual journey, both rejecting and accepting its tenets at my

discretion, while incorporating other modalities including Buddhism,

Taosim, Ayurveda, and Shamanism.

As I progressed on my journey, those initial seeds blossomed within me

as a reaction to the total disgust I felt for a world that lacked

empathy, compassion, and signs of progression to a higher plane. After

all, every religion especially the esoteric traditions are, at their

core, a moral philosophy. The illusion of reason and the animalistic

drive for self-interest that are the main features of late-stage

capitalism challenged my spiritual values.

How could I continue to legitimize the structures of this world while

holding true to my spiritual ideals? How could I subtly regurgitate the

premises of Cartesian dualism when I knew they had no model to explain

the torment and anguish and heartache that existed all around me? This

tension awakened my political sensibilities. I started to understand

that one’s politics are simply their morality put into action. I could

no longer not act.

Regardless of my awakenings, I never attributed my identity to the

coming together of these two modes of being. I did not self-select into

the dual camp of the mystical anarchist, both in the hopes of

maintaining my political friends who would be embarrassed by such a ‘new

age’ sentiment and my spiritual community that would see me as divisive,

judgmental, and living in ‘non-acceptance.’

As I kept these identities separate, I found that my central quest — to

help create an emancipatory political and economic system, to create the

better world we know is possible—was also suffering from the central

schism in my life. Despite what my Leftist sensibilities tell me, I know

that simply changing the rules of the economic and political system will

not be enough. And despite my spiritual disposition and what many

‘spiritual gurus’ propose, I do not believe that shifts in our

individual consciousness, even at mass scale, will change the outcomes

of our material reality in the absence of a superstructural overhaul

that more closely resembles revolution than reform. So what then shall

we do? What must be done? And most importantly, what should we believe

in?

On Anarchism

At its core, anarchism states that creativity and self-organization will

always lead to better societal arrangements than the arbitrary commands

of disconnected technocrats. Concentrating power at the top of the

pyramid will unequivocally lead to the capture of the democratic process

and a tyranny of plutocratic rule.

We cannot deny that there is a metaphysical and moral code deeply

embedded within all political philosophy, but one that can never be

expressed without the admonition of rationalist judgment. The highest

values in anarchism are the simultaneous upholding of freedom and

equality. The traditional Right values freedom over all else (e.g., they

champion property rights and fight against redistributive taxes), or at

least they value the rhetoric of freedom.[1] And the traditional Left

values equality over freedom (e.g., they are willing to bear the costs

of societal levelers and safety nets such as healthcare, welfare, etc.

at the expense of some personal freedom). But for anarchists, both of

these conditions must apply. True freedom is equality of choice and

equality of opportunity for everyone to thrive in his or her own way. It

has nothing to do with private property or ownership per se. If we can

decide on our own arrangements for how to live, the majority of us will

not be subjected to the greed and wealth extraction of a tiny elite and,

therefore, will not need to reduce our freedom or equality to compensate

for this. This fundamental belief in the dignity of the human soul, the

desire for collective liberation, the intuitive understanding of a

shared consciousness, and the faith in a human creativity greater than

any one individual are in many ways all recognitions of a greater

‘source’ in each of us.

The other two tenets of anarchism that have spiritual corollaries are

disintermediation and consciousness. Anarchists don’t require the

mediation of the state, feudal lords, popes, imams, ayatollahs, sun

gods, or any other arbitrary source of ordained power. ‘No gods, no

masters’ as the famous dictum goes. Anarchists also believe in the

conscious individual as the unit of free societies. This requires

sovereign women and men who understand the structure of power, consent

to rules they themselves have legitimized, and consciously choose to

live within their own communities according to their shared principles

and values.

Living as a conscious individual, of course, requires significant

investment of time. It requires active and mindful consent. It requires

the infrastructure for direct democracy. None of us ever consented to

the way things are in the current system. We couldn’t—not only because

it was built and calcified before we were born, but also because it

requires learning and interest and patience and humility to study the

vast power structures we have today. Anarchism offers a relationship to

power that is grounded and consensual, which means power can only be so

big and so distant. Power too easily and rapidly grows out of conceptual

and practical reach left to its own devices. Anarchism believes in

keeping group power under a shared, transparent, and democratic ‘system’

rather than putting society under the boot of a small group of elites

and experts.

