to kick as a horse would

Elemental Black Metal

Hunter Hunt-Hendrix outlines what they term Transcendental Black Metal in their manifesto of the same name included in the collection, Hideous Gnosis: Black Metal Theory Symposium 1. Although I appreciate the philosophical effort (even more so the musical output of Liturgy), Id like to make use of their framework to provide a third alternative. The metaphysics of Elemental Black Metal appeals more to me than the apocalyptic humanism they prescribe, or the Hyperborean nihilism they seek to move beyond.

alt text


According to Susanna Lindberg, the elementals are “abstract ways of articulating the materiality of being.” Elemental nature is unthinkable (beyond human thought), primordial (always ever there), and chthonic (found in the realm of the underworld). It is beyond the sensible or rational. It is “the absence of transcendental ground” existing as already available images. To Emmanuel Levinas, it is the it when it rains, il y a. It is indeterminate, opaque, and an absence that makes presence possible.


Contingency is a potential force, and the force of potential. It is unexpected and not destined. It is an unintended consequence. It foils teleologies and disrupts ecologies even as it erupts from them. It is a senseless reshuffling of the cards. To humans, it is felt as looming cosmic catastrophe. It undoes worlds. It is nihilism to humans, but not something (or a nothing) one can be for.


Creative forgetting is unlearning mastery, as Bayo Akomolafe puts it. This could be also considered unthinking. This is what Friedrich Nietzsche describes as the child stage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: approaching the world anew having shed the burden of the camel and the ressentiment of the lion. It is what Laozi describes as the uncarved block: the capacity to become. It is not a rejection of the past, but an awareness that the past has yet to come.


Drone is an enveloping, pulsating resonance. In metal, it is exemplified generally by much of the work of bands Earth and Sunn O))) of Cascadia, and Boris and Corrupted of Japan's urban epicenters. It is exemplified specifically by the track Tanggalkan Di Dunia (Undo The World) by the band Senyawa of Jogjakarta. The blackest of drone metal best accompanies Eugene Thacker's notion of cosmic pessimism. More than listened to, drone is felt.


Elemental metal is earthly, but more specifically subterranean. It lies beneath bogs and marshes, and is buried under sand in windswept deserts. It forms underground caverns and deep sea trenches. It moves through mycelia and magma flows. It is of the underworld: connecting the living and the dead, and blurring the line between them. It is known by humans for its opacity.


The outcome of becoming lost is unknown. Losing oneself is impure, and resists preservation. It is breaking free from the fixed continuity of self and time, not through external transcendence, but passionate corporeality: a reckoning with the soul, followed by grotesque laughter.


According to Carlo Rovelli, entanglement is predicated upon three aspects: granularity, indeterminacy, and relationality. An entangled understanding unmasks time for what it is: a relation between human perception and the cosmos. The cosmos is composed of indeterminate becomings in relation to each other, rather than finite or infinite being.


Diffusion is a withdrawal from incapacitating concentrations. It is an exit strategy. It is fluid, dissolvable, and becoming illegible. It is fleeing to the forest or going underground. It is fugitivity.

The beckoning soul

Modern humans created nature to separate themselves from the earth and institute the world.(1) Was this act self-legitimizing, self-denying, or both? Was it an appeal to a divine authority out of fear of death: of the end of a life no longer measurable?

The false sense of stability and security this transcendence provides continues to face challenges. Preserving the self or humanity (and the corresponding ontologies of being and being Human through humanism) remains the official discourse of authority. Following this discourse, the technocratic war on viruses pit rational, reasonable, and impenetrable beings against a mutable, malicious, external other. Like Bayo Akomolafe describes, Covid is a trickster god exposing Human weaknesses.

One of these weaknesses has been called spirit. Two iconoclastic German philosophers known for their critiques of spirit are Max Stirner and Ludwig Klages. They share many similarities, and respective controversies.(2) Metaphysically, they both argue against idealism, transcendence, and the absolute. They both criticize the enlightenment rationalism of modernity. Like Heraclitus and Laozi, they both argue for an ontology of becoming over being: an ever mutating flux over a fixed stasis.(3) They also share a sort of immanent philosophy: emphasizing mind and matter as one-and-the-same. This immanence counters the alienating Cartesian dualism serving the projects, processes, and progressions of civilization and humanism. This dualism separates human beings (or rather, human becomings) from the earth and creates Humans.

