Anakardia Collectiveis creating formulas for reshaping the sensoria
Select a membership level
• in-depth polemical stuff, i.e. scandalous or softcore criticism of consecrated doxa
• essays on divergent positioning, i.e. a bird's eye view upon current false oppositions
concerned with instilling resilient frames for enhancing mental performance and personal growth.
- existential gridlocks and/or (un)necessary attitudinal cohesion ;
- spiritual or philosophical conundrums;
- techy tacklings;
- any other meddling of sorts.
(These discussions can be published on request or with the consent of our curious cats.)
Be it in the political or scientific arena, or in a wholly different realm, the ideal of implementing radical changes actually always rests on the illusion of making permanent a large - in itself unalterable - form full of substitutable content. This sort of self-image gives confidence in fast, ample changes. When they are generated, the unavoidable effect constitutes a deformation - both unforeseen and profound - of the most inclusive known form. The form becomes unrecognizable. This sort of experience is what's meant by the concept of ego-death (or ego-dissolution) or gains equivalent evaluations.
What then persists unaltered is that self-perception as invincible form with disposable content. The underlying problem doesn't just ooze away. The fact that it brings on novel problems encourages a mentality that treats these as unhackneyed challenges that pop up in the wake of overcoming a new level. Though what happens closely resembles a loop. When the perception of external summons arises, signalling that nothing has been transcended, it cannot be suppressed without critical costs to energy, as these would markedly be aimed at obviating the potentiality of changing the functional framework from surfacing to consciousness.
We navigate as researchers and practitioners through a set of disciplines whose most highlighted fields can be threaded back to the idea of mediating accesses between psychosomatic levers which offer themselves as toolkits for self-engineering.
The list of this fields may begin with archaeology or dietetics, it makes no difference. It could then end with media history and neurosciences. What's essential is that discoveries from such distant fields are to be connected & at the same time, the soundness of these connections is to be assured. Along this process, we maintain that the emergence of new scientific criteria becomes a possibility. What makes this viable to a large extent depends on our striving to consider the way biases, taken separately, tend to group themselves, unto the compass of their logical and empirically certifiable consequences and, as much as possible, within the architecture of the mechanisms behind them. Here we try to debate various theories by provisionally placing on the same theoretical level widespread ways of thinking both about in-built priorities and flexibility.
This finally brings us to the more appetizing side of our project. We value balance over direction, which is not to be understood as zero ethics, nor zero sacrifices. People are different. The idea is not to find a way for all/most of them, or for some specific groups, as groups are just groupings. It is to let pieces flow towards those desiring to self-train & train others according to their needs while continuing to train themselves in the process. The pieces (essays, articles, maps, interviews, interactive expositions) that we will let flow would be thus structured implicitly toward these goals. What would constitute the needs that we care about? We hope to show as convincingly as possible that needs are simply those impulses that, in contrast to other impulses, can undoubtedly not be made to cease without great potential costs for a larger system beyond whose existence we cannot retain even a small portion of the gear that constitutes a diverse, thus extremely creative, and thus greatly adaptative, memory.