ANTIsocial Society : Alone. Together.

This is NOT a story, think more along the lines of blog entry.

Given that I am a self-proclaimed deity of the ANTIsocial Society I stand to be forgiven for the utter lack of care in which this piece will be presented. It will be haphazard, eccentric and probably very confusing for some - while it will simultaneously make perfect sense and be an affirmation of everything others would have already thought of countless times, without ever airing it out in this sort of format. No matter the case, hopefully by the end of this piece, the not-so-valued reader will be able to find value in themselves and the author will be closer to realizing what exactly his antisocial worldview is about.

Firstly, this whole business about worldviews is one that I tend to avoid because it is something that may not have as much relevance as most people tend to give it. This term is defined as "1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group". Well, that's the definition according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - which I happen to be partially skeptical of, but am nonetheless willing to use in the context of this writing.

Now back to the piece, one may not have an overall perspective in which one sees the world. Now, before you express your outrage and stop reading at this point - watch my words; I said one may not have an overall perspective in which one sees the world, however, that doesn't mean that they don't see the world at all. This is the point where the claim gets controversial: one may have many points of view, one see many worlds - basically a single worldview may not necessarily house all of one's cognitive perceptions of the universe. For instance, we know a wide array of people, with different worldviews and in turn, they influence us to varying degrees - is it really possible to say that someone who is exposed to many social circles and other outlets of knowledge (that will definitely influence their way of seeing the world) has just a single way of seeing everything? There is a saying that so goes "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", so if one is with a specific set of friends or people, it seems rather impractical that they will have the same mindset and purport the same sort of views when with another group of people with evidently different worldviews and beliefs in comparison to the first one.

Another factor this concept blatantly overlooks is that of errors in perspective. What about all our false perceptions? Better yet, what of our imagined perceptions; do they too form part of the universe? If one was convinced that they live with weird green aliens on the planet Namek, and based all their interactions with other human beings on this deluded worldview, would that worldview still hold weight? Would an inaccurate view of the universe, or one created in a state of make-believe really be relevant for the person holding it, in spite of a seemingly obverse reality? If you answer no, then you ought to be in agreement that they are not as necessarily relevant as many psychologists would make them out to be. However, you may argue that a majority of human beings aren't actually mentally ill so most people can't find themselves stuck in a perpetual delusion and therefore have an accurate worldview, meaning that the concept is relevant to them. If you choose to do so, you would be implying an inerrancy in the perspectives of every sane individual - basically, you'd be just as well saying that every single person who doesn't suffer from a mental problem knows every single thing they know for a fact. This is quite evidently not true - there are lots of things that may be unbeknownst to one which contradict their apparent knowledge of such. Basically, to have an entirely accurate worldview, one would have to have no false beliefs about anything - which is quite evidently impossible, as at least some things can not be verified as true, and the rational thinker ought to consider these with prudence as untrue (even if not necessarily false). If there are some inaccuracies about the way in which even the sane man sees the world, then the net effect of the situation is that the primary worldview of the sane man would be flawed much like that of the madman. If one has a flawed 'weltenshauung' then surely it should not matter for much - except as jargon among certain circles to explain certain behaviors.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get back on course. I started this piece hoping I'd get at least some way to explaining my espousing of antisocial tendencies and what exactly is meant when one says they are part of the "ANTIsocial society". This craze began quite a while ago, ironically enough on a social network. In some time during the year of 2013, three adolescents became aware of their association via facebook. Of course, their interaction was atypical - which lead to one noticing that they had actually bypassed the traditional limitations of facebook etiquette by disregarding it completely in their statements and actions. He coined the term to describe this association as the ANTIsocial Society.

This was based on the observation which showed that their behavior was not in accordance with a large proportion of their other "friends" on facebook. Their posts were filled with obscure references to avant-garde literature and decidedly anti-mainstream music; random banter mixed with intensely philosophical contemplation; and general trolls, sarcastic squibs, rants and all sorts of inappropriate things to say on social networks. To further lament this budding new idea, these three dudes ended every post with a one common slogan: "ANTIsocial Society: Alone. Together." Of course, there were detractors who displayed great ire against their seemingly nonsensical statements and growing levels of non-conformity elicited by the trio at various points. But they held firm to their alleged beliefs (or lackthereof) and now here I am writing about this.

Now, this is actually interesting because being an exponent of some of the views they aired, I realized that the concept of an antisocial society may very well be feasible in reference to many social circles. The three young men, firstly, did not identify with each other as an association or group or even a collective. They purported egoistic sentiments, sometimes even based on a mild solipsism. They seldom held the same views, at the same time - in fact, they were more often interlocutors than in agreement. The startling factor here is that of how exactly they managed to coexist and form a "society" even though they were each ridden with quite evident antisocial tendencies.

As a distaste for the "ANTIsocial Society" grew in proportion with a fascination, it became a matter of great confusion as to what exactly it means to be 'ANTIsocial'. Why were these clowns saying they're antisocial on a social network? Why did they refute more banal ideas and in turn, air out their various eccentricities for everyone to see, albeit while claiming to not want to be seen, or better yet - that they don't exist to be seen? All I can make of this blatantly self-contradictory behavior is that there was indeed a greater purpose that perhaps most people could not quite grasp.