The two differ somewhat in the directions they take this immanence. Stirner takes it to rail against the moralism of mass society and its collectivist sensibilities. They argue that Humans exist through a code of justice called moralism that authorizes domination against inhuman monsters. They also argue Humans act in the service of an abstract external authority that permits domination of unique persons through collective conformity. Klages takes it in an ecological direction: railing against the accelerating violent impact of industrial technology on the biosphere. Klages also, through Friedrich Nietzsche’s formulation, takes up the Dionysian call of chaotic passion over the Apollonian rationalist order. In a partly feminist take, Klages attributes this destructive Apollonian order of spirit to man, and the generative Dionysian chaos to woman.(4) Wo-man, Without-man, Without-spirit. The origins of the familiar gender symbols also go back to ancient Greece, with female being the passionate Venus and male being the authoritative Mars. While I consider Klages’s emphasis on gender here an essentialist trap, I agree that a chaotic ensouled immanence has been violently suppressed by a dominant logical materialist order, causing a whole host of problems. I also think both Klages and Nietzsche fall into a dualist trap with this framework. Even if the Apollonian and Dionysian are considered both distinct and one-and-the-same (the yin and yang of Daoism comes to mind here), I think it too easily slips into a Manichean light versus dark cosmological struggle for my liking. This is where I look more to Stirner, among others, for an antidote to essentialist and dualist thinking generally, and gender specifically.(5)

The major distinction Klages makes in their effort to counter spirit is through the soul. The soul embraces an immanent ontology previously described: that mind and matter are one-and-the-same, and human beings are inextricable from their ecology on earth. The soul also embraces invisibility and illegibility to counter the authority of visibility and legibility: “[spirit] is absolute or ex-centric externality, while soul is a natural interiority: and the latter is akin to darkness and night, as the former is to clarity that knows no twilight.”(6) This is something to keep in mind for anyone engaging in fugitive and anarchist study. The soul is the linkage between human beings and the underworld in what Klages claims is an eternal tension:

In the myths of almost every people we encounter bloody battles in pre-historic ages between solar heroes who are bent upon installing a new order and the chthonic powers of fate, who are finally banished into a lightless underworld…over the soul rises the spirit, over the dream reigns a wide-awake rationality, over life, which becomes and passes, there stands purposeful activity.”(7)

Against the purposeful teleology of spirit, the soul carries with it the negating function of the elemental underworld that Susanna Lindberg describes:

the elemental is, but it is not a thing. It is no thing…It is not a thing but the withdrawl of being in beings, the refusal of ground in things, the absence of reason in reality. The elemental is the absence of transcendental ground, an absence which signals that the negation of such a ground does not amount to the empty nihil of nihilism but to another way of encountering being.”(8)

This other way of encountering being I could describe as becoming, but Id like to take it in a further direction. This elemental absence resides in an “underworld that contradicts but nonetheless conditions the world was conceived as raw nature behind the functional ecosystem and as death behind human society” This seems to be the planetary or cosmic perspective. This raises a nihilist question: when speaking of the elemental, what is it? Lindberg answers: “It is a kind of a generous nothingness that is not simply absent but signals its own absence: it is not an empty void but a dynamic nothingness that calls and beacons from afar.” Perhaps that call resonates in the soul, and that call is a coming to terms with death against preservation: that both living and dying are one-and-the-same.

alt text Byblis, William-Adolphe Bouguereau

(1) I use Eugene Thacker’s formulation of the earth as the ecosystem for-and-in itself, the world as for-and-of humans only, and the planet or cosmos as without humans, and possibly without the earth as well. In other words: planet = without humans, world = only humans, and earth = both.

(2) There are a number of people who have read very literally the early Steven Byington translation titled The Ego and Its Own, and advocate for an atomistic and almost social Darwinian individualism I find incompatible with Stirner’s philosophy. There are others who have a racial essentialist reading of Klages, eager to draw a type of blood and soil ideology from Klages’s critique of modernity. I do think Klages suffers from some troublesome essentialist pitfalls, and there is an ongoing debate how much antisemitism influenced their ideas, but I have not yet read enough to comment on this. From what I have read, I do not think they advocate for the fascistic framework some of their admirers would like them to. Unfortunately the most accessible and comprehensive translations of Klages I could find online are published by these folks.