Both the material and mystical aspects of anarchism lead to the

ontological need to create a world that reflects these political and

spiritual values. If this is the case, why do we never authentically

explicate the spiritual underpinnings of our political beliefs?[2] Why

do our political decisions exempt meaningful spiritual source material?

After all, aren’t freedom and equality, the disintermediation of power,

and conscious, free individuals also the hopes and aims of most mystical

and esoteric spiritual traditions?

On First Principles

Politicos have a tendency to begin or end every debate with two

questions: what is your theory of change? by which they mean, what is

your strategy for achieving some outcome? and what is the viable

alternative you seek? by which they mean, what’s the answer? I have

either tiptoed around these questions or I have gone straight into the

bluff. I have laid out the play-by-play policy plan that gave them

confidence that there is, indeed, a better way. But these answers are

illusory salves. I was answering the question with the wrong level of

consciousness, as E.F. Schumacher would say. We are asking questions on

the material realm that, in fact, require spiritual answers.

When someone asks, what should be done in such and such a situation? the

primary question is, in fact, how should we live? The answer requires

both a material and spiritual answer. We must honor the dimensions of

both mind and soul. But the intellectual life of modern man has been

hijacked by an extreme form of Enlightenment logic, a deep rational

materialism that focuses only on the observable and measurable at the

cost of everything else. It is a scientism that believes that if

something cannot be measured, it cannot exist.

First Principles

WHY ARE WE HERE?

existentialism

WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE END PURPOSE?

ontology

WHAT CAN WE TRULY KNOW?

epistemology

WHAT IS BEAUTY?

aesthetics

HOW SHOULD POWER BE DISTRIBUTED?

political philosophy

WHAT IS REALITY?

metaphysics

It tends to ignore most of what we’re learning from quantum physics (and

direct experience), including the deep entanglement of the cosmos, a

probabilistic universe of superpositions rather than inert matter

waiting for human exploitation, and the fact that ‘the ‘knower’ does not

stand in a relation of absolute externality to the natural world being

investigated—there is no such exterior observational point… we are part

of the world in its ongoing intra-activity.”[3]

Add to these omissions of consciousness the fact that what we even

consider observable has gone through seismic shifts since the

Enlightenment and it leaves one bewildered how we have not challenged

the reductionist barriers to our imagination. There has been a daylight

hijacking, a coup d’état, of the political agenda of defined reality. As

Slavoj Žižek reminds us, ideology is always a background condition—we

are accessing and referencing ideological principles in every act and

utterance whether we recognize it not. Most of the superstructures we

are subjected to, from our education platforms to our political systems,

from the institution of marriage to who is considered a societal keeper

of knowledge, are relics of a colonialist, capitalist, rationalist

mindset.

If we are to uphold a worldview that reflects our values, we must answer

for ourselves the key questions, the first principles of philosophy,

that we are never incentivized to ask: Why are we here?

(existentialism); What is the ultimate end purpose? (ontology); What can

we truly know? (epistemology); What is beauty? (aesthetics); How should

power be distributed? (political philosophy); and What is reality?

(metaphysics).

None of the false gods, including religious institutions, academia, the

political machine, mainstream media, and other organs of the status quo

ever address these first principles—although they offer us illusory

answers that we are asked to obey. They serve as both our siren and our

lullaby. They present us with critical concerns and then pacify us with

their agenda-ridden propaganda. We become willing carriers of their

pre-programmed memes.

On Mysticism

What is mysticism and why does it elicit such derisive reactions? For

scientific materialists, the very word signifies an unacceptable

negative: ‘unknowledge.’ At its simplest level, mysticism is the belief

that our material reality goes beyond the ‘observable’ phenomena around

us. It recognizes that the world of three dimensions and five senses is

limited to exactly those confines. We can therefore never truly

understand all of the complexities of the universe with our rational

minds.