The ANTIsocial Society is quite obviously a proponent of paradox culture which is a reply to the mainstream culture ascribed by the masses. Being different is not the aim, but the by-product. The most important and defining feature of identifying with the Society is individuality. Before having a "worldview" incorporating other people and things, there has to be an individual to perceive and process these perceptions - the growing groupthink espoused by society almost strips the individual from being just that, by creating norms which everyone should abide by. The whole point of the ANTIsocial Society is to reject this view and in essence retain self-determination. It's not about breaking rules - its about being the one who makes them for yourself, and not simply falling into the various categories made by society. Its about defying perceptions and ways of thought which create and/or are based on stereotypes - we don't have to be consistent with what the different parts that make us up as people (specifically the idea of being people) dictate. Whose to say that people with specific types of diction/accents must live accordingly to what stereotypes go with that diction/accent? On what sound premise is the belief that someone who is of a certain type of skintone will look and act a certain type of way, based?

As much as it doesn't make sense, these are the very nuances that plague mainstream society. This is the socialization that being ANTIsocial ridicules. We should not judge books by their covers or even their words, but the ideas that they give - yet, more often than not, the norm-driven ways of society take the shortcut instead of really getting to know people, aside from the most basic symbols that we perceive to represent the type of people they are. Basically, society in itself is antisocial. Society as a whole shuts out people that are different and not necessarily collectivized into it's worldview...that doesn't sound like a very friendly thing to do for an organ based on creating sustainable communal association. Also, most members of modern contemporary society seem to be antisocial to each other in real life because of the proliferation of social networks. People no longer talk to each other or even identify with those from within the same social group - how can there then be a reasonable consensus as to what ought to constitute acceptable social conduct by such a society?

The ANTIsocial Society seems to have made evident the ironies that confound the basis of society and its collective worldview. According to this "organization", the paradoxes that make up life ought to be embraced rather than downplayed, as they make for a way more interesting world which one understands that they may never understand - they can only live. As such I am decidedly ANTIsocial and I am alone in this world, together with other people who are also alone. There really is no "we" in this disjointed unit, but Eye See You and the converse is also true - that way, all the respect and rights are afforded to those around me and on my very own terms. One may not necessarily say things that are usual, or even anything at all - but in freeing the Self to be as the Source of that Self had intended (free and sovereign unto itself) is worth more than simply fitting in.

Alone. Together.

Author's Note

Hit me up with whatever yo.

Reviews

[Dot]

Remarkable. Like some ethical force on loop, the view opposing the nature of the "collective entity" has seemingly sparked anew, and I would like to question just how popular you understand this "ANTIsocial society" to be precisely? I begin my response with the latter, for this idea is by no means unique nor new, for instance, at the turn of the 19th century there blossomed the philosophy of Existentialism, which then grew in popularity over the following decades. There then came - after the almost disbanding of Existentialism - the birth of "Objectivism", which in my opinion never gained a vast foothold due to its chosen period of emergence. It would seem, taking into account the history of such concepts, the massed worldview; the "collective essence" or "power of shared identity" if you will, always overpowers and surpasses these concepts, and I'm led to believe this is due to two reasons.

The first reason is the actual power that accompanies this "collective essence". It would be irrational to state that their lies little or no power in the collected opinion and passion of the masses, and it is the symbolic bulldozer of the majority that crushes all before it. It's impossible to ignore the masses, for - and if able to compact many into one - it combines to create a force of prodigious proportion with a singular shared value.

The second reason is the opposing force of the "collective essence"; the concept itself that emerges and its actual nature. Existentialism, Objectivism, and, I can assume, this "ANTIsocial society" also, all come about in attempt to express the power of the individual, which instantly disregard the value of collectivism. Bypassing the initial power of the masses that naturally oppose this view instantaneously, it is the core component of the concept that poses a threat; individualism, and the accompanying tenet of subjective worth. The concept leads on to defend one's own values and ideals, and while not necessarily deploring all others', one feels not such a need to express these values, for the values themselves exist, are perceived, and understood by the individual alone, and thus hold no worth upon all others'. The fatalistic component of these concepts arise when one who accepts these views as infallible and absolutely justified, argues - and one could say even mentions to another - that they believe this is the way all should live and strive towards, and that value comes only from subjective comprehension. This contradiction instantly destroys the concept, and it seems clear as to why; the subject, whom understands individual worth, expresses how others should live and perceive as he does, but in doing so does not acknowledge that he is attempting to place his own values into others, which, fatally, is OBjective. The same argument is said to exist against Solopsism; if one is truly a Solopsist and fully believes they are the only mind to exist, when then even bother to express to another what it is they believe? For would it not be the case that the "projection" of his mind would be he himself, and that the projection already knows the reason? My own opinion on Solopsism? I believe the philosophy does hold worth, but only in the dream world that exists between consciousness and unconsciousness; the environments I have traveled in exploring my subconscious have revealed to me the exact ideas Solopsism proposes - each character I encounter only a projection of my self, and, having experienced it myself, this - to me of course - is undoubtedly true considering a certain conversation I had with one.

I feel as though I should apologize for this short reply here, but there are many things here we could discuss here I'm sure, but I'm afraid I have not the time at the minute, but I would definitely love to talk more about certain subjects you bring up here, especially the questions you pose in the fourth paragraph. Superlative work here my friend, I cannot wait to read and, I hope, discuss more of your work.

[closed]

profound words. Continue to educate the uninformed masses through such revelations prophet