💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-intersectional-egoism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:08:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Intersectional Egoism Author: Anonymous Language: en
The belief that the self is an emergent intersectional phenomenon of
conflict and consent by a multitude of intersecting agencies that all
have their own desire to bind you to their perpetuity. Self empowerment
can only come from the dismantling of the intersections of internal and
external oppressions by being cognizant of what seeks to control you,
this cognizance can only be recognized through struggle. No perfect self
actualized ego can ever be formulated, rather it is a continual process
of renewal. Only the dismantling of those systems can foster the
societal environment necessary to give power to marginalized groups. The
very act of dismantling oppression and empowering the self creates the
politics and culture necessary to respect self actualized identity.
Maximizing the agency of ALL beings is a process, not an ideal, and it
can only be done by maximizing the potential for emergent gains within
any system via synergistic laws of common properties.
Identity can not be found reasonable or respectable if it is formed
through barriers of any oppressor, whether that be the State, the boss,
another person, or a god. Any identity formed by the intersections of
agreement by other people is only an egregore(spook) that seeks to set
limitations on self empowerment because it creates a controlling
narrative of what one can actually become. And therefore it is not truly
an identity that can empower the individual. It is a false identity that
is being used to ensure that the individual agrees to limitations in
order to receive acknowledgement by the group and with this
acknowledgement a certain amount of privilege.
True identity must come from self actualization of the individual
through the ability to create wards against ones own oppression. It is
only by ones power that they can be true. By creating barriers that do
not allow egregoric identities to arise, they ensure their own
properties are secured.
Any agreements created between agents must be done towards negative bias
and not towards positive bias. This is the nullification principle for
confederation. By saying that the collective will not agree to an ideal
towards something but rather to negate ideals from occurring against
them, they make more room for the individual to self actualize. If an
agreement is not nullifiable, it is not a true agreement. One must be
able to question the agreement and say, am I allowed to leave this
agreement and still be my own person without being made into a slave to
another?
For instance, if a group of people say that they all agree to ensure no
boss can rule over them, they are setting a barrier against the ideal of
boss, they are holding themselves up as the highest ideal while not
negating one another's prerogative of self. But if instead they say that
no individual can be allowed to become their own boss and control the
value of their own labor because that labor must go to those in need,
they have just created an ideal by which it is a boss. They sacrifice
agency rather than fortify it. And anyone that were to leave that
agreement would actually become an enemy of the groupthink. They would
be seen as seeking self empowerment and that would be evil. Whereas the
man who leaves the group that no men should be bosses over them simply
leaves a group that will not allow him to be their boss.
To deal with inequality and social healthcare in a society, one would
thus make an agreement that access to the properties of their existence
shall not be denied to them. Land, water, fire and air are the
properties of self, and thus to set up a barrier to ensure no ideal may
strip them of their properties, they create a system that necessitates
the individual's survival. But conversely to set up an agreement where
all resource is distributed by an ideal of how people should be valued
in society is to control the access to the properties of the individual
by homogenizing the individual into the group. It is theft of the
individuals agency.
It is only through negative bias that true consent can exist. Love is
not an agreement to become one, it is an agreement to carve out a world
of two. It is not a sacrifice of power to the relationship, it is the
stacking of power to build emergent gains which the two both obtain.
Consent is not sacrificing power to the other, that is called
compromise, rather true consent is the assuredness that power will gain
because no barriers are set against their relationships.
We do not need to become a united world, we need to become a self
actualized and diverse world. Our phenomenological sense of self is not
derived from oneness, but from the conflict and consent of our
multitudes. And our health is not derived from our ability to control
and manipulate our multitudes as one, but instead to allow for our
multitudes to all self actualize into a culture of many. Our inner
microbiotic diversity is what makes us strong. Our ecological diversity
makes systems more adaptable. Our cultural diversity makes our
perspectives keen and unique. It is by carving a world out for the many
that we may come to our fluid nature of intersectional egoism, and
because we become more diverse and unique as individuals and as a
holobiont microbial confederation, we are able to flow more freely into
our own evolutionary self empowerment