Tuesday, August 2, 2022


It seems that all intellectual freedom must begin with consciousness, more specifically, the comprehension of automated forms. Humans assume the value of the forms they practice (almost none of them are conscious of value outside the emphasis of the cultural forms they practice). For a thinker this amounts to incompetence. A thinker should be concerned with more than cultural replication, he should be concerned with the objectivity of value. This simply means content that has something to offer the concrete movement of life or that contextualizes and revolutionizes the activity of life (the expansion or contextual clarification of consciousness, of concepts, is also a form of the concrete).

Objections that tend to criticize form, as opposed to content, are unconscious of their critical form. Simplified, this often comes out to mean: "you are not observing or conforming to our rituals." The charge is often an unconscious complaint to a lack of conformity. The hardest thing to obtain is freedom of form; the emphasis of history stands against it, but an intelligent being cannot simply replicate tradition because it's socially familiar, he or she must apply intelligence to discern whether or not tradition is itself intelligent! Often, by thinking, the Thinker finds a better way. What matters then, is not the tradition of form, but the quality of content contained within it. Just because something displeases our aesthetic taste doesn't mean it lacks value in content. A good Thinker is concerned, above all else, with the quality of thought's content.

Because we have observed so many varied forms, because we have been mastered by many cultural forms, we demand conformity to the forms by which we have been mastered; we demand conformity to the forms that society celebrates. I contend that this way of thinking is (a flaw) lacking in critical consciousness, what's not a flaw, is thinking of the quality of content as opposed to its form.

It's a strange and useless objection to complain that something is "lacking in value" because it lacks a replication of form. In truth this is merely proof that the critic is not actually thinking about the content that's before him, he's merely noting the fact that it's unfamiliar to him -- this is not enough to refute it, and those who dismiss content on the basis of form, have already proven themselves deficient in thought. (It is perhaps the shallowest form of criticism that rejects content on the basis of its unfamiliarity to one's given culture). This kind of thinking is not thought, it's the opposite of thought.

Let the truth be known: no human is obligated to replicate the intellectual styles of their culture. A thinking mind will strive to apply intelligence to form and this will usually mean departing from familiar cultural forms; it will mean the articulation of value in the most practical and concise way that it can be achieved; concise, because life is limited, it doesn't have eternity to orient itself to existence. Of course, there is also the question of power in form, and this question matters to the implementation of value in culture. What good is quality content if it can only be assimilated by a minority, that in the long run, guarantees its extinction? The greatest clarity ever achieved by man is useless if it simply falls by the wayside without integration into culture. The question of power in form is much more complicated than the question of quality in content. In a good thinker the questions of power and quality are dialectically bound together. 

What is it that gives a form its authority? Is the answer merely, "its content?" Is the thinker "out of line" in demanding that his audience discern the value in his content, and therefore, look past his form?

We know this: life is exceedingly short and the actions we perform in it are very unlikely to have the value we attribute to them. We are, more often than not, unconsciously deceived by the value-assumptions contained in cultural forms. Is it possible to labour in and toward a content and form that contains a value that goes beyond the fleeting emphasis of culture? The answer is, "yes"! Because reality is not merely a product of human thought, man finds himself in the midst of a universe he did not create, a universe that contains objective conditions to which he must conform/learn to work with (revolutionize!) in order to bring about the betterment of his own existence.

The most relevant question: what is this content that contains value beyond the emphasis of culture? The answer is a Naturalistically-Contextualized-Thought* that strives toward the realization of existential quality. And here content is always more important than form. This consciousness presupposes several things operating at the axiomatic basis of thought: a species-consciousness and awareness; awareness of the importance and value of the Social in the context of human development and flourishing; a dialectical logic that comprehends and deduces reality from the interconnection of its totality.

Form is often something imposed on us, it can come to operate like a kind of cultural tyranny limiting the intelligence of creative-freedom to emancipate itself from the mindlessness of tradition. We must search for the courage to defy the stupidity of form in the name of intelligence; our chief concern should be for the development of an advanced quality -- content that has the capacity to emancipate the species from unintelligent forms, to transcend material conditions that restrict our ability to flourish in quality and expand our realization of freedom.

Nothing is harder than mastering a freedom of form, not what culture demands of us, but that which intelligently corresponds to our conditions in the universe. 

*Naturalistically-Contextualized-Thought: this refers to a consciousness that transcends culture and comprehends the species within the limited and fragile context of its material conditions. The universe is objectively indifferent to the existence of man, just like it has been indifferent toward the extinction of billions of species. Man must learn to cultivate and harness the power of the Social (to move by intelligence!) if he wishes to advance qualitatively into the future.