qualiabyte

Nice, sushigoat explains his reluctance to identify as a “market" anarchist - so as to preserve conceptual space for emphasizing & exploring what we might like to think of as "non-market" modes of anarchist organization.

sushigoat:

Mutualism and Markets

As a mutualists, a socialist who’ll support markets under the condition that it is based on labor rather then the usual “making money of your money” deals you see under the present system of voucher feudalism, I don’t bother calling myself a “market anarchist”, unless I want to distinguish myself from the non-market anarchists, for several reasons:

- The most obvious thing is that it’s a term most connected to “anarcho-capitalism”. Now, even though I’m in no way afraid of anarcho-capitalism, and think that if they were consistent in the Lockean property rights they would reject the present property system and capitalist structures all-together like agorists and a huge chunk of the left-Rothbardians have, I do not want to be connected with the groups general ideals, means, ends, ethical framework, cultural values, economics and all that jazz. They embody every thing I hate about American large-L Libertarianism.

Check out my non-primary blog, dedicated to the idea of deep consent! 
deepconsentualism:

Deep Consentualism
So, I wanted to make a graph illustrating the concept of consentual depth, and a few key types of interaction that can result.
“Consentual” and “non-consentual” interactions embody the typical, binary sense of consent, perhaps including permission or agreement as indicated by an act of expression.
“Aconsentual” interactions reflect the absence of either explicit consent or non-consent. It suggests a sense in which consentuality can be thought of as tri-valued (at least), and hints at consentuality as partially a knowledge-problem.
“Barely-consentual” and “nearly non-consentual” are interesting cases near one of two “thresholds of expression”, points at which felt (non-)consentuality and other situational factors lead one to (in some way) express the affirmation or denial of consent.
“Deeply consentual” and “deeply non-consentual” represent the sort of interaction where the desire to consent (or not) is particularly strong. Such interactions are experienced as exceptionally satisfying (or upsetting), perhaps in multiple or very meaningful aspects.
A few notes
With “bare-consentuality”, consent is given but the person’s desire to give consent just barely passes the threshold of expression.
With “near non-consentuality”, one may perceive a felt desire to explicitly deny consent to an interaction, but the feeling is not quite strong enough for this to be expressed.
These two cases are interesting because adopting a binary conception of consentuality may lead us to overlook the potentially vast difference in quality of experiencing a “deeply consentual” interaction and a “barely consentual” one.
Even worse, a “nearly non-consentual” experience may be mistaken as being “consentual” if implicit consent is assumed.
Indeed, the entire range between “nearly non-consentual” and “deeply consentual” may collapse (in a person’s mind) to a single undifferentiated state.
Why it matters
Deep consent doesn’t (usually) just arise by itself, or accidentally!
Especially in non-trivial, ongoing interactions (like a conversation, relationship, or social arrangement), our needs are both complex and changing; subtle and intense. Thus, consentuality benefits from the continual feedback of empathy for needs, feelings & will; balanced flexibly between oneself & others.
Such empathy often involves one’s conscious intent, both actively willed into focus for the moment and honed as a integrated skill over time.
Considering humanity in our current state, both opportunities and limitations can be found for the idea of deepening the degree of consentuality experienced by conscious beings.
For now, it may be hard to imagine every relationship, interaction, or situation becoming one we would consider ‘deeply consentual’.
Often we lack the resources, energy, or skill - or perhaps the consciousness or will. Entering one consentual relation may require setting another opportunity aside.
Luckily though, what we can do is simply be curious about how deeply we and others are experiencing each situation as a consentual one - and, when it seems worthwhile and not too overwhelming, go ahead and try making it at least a bit more satisfying in this way.

Check out my non-primary blog, dedicated to the idea of deep consent! 

deepconsentualism:

Deep Consentualism