This does not mean that mysticism denies science. In fact, the opposite

is true. As a mystic, I view all of the world’s scientific knowledge as

the minimal level of our understanding—it is the floor of our collective

knowledge as opposed to the ceiling. Every day, brilliant scientists

from around the world add new observations to our constantly growing

nest of accumulated wisdom. But as recent findings in string theory,

quantum mechanics, and chaos theory have proven to us, the more we

discover, the more we realize how little we truly understand.

Mysticism incorporates this willing suspension of disbelief and a

concomitant reverence for mystery and wonder that hardcore rationalists

find unsettling. This need not be the case. Everything we learn from the

scientific realm further enhances and deepens the magical aspects of the

universe. Even the atoms we are made of were forged from hydrogen that

exploded long before our solar system was born. We all have the

equivalent of a teaspoon of stardust inside of us from the Big Bang. The

universe expanded at the perfect rate from its inception. If it grew

0.01% faster, matter would never have been able to take form. If it grew

0.01% slower, the universe would have collapsed on itself.[4] These are

just facets of an incomprehensible, diffractive, and queer reality

filled with majestic mysteries, the bounds of which are beautifully

unknowable to us right now, and perhaps always will be.

So what does this mean for how we should live our lives? These thoughts

and facts further our awe for our cosmos, our biosphere, and our fellow

species. They impel the mystics and the anarchists among us to create a

better world that is commensurate to this unfathomable, inexplicable,

divine experience of the life we each have.

On Capitalism

How can we even begin to organize the better world if we do not fully

understand the current system? Having a mystical worldview does not

abdicate us from rigor or from politics. Many of the most spiritually

enlightened people I know will say things like, “I’m not political” or

“Politics creates dualities between good and evil.” Politics is just

about power. Who has it? Who doesn’t? Who gets to decide? And why? As we

discussed earlier, ideology, and therefore politics, is always present,

whether we recognize it or not. Ignoring it doesn’t remove our

responsibility; it contributes to the status quo, working against the

interests of the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us. As Howard Zinn

says, “you can’t be neutral on a moving train.”

We must be conscious and critical of our current economic and political

structures—the operating system, if you will. We must recognize that

this system is dependent on the misery and exploitation of other human

beings. As Dieter Duhm reminds us, “Behind the material consumption of

our society stands the indescribable anguish of billions of our fellow

beings. It stands behind the menus of our restaurants, the doctors’

prescriptions, and the numbers on the stock market. The wellbeing of one

side is achieved through systematic murder on the other. Countless human

beings and animals pay with their lives for our daily intake.”[5]

Capitalism is simply an extension of colonialism, slavery, patriarchy,

imperialism, and deep racism. For those of us who have benefited from

this system, we must be cognizant of the moral implications. In a

lecture at Carnegie Council in 2012 the political philosopher Thomas

Pogge said, “The affluent are quick to point out that they cannot

inherit their ancestor’s sins. Indeed. But we violently defend our

entitlement to the fruits of these sins: to their huge inherited

advantage in power and wealth over the rest of the world.”

We must also be aware that the butchery of capitalism is not a

historical relic. Capitalism constantly requires a state of war and

conquest (e.g., from Iraq and Afghanistan to the structural adjustment

programs of the World Bank and IMF) in order to ensure access to

resources. The system is dependent on the destructive extraction of

fossil fuels that is irreversibly devastating the only planet we have.

Its hunger for more—for everything— is insatiable, which forces us to

constantly work more hours for additional ‘growth’ and ‘wealth’ that the

majority of us will never see. These are not ‘bugs’ in the system, to

use coder language, but rather the core feature, the very logic of the

system itself.

For every dollar of income created in the US since 2008, 93 cents goes

to the top 1%.[6] Therefore, growth creates inequality from its

inception. Climate change is not manmade in the traditional sense that

we think about it—climate change is capital made. Every dollar of wealth

created heats up our planet because we have an extractivesand fossil

fuel-based economy. Capitalism turns natural resources into commodities

in order to attract and generate ever more capital. It locks us into

path dependency where we can never take a risk of slowing growth. We

even subsidize our own destruction by giving the ultimate agents and

benefactors of this production and consumption—corporations—more

subsidies and more power.

