One usually opposes the necessary and the possible. And indeed, if there is a relationship between the possible and freedom, then it is hard to imagine a form of liberty that would be constrained by necessity. But once freedom is seen as a discipline, and I would argue that it can only be cultivated as such, then one could think there is a paradox in the idea of – not constrained – but at least a trained attitude of liberty inducement.
The paradox fades away if we look at the domain of music improvisation, today associated with jazz but formerly also practiced in baroque music for example. There is a necessity dictated by the score, the tonality at least, some elements and themes that one needs to return to, a field or grid delimitating a domain of possibility for expression, but these function as a trance inducing protocol to generate the liberty of improvisation, the singularity of a musical voice.
The domain of human existence is equally constrained, albeit arguably less than music. What they both have in common is the idea that an individual, a person may manifest new possibles, rather than a group may do so. Of course, groups may have styles and be innovative, but in our epoch the idea of singularity, style, freedom, is preferably associated with the singular person, the modern subject and his respective free will.
I wrote free will, which begs the question: is free will the condition of possibility of freedom? Perhaps it is the opposite: the capacity to train oneself to improvise and think as personally as possible slowly generates a character that allows for autonomous wiling. This means that not all human possesses free will. As surprising as this assertion might sound, if one thinks about the two words free and will in their stark sense, we might agree that not everybody is autonomously willed. Free will is a horizon, a state that might be attained after a long training and a life of courage, virtue and introspection, amongst the obstacles of the majority of humans and their autopilot, mimetic or timorous behaviour.
Here a soft imperative (comparable to a musical tonality for an improviser) might be: in order to become yourself, remain constantly faithful to your mode of access to freedom (a motto for example), and then see what happens, let life and the Creal offer you synchronistic opportunities along the lines of your combat for authenticity. There is no need for wanting secular standards of recognition if you cultivate freedom as a martial art.
There is a human-induced process of equalization at work on earth: transformation of difference into sameness.
From the point of view of the digital masters, there is the belief that it is possible to impose such dissolution of specificity on others without affecting by retroaction the master’s singularity. The idea of the Digital Voodoo is that once beings are transformed into standard bits, they are more manipulable and less recalcitrant, and that, as equalization propagates, it is however possible for the happy few to remain aloof from the dissolution of people into data (which I called “datasein” in Being and Neonness.
The ruse of the digital masters is that they can now discretise all beings into bits without appearing to physically affect their integrity. We help you generate a digital avatar of yourself, and when we manipulate the avatar, it affects you because you are connecting yourself to it every day. Spooky action at a distance.
Many people believe they are at least partly on the side of the master, that they can for the most and for what counts control the process, that they are not ultimately the victim of equalization. This might be partially true, for now, but only if one knows what counts for oneself.
The question is: can the equalization program work? Or is there a singularity feature in each being that prevents a complete discretization? Are we more than data? Can we be free in a world of increasing technological determinism?
It takes a great deal of courage to be free. One needs to be ready for the possibility of losing everything in the process of actualising one’s autonomy. Most people are not ready. We are controlled and limited in innumerable ways, partly by norms, partly by alienated beliefs, but also by our own desires or sense of responsibility. Only an immense faith can be stronger than fear and dependence.
If people new that life was like a videogame with the unlimited possibility to restart the game afresh once you die, then they would take many risks. Death would be a daily sport and after a while an untraumatic event. The fact is that many people believe they only have one life, and they hold on to it at all cost, anxious of the Game Over sentence.
The political question that answers the reductive process of equalization described above is: can we equalize freedom? Can we produce autonomy and freedom faster than we produce dependence and alienation? And for whom?
Given the current status of individualism, we might expect the happy few to conquer autonomy for themselves while capitalising on the lack of autonomy of others. This is the story of the world.
A world in which all beings would be fully free could look like the above-mentioned deadly videogame, unless there is something that limits people’s will to competitive power. For example, a gratitude for being without the need to constantly expand one’s territory, or better, the understanding of what expansion really means.
If expansion means a competitive game with winners and losers, then digital equalization rhymes with real inequality. If expansion means more participative and joyous understanding, then it might be possible to counter the expansion of digital control.
This can not mean that one should want nothing, in Stoic fashion. This rather means, perhaps in Nietzschean manner, that one should want what is. But not the amor fati of renunciation. Not what is in the sense of the phenomena that are, but what deeply is, the noumenon, the essence of the universe.
This is the motto of freedom I propose to your reflection: BECOME THE NOUMENON.
For me the noumenon is the Creal, but you are free to search for your own vision and feeling of the noumenon: that process of searching itself, if perseverant, will protect you.
Question: how is it that the Greeks were so clairvoyant 3000 years ago and what has become of them? Answer: holistic and crealectic intelligence is partly Ancient Greek and we are all Ancient Greeks insofar as we practice philosophical health. “Ancient Greek” or “philosophy” (probably synonyms?) is the name of a mutation in the human psyche, which is being forgotten today as a proportion of humanity is regressing into a pre-Greek state of gregariousness, via the pseudo-innocences of victimisation or arithmomania for example. The Greek mythology often shows more intelligence than the christology in which we are still enmeshed, for example the fact that the goddess Hygeia (hygiene) means wholeness.