(3) At least two philosophers in whats called the post-structuralist camp: Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida, also share similar understandings, and have both written about Stirner.

(4) “The analogy of gender, too, between spirit and man, and soul and woman, has a deep foundation, which can be traced all the way back to the Greeks” (Klages, Soul and Spirit) Apparently Camile Paglia also makes a similar claim in Sexual Personae, but I have not read into it.

(5) Tim Elmo Feiten also makes this claim.

(6) Ludwig Klages, Soul and Spirit

(7) Ludwig Klages, Man and Earth

(8) Susanna Lindberg, Unthinking the Underworld: Nature, Death, and the Elemental

Lesser known individualism

As an exercise in rendering down a bare-bones definition of anarchist practice, Ive come up with: the tension between resisting (anti-) and/or avoiding (a-) being controlled on the one hand, and letting go of control on the other.

I find a collectivist foundation incompatible with this definition. Ill define collectivism as a logic that prioritizes the goals of an abstract we over those of unique beings.(1) The abstract we can be given an endless number of names: group, community, the people, hairdressers, Italians, zoomers, etc. Or it can be simply we, with the speaker assuming that they and their audience are all a we. This abstract we lives in the realm of the ideal, as something external to the beings it claims to be. The collectivist logic uses categorization to make all sorts of determinations based on singular beings as units of measurement, or numbers on papers and screens. While fundamental to politics (strategies and tactics to manage large numbers of people), I find this logic detrimental to a liberatory anarchist practice that isnt willing to deny the unique contingencies of beings, and desires to let go of control.

Regarding the individualist perspective, I think there are two conceptions to grapple with. The first is the more commonly known individualism found in liberalism.(2) I find it individualistic in name only: conflating an atomistic separateness with individualism. This perspective insists on independent self interest as a foundational principal, yet depends on abstractions to motivate interests: rationalism, humanism, progressive teleology through technology, and perhaps the most emphasized– economic relationality. This creates a conflicting existence for the atomized: wanting, but never fully able to own themselves. The ideals of this perspective also alienate beings from the ecology they find themselves in, leading to metaphysical extremes such as hard materialism (the denial of mind). The result is endless civilizational growth through resource extraction and servitude through work. Individuals are understood as economic agents and rational subjects: not in service of themselves, but economics and rationalist philosophy. I see this form of individualism not as individualist as it claims to be, and more collectivist than it admits.

The second understanding is the lesser known radical ownness of individualist anarchism. I find this to be truer to the name in that it also emphasizes self interest as a foundational principle,(3) but seeks to shed the abstract demands that liberal individualism clings to. In the text, The Individualist Anarchist Discourse of Early Interwar Germany, Constantin Parvulescu puts it this way:

the power void [left by revolution] brought to the fore a disoriented being, one frightened by freedom and addicted to transcendent guidance. Stirner’s predictions proved to be true: liberalism had failed to produce a free subject; instead it created a monad that conceived of itself as incomplete, as part of something bigger than him or her: an order, a body politic or a mission.

In contrast to this monad, the unique being (or individualist as individualist anarchist) rejects the abstract subjecthood defined by the polis, preferring instead the embodied real defined through lived experience. This perspective also seems more compatible with ecological principles: with beings not static, determined, or separate from their ecology. It recognizes that unique beings are composed of other unique beings, in both mind and matter, yet retain their uniqueness. The unique being is both singular and plural. Singular in that every being is the unique set of contingencies that only it can be made up of, and plural in that they are continuously in flux: becoming something they werent prior in potentially many ways at once. This capacity is the liberatory potential of the unique being as practiced through the creative unlearning of assigned values: the power to not only transform oneself, but to lose oneself. This is the freedom of forgetting, of letting go of control. It is anti-humanist in that it rejects the determined ideal of the Human, in favor of the indeterminate living of human beings. It is a passion for being. It values difference over sameness, and finds disagreement more interesting than agreement. It values heresy and play, and takes seriously laughing at itself.

The universe, in its greatness, can seem to want to crush me, but it cannot penetrate me, I, who am a formative and indispensable part, and the further the unique strives to spread itself out and its aim and its action, the more deeply it understands its situation and its need for the cosmos.” – Anselm Ruest and Salomo Friedlaender, Contributions to the History of Individualism

alt text

(1) For now, Im choosing unique being to describe what could be also called person, individual, or the overly complicated singularity, but the appropriate term (or if there should be one) is up for debate.