On Neoliberalism

Although neoliberalism and capitalism are not the same thing, we can

accurately describe our current brand of global capitalism as

neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is based on three tenets. First, it defines

our relationship to each other through a competitive lens (am I better,

richer, etc.?), which inevitably leads to ordering society through rigid

hierarchies. It equates material wealth with life success, which is

equated to virtue (e.g., rich people are good, poor people are bad—i.e.,

re-interpreting poverty as a moral failing). And it holds the individual

is the primary unit of power, an idea best captured by Margaret

Thatcher’s famous quip that there is no such thing as society, just

individuals and families.

From an economic point of view, neoliberalism advocates the bankrupt

policy of trickle-down economics, the concentration of wealth in private

hands through explicit subsidization of corporations. This directly

leads to the extraction of wealth from the poor to the rich. Since our

jobs and our identities are offshoots of this system, we are incapable

of breaking free of the logic. We have all had to create our own stories

in order to cope within the system. People at the World Bank or USAID or

the Gates Foundation think they’re helping the poor (and at a

micro-level maybe they are) and people in ad agencies think they’re

being creative (and at a micro level maybe they are), but they are, in

fact, ensuring that the murky waters of the status quo stay toxic. What

Hannah Arendt once called the banality of evil has transmuted into the

banality of good.

We are told that people of merit rise to the top of the system. But as

John Ralston Saul argues, the system finds the people that are best

constructed to further its own existence and draws them to the places

they can best further the system.[7] Since the very lifeblood of modern

capitalism is the energy derived from material consumption, it is

inevitable that those who single-mindedly and ‘successfully’ desire,

adore, and glorify consumption to the point of gluttony will fit neatly

and effortlessly into the seats of power.

Operating successfully or even moderately well in this system makes us

transactional beings who reduce each other’s vital humanity to tools by

which we value-maximize short-term profit. We are quick to point out the

misery accumulated by communism or fascism. But capitalism, especially

neoliberal capitalism, is a form of distributed fascism. What a few

despotic elites once did to a massive population, most do to each other

now, in the hopes of accumulating more wealth, status and hedonistic

pleasure.

This is our background condition, the ubiquitous backdrop for all of our

lives. If we want to reconnect with spiritual truths, the first

essential challenge is to disconnect just enough from the economic

machinery and its incessant propaganda to recognize neoliberalism for

what it is and what it does to us. How else can our political organizing

have the power and to know the importance of our spiritual wisdom?

On Solutions

We tend to assume that progress is guaranteed, that human ingenuity will

beget the necessary solutions at just the right time.

We will find a technological innovation to mitigate climate change. We

will create enough economic growth to ‘lift all boats’ from the stagnant

harbor of poverty. But if we look at the arc of history from its

beginning, the dominant mode is extinction and collapse of species and

civilizations. As evolutionary anthropologists remind us, 99% of every

species that has ever existed is now extinct.

So what must be done? Depending on one’s ideology, we are given three

types of answers or, more accurately, three levels of answers. The

traditional answer of the Left, especially Marxists, has been to change

the superstructure—the generative rules that create our material

conditions. The second has been suggested by anarchists, communitarians,

libertarians, and ironically, by many institutional religions that

believe we should focus on the community level. They ask, how do we

create the support structures for those around us? The last level has

often been suggested by spiritual teachers and mystics who have simply

said, ‘go within.’ All you have control over is yourself, and since the

entire universe is within you, that is the primary unit of change.

The truth is that we need to create change at all three levels

simultaneously, and given the state of climate change and the

destruction of the biosphere, we must operate at a rate that creates

interdependent, positive feedback loops. If we simply try to change the

superstructure, we will spend our precious resources in an inefficient

battle with well-funded tyrants (they do print money in private mints

after all). This war of attrition will frustrate, criminalize, and

dishearten us, will lead to burnout, and worse, we will miss the

infinite moments of opportunity that surround us. We will not have

shared values that bind us together, as the atheistic Left has painfully

found out. Nor will we have the type of conscious individual that is

truly required for anarchist, autonomous, sustainable societies to truly

exist.