One healthy way among others to combat the current panmediatic phenomenon, this lecture by James Hillman:
Crealectics believes in the singularity at the core of each person, and in the possibility for diversity and possibility to be harmoniously attuned to an ideal collective life. In nature, this teleology is called creative evolution. In human groups, this ideal is also creative evolution and we can co-design it. In both cases we have networks of signs which can be configured in multifarious manner into a performative discursivity, a web of practice.
Crealectics as method is a philosophical conversation that is embedded in day-to-day practices, desires, and actions in order to keep us aligned with our highest sense of purpose and actualisation, in harmony with the Creal, the creative becoming of the universe.
It is a deep dialogue and deep listening process between individuals and groups that unveils and transforms a vision into a reality by creating a spirited culture of doing, and slowly generate a second nature of care, inquisitive joy and creative responsibility.
Crealectics transports us from our default modes of doing to a new and freer constancy in practice. This creation of a new constellation of belief and action takes time, because it needs to become a habit of co-creation against less inspired, less holistic or disharmonious routines.
Crealectics is a training towards responsible freedom and effectuality via discursive practices, and first and foremost the oldest tool of humanity: transformative discourse. This method and practice of responsible idealisation, a martial art for the mind, creates within the individual brain or the collective brain of the group an eudynamic neural network that is more attuned with the ever-flowing nature of the cosmos and the new possibilities that are hiding in the older routines. It is an inspired and suspended and metamorphic web of excellence above the normative modes of sleep-walking through life.
A Crealectic brain, group or person is flexible and plastic, capable to improvise and dare while being extremely faithful to her ideal, respect of creation, justice, common intelligence, harmony, peaceful living, inquisitive joy, etc.
Humans are driven by Ideas. We might not be aware of it, but we are ideological animals, and we act according to beliefs and discursive worldviews. Groups or individuals perform better when they are aware of their guiding ideas, and they perform better if they admire their highest principle. Otherwise, they are a collection of disparate individuals who might abide to different webs of belief in a state of chaos, war or competition. Interdiscursive harmony between various groups or individuals can only be maintained via a shared respect for creation as common ground.
The crealectic conversation allows to slowly adjust the collective frequency of understanding and create a culture of caring, daring and harmonious becoming. This does not mean that we create a society that is not diverse, quite the contrary: since the ultimate value is the singularity of our co-creative pulse, this continuous ontological and immanent Big Bang that is the Creal, difference between individuals is maintained as an openness to the unheard-of and a trust in the fact that anything can be said or heard during the crealectic conversation, without fear of being wrong, unrealistic or judged.
A new life is possible.
Theorists are rigid when they forget the person, and as such, theories cut through the flesh of life. Professions themselves are unreliable: for every good doctor there is a mediocre one. For every alert philosophical practitioner or bus driver, there is an average one. There is no such thing as a general practice that cannot be spoiled by an unreliable practitioner: an uninspired shaman, a bad parent, a deviated president, a stubborn accountant – parent, shaman, president, accountant: those are empty labels. No social practice, label or theory is good enough that it cannot be betrayed by mediocrity and somnambulism. Conversely, any profession or social function can be represented by genuine heroes: the nobleness of a practice is in fact the nobleness of the person that elevates such and such practice to an active degree of awareness and creative care, no matter how valued or despised the practice is by a given society.
I have been avoiding constructing crealectics as a pure theoretical system without embodied practice, a mere speculative edifice, because this would contradict the very intention of crealectics. Theory and speculation are very pleasant, yet what counts is to detect and awaken the crealectician in each of us. We are the collective body of regeneration and creativity, and each person or node in this collective body may actualise crealectics in a singular manner.
I – among others – dream of a theory which would be embodied, personified, metamorphic, multiplied in diversity and undogmatic. Each person can be a singular flame of inquisitive goodwill, of creal power, or genuine creativity and openness to welcome the new in others and situations. Crealectics is relational and intersubjective.
Spirit is present in each of us as attentiveness and capacity for singularity. This crealectic spark is perhaps what Hegel called the life of spirit, the flame of freedom, and it is the source of love because it generates tolerance for difference. When you are overwhelmed by fear, the crealectician dies in you. When you are governed by conformism, the crealectician dies in you. When you sleep-walk through your daily routines, the crealectician dies in you.
Conversely, when you listen deeply, the crealectician awakes in you. When you question and wonder, and try to see things in a new light, the crealectician awakes in you. When you respect creative difference in others and see the person in front of you as an inspiration for novelty and singularity, you are the crealectician that we all can be: one singular locus or node of a multifarious esprit de corps, an experiential fold on the spatium of the cosmological manifold which is our common origin, the absolute transimmanence of relational singularity I call Creal.