(2) This is by far the most familiar understanding, which is why almost any discussion of individualism immediately points to it. This creates a predicament: drop the term individualist for something lesser known, or fight for it. Im undecided, since both options seem to mislead either way. Since collectivist tendencies dominate the general discourse, the same predicament applies to anarchism as well.

(3) Self interest does not imply that others are not taken into consideration or separate from the self, in fact the opposite: it is in one’s self interest to highly consider and not neglect the mutuality between beings, for they are composed of each other. It emphasizes that acting for oneself in turn benefits those with whom one is interacting, and by the wants of desire, not the shoulds of duty.

Dissection of a three line poem

nobody knows shit

Disillusioned with the functionaries of the monastery, it is no surprise that Ikkyū draws this conclusion. Sitting through most any meeting can lead to the same sentiment.

Although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know.” – Socrates in Plato’s Apology

nobody lives anywhere

Perhaps Ikkyū is claiming there is nowhere to live, referring to the Buddhist concept of śūnyatā (primordial emptiness), or that the anātman (non-self) must live anywhere; for if you are not, you cannot be but anywhere.

If this seems too acosmic, perhaps the line is simply a critique of everyday life: who is really living?

hello dust!

ex nihilo nihil fit

The hard problem of consciousness seeks a solution to how or why qualia (conscious subjective experience) exists, or came to be. Panpsychism proposes that mind exhibiting qualia is fundamental to existence, and present in all matter. There are varying degrees to which mind is attributed to dust.

Within a panpsychist framework:

panexperientialism – conscious experience is fundamental and ubiquitous (parts of dust have some degree of mind) pancognitivism – thought is fundamental and ubiquitous (dust can think)

Outside panpsychism:

animism – all matter, pluralistically, has mind, thought, and agency (dust can attack if provoked) pantheism – all matter is god (dust is god)

alt text page from Ikkyū Sōjun's notebook

From the end of this world to the back of the alley – Part II

Now for some of my own thoughts:

Im limited by my sensory perception of the cosmos, but Ive no belief of a transcendent beyond. I am, and have already been, uniquely a part of what I cannot fully see or feel. Im both accident and agent set in motion. Embracing the uniqueness of this experience as a human being (what I am) over the human abstraction (the idea of what I am) seems preferable. Enriching the relations I have with other beings (human or otherwise) strengthens this embrace. This calls for abandoning three interrelated tendencies: the obsession to manage, orienting around predictability, and the desire to preserve ideals. When I die, the limited perception Ive been familiar with will end, and I will decompose to recompose to decompose again. Here are three ideas to help me until then:

1) Break the clock. We now live in a world so pervasive with measurement that the science of it (metrics) has become dogma. The goal seems to be endless comparison of every incomparability, no stone left unturned. Evading measure is a key part of avoiding capture. Though there are some practical uses for measuring when cooking or crafting, rejecting this dependency is crucial for any liberatory lifeway. Most importantly, this applies to time and money: the most limiting of measurements. Doing this full-stop could have some interesting and painful results, but a limited engagement strategy seems more viable in the current state of things.

2) Light the candle. Focusing excessively on preserving an ideal of life is an unnecessary and fraught way to live. Taking efforts to burn out quickly (while at times admirable) is often just as fraught, and can lead to miserable outcomes other than death. Rather than arguing for a moderate life, Im instead for allowing life to take its course as a lit candle would. This could look quite extreme in infinitely imaginative ways.

3) Empty the cup. This is a derivative of pu, often translated as uncarved wood: an early Daoist concept of a return to simplicity or emptiness before being put to use. Other derivatives include a clean slate (tabula rasa), and the unlearning process. Nietzche’s final stage of the child in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is another similar idea. The forgetful child sees the world anew as a bounty of possibility, theirs for the taking. Nietzsche’s Übermensch as child loses in order to gain, yet I prefer Stirner’s Unmensch (or inhuman being), who loses in order to gain in order to lose. Once your cup is filled, it requires an emptying-out in order to remain capable. That capability is not an end in itself, but to be put toward a loss of the self through the self. Get lost and stay lost.