If we only focus at the community level, we risk contributing to the

banality of good and ensuring that the status quo stays in place. We

will only create temporary bubbles of moral superiority while our

species and fellow planetary co-inhabitants are forced into extinction

all around us.

And if we only focus on ourselves, we forget the most important lesson

of human nature. We are who we are through others. Beyond the quantum

truth of this, highlighted by Einstein when he said that the idea of the

separate self is just “a kind of optical delusion of consciousness,”

there is also the sociological truth of our entanglement.[8] We are

inherently social creatures. As the old motto of the American

abolitionists goes, “none of us are free until all of us are free.”

Spiritual narcissism will not save us. In fact, the gilded threads of

self-evolution negate purpose before the meditation starts.

Many people on the spiritual path believe that they need to achieve a

certain level of material wealth or spiritual enlightenment before they

start to contribute to the broader world. But we often forget that the

very acts of altruism, empathy, community, and solidarity create our

happiness and, therefore, our enlightenment. They are not ontological

states to be punted to a future self. The actions define who we are and

even how we see ourselves. We now know from behavioral psychology that

we always act first and then retroactively create our identities from

the fabric of those actions. We are tomorrow what we do today.

On Revolution

All of the collapses we are seeing—the destruction of the planet, mass

resource depletion (‘peak everything’ as it has been called), the war on

women and girls, the increasing financial boom and bust cycles, violence

with no end, skyrocketing inequality, and even the spiritual ennui and

existential angst that characterize modernity are not separate, discrete

issues. They are interdependent and interwoven. Ours is a temporary

society built on the quicksand of fossil fuels, human misery, and the

destruction of our biosphere.

For true emancipatory social change to happen, a new type of society

must be created. New relationships must be forged. A new consciousness

must be born. This change will require revolution at all three levels

simultaneously.

At one level, it’s as simple as choosing a better story. We have taken

one book off one shelf in the library of ideas. The first sentences in

the story of capitalism were uttered barely 250 years ago, at a time

when we knew so much less about how human nature really works. And like

any profound beginning, we had no earthly concept of how the story would

unfold. A lot of the common sense ‘conventional wisdom’ that has built

up has proven to be incorrect. We’re only as selfish or as generous as

we allow ourselves to be. In The Original Affluent Society,

anthropologist Marshal Salins showed how hunter-gatherers worked less

than us, were highly cooperative and egalitarian, and even consumed more

calories per day than modern humans. Thomas Hobbes had it wrong—we don’t

have to fight and struggle to survive.

We must tell new stories and forge new relationships that make the old

story of neoliberal capitalism obsolete. We must choose to be the

autoimmune response of the planet, the white blood cells of humanity

that cluster together at points of infection and begin the healing. The

first decision must be made within. We must all decide what role we want

to enact. Then we must set our own intentions and look to activate those

around us.

This does not have to be by political means only. Accessing nonordinary

states through meditation or yoga or psychedelics can be beneficial

avenues to break from the spell of the dominant Matrix ideology.[9]

Until we can become free thinkers once more, how will we gain the

independence to break the cycle of complicity? As Hakim Bey poetically

states, “The only true conflict is that between the authority of the

tyrant and the authority of the realized self—all else is illusion,

psychological projection, wasted verbiage… only the uprising against the

false consciousness in both ourselves and others will sweep away the

technology of oppression and the poverty of the Spectacle.”[10]

After embodying this realized self, the second stage is to organize

among family, friends, and the community around us with the aim of

liberation and delegitimizing the logic of the operating system in any

way possible. We can refuse to participate in ways small and large,

mobilizing on the streets, organizing debt resistance, creating

alternative currencies, buying locally, living off the grid, etc.

Whatever the avenue for radical change, all that matters is that we do

it consciously and with clear intention; we understand the structure of

the power we are facing; we are aware how it is affecting us

spiritually; we incorporate these lessons into both our collective and

self-evolution; and we build with the communities around us.

Many of us will choose to create alternative communities to live in.

These are growing all around the world including the Zapatistas in

Chiapas, Mexico; El Alto in Bolivia; the Transition Town movement that

started in the United Kingdom; and even Burning Man, the temporary

utopian community in Black Rock City, Nevada. All of these can create

containers or even just sparks for the new consciousness.

As we explore and experiment with these new autonomous, selfsustaining,

self-organized communities, we will chose the alternatives that make the

most sense for us, our communities, our geographies, and our historical

contexts. Creating new stories and the infrastructure to carry the

utopian seeds for the New Earth will allow us not only to materially

protect our species from a dramatically changing climate, but will allow

us to live in spiritual accordance with our values. Dieter Duhm

confidently reminds us that this “concrete utopia is a latent reality

within the universe, just as the butterfly is a reality latent within

the caterpillar. It lies in the structure of our physical and biological

world, in our genes, and in our deeper ethical orientation.”[11]

Perhaps this process will be a part of our spiritual ascension. It could

be that the collapse of neoliberal capitalism and the healing of our

planet and species from the grips of destructive growth, greed, and

self-annihilation is a planetary initiatory process that will catalyze

the human species to evolve. This will require a new type of politics

and a new type of spirituality. We need activists motivated by social

justice and empathy but with the sense of wonder and self-confidence of

a mystic—the balance that comes from a deep spiritual practice and

grounding. Those who can break through the prison walls of Cartesian

dualism and find the magic and mystery in our collective struggle. Those

people who can create what the Russian novelist Chyngyz Aitamtov calls

the ‘divine spark,’ a resonance that has both love and power to operate

at all three levels—the self, the community, and the super

structure—simultaneously.

When I started to intellectually bridge the realms of mysticism and

anarchism, I did not think I would end up in this place, that the

resulting exploration would have the potential to be so liberating yet

so daunting. I immediately went back to my mother’s faith in the magic

of the unknown, her confidence that every atom was the embodiment of

God, and her totalizing ability to trust in a wisdom greater than our

own. I can leave you with no better words than those of Guillaume

Apollinaire that she read to me all those years ago: “Come to the edge,

he said. They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came.

He pushed them and they flew.”

Note. A earlier version of this article appeared in the anthology Wisdom

Hackers.

[1] I would argue that the Right values the rhetoric, not the substance

of freedom. They have captured the language and made it mean property

rights; however, the two are not synonymous except in their dictionary

meaning. Property rights are a freedom only in the sense that slavery

was a freedom; i.e., for the slaveowners to own slaves. If you want to

use the rhetorical definition that “because it lets me do what I want”

as the definition, then murder could be called freedom, and even

genocide could be defended with this line of illogic. In fact, one could

say that the Right’s love of the rhetoric is matched only by their

hatred of the actual ideal.

[2] Of course, the Right, especially in America, has ridden the wave of

false spirituality to a huge degree. You can’t be President—Republican

or Democrat—if you don’t conjure up illusory images of a white, bearded,

savior God. So it’s not that we don’t hear the language of gods and

morality and other spiritual concepts, it’s that we’ve packaged up the

ideas into simplistic esoteric dogma that is meaningless—the antithesis

of spirituality. True spirituality starts with humility and heads off

into the wilds of wonder and ignorance. It doesn’t set judgmental rules

and regulations by which to judge others first and yourself never.

[3] Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and

the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University

Press.

[4] Greene, B. (2010). The elegant universe: Superstrings hidden

dimensions and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York, NY: WW

Norton.

[5] Duhm,D. (2015). Terra nova: Global revolution and the healing of

love. Bad Belzig, Germany: Verlag Mdiga:13.

[6] www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-incomegrowth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.

[7] Ralston Saul, J. (1993). Voltaire’s bastards: The dictatorship of

reason in the west. Visalia, CA: Vintage Press.

[8] Einstein, A. (1972, March 29). Letter of 1950. New York Times.

[9] Eve Ensler from One Billion Rising reminds us that Patrix is a more

apt description of the current establishment order as it is a direct

result of our violent, masculine, patriarchal culture.

[10] Bey, H. (2003). Temporary autonomous zone. Brooklyn, NY:

Autonomedia: 46.

[11] Duhm, D. (2015).Terra nova: Global revolution and the healing of

love. Bad Belzig, Germany: Verlag Meiga: 27.