From the end of this world to the back of the alley

Id like to begin with some recent findings on death:

Heraclitus claimed death was the extinguishment of the soul, which is made of fire. The conclusion that living bodies carry fire doesnt seem so far fetched given the loss of heat after death. This transfer of heat reflects the larger entropic process of the cosmos at the human scale, with which we use to measure and understand the passing of heat as the passing of time. However, this is deceptive. What is thought of as time is only a human perception of being in motion. One more irreversible step toward cosmic heat death.

Around the same time Heraclitus was playing with fire, what would later be called Daoist philosophy began to take shape somewhere near the Yellow and Yangzi rivers. Laozi and Heraclitus may have each had a foot in two separate rivers at that moment. “We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.” claimed Heraclitus, recognizing a unity of opposites in flux similar to the eternal flow of existence of dao, which Laozi spoke of.

This flow is reflected in mycelia and the fibrous threads of their neural networks. Peter McCoy likens mycelia to dark matter, with its largely unnoticed (or ignored) communication with other lifeforms and nutrient transferal throughout an ecosystem. This chthonic cloud-brain of sorts is fundamental to maintaining the health of their surroundings: stimulating both decomposition and recomposition. Hyphae are the branching ends of mycelial fibers, each autonomous and interconnected to the larger organism.

Laozi’s claim: “all things end in the Dao as rivers flow into the sea,” gives a visual example of li, an ancient Chinese concept of the eternal flow exemplified through natural patterning. Allan Watts put it this way:

The interesting thing is, that although we all know what it is, there is no way of defining it. Because dao is the course, we can also call li the watercourse, and the patterns of li are also the patterns of flowing water. We see those patterns of flow memorialized, as it were, as sculpture in the grain in wood, which is the flow of sap, in marble, in bones, in muscles.

The phenomena of mushroom growth stimulated by the branching pattern of lightning strikes has long been known among various cultures, and shown through scientific studies.

Like their human counterparts Heraclitus and Laozi, mycelia challenge the subject/object divide: promoting consistency and change, life and death: both/and. Its no surprise that mushrooms would be linked to Hecate, goddess of liminality, crossroads, and ghosts (not quite dead, not quite living).

Having little to live on, one knows better than to value life too much.” – Laozi

U.G. Krishnamurti claims the fear of death is the fear of an end to continuity. An end to linear perception of time reveals it for what it is: perception. After a handful of interviews, Im still unsure if U.G. is an absolute idealist (mind is all that exists), or eliminative materialist (mind does not exist). Certainly they are an extreme skeptic (mind is all we can ever know).

I feel there is a correlation between teleology, linear perception of time, and obsession for control. This seems to be a deep attribute of western logic that has amplified throughout modernity. The root of this logic may be the fear of acknowledging, understanding, or coming to terms with decomposition. This logic often exhibits a lack of intercourse between life and death: exchange between the living and the dead prevalent in cultures who have not fully adopted this thinking. Perhaps this fear is related to what Eugene Thacker describes as the horror of cosmic indifference, or the world-without-us perspective. This horror is a response to exposing the limit of human thought and existence.

David Beth proposes this fear is rooted in the subject/object divide: separating the observer from the observed. They claim a profound alienation results from this divide present in transcendental frameworks. The quest for transcendence outside lived experience stems from a lack of meaning yearning to be filled. This pursuit of external spirit in idealism is similar to the process of reductive scientism in materialism. Both make efforts to downplay the embodied phenomena of lived experience, and resist a holistic engagement with both life and death. Both prioritize either/or over both/and. Once possessed by this spirit or external truth, one desires to possess in turn. This is seen in many human relationships: the desire to possess another is the desire to maintain an ideal. Overemphasizing rational analysis leads to seeing utility in all forms: natural resources where there were once trees. This transcendent spirit emits from a central source. An authoritative one distributes power to the nearest many, devaluing outliers.

Similar to the Daoists, Beth argues in order to overcome this possession we must: break the habits of linear perception and subject/object division, reject the societal status quo that opts for mechanical predictability over the changing flow of existence, and embrace phenomenal life instead of striving after the carrot of transcendental value at the end of a stick. Perhaps learning from mushrooms and other fungi could be of value here.

Lastly, this fear of death brings to mind Max Stirner’s suggestion: “If [they are] dealing only with staying alive, and thinks, ‘if only I have dear life,’ [they don’t] apply [their] full strength to using, i.e., enjoying, life. But how does one use life? By using it up, like the candle, which one uses by burning it. … Enjoyment of life is using life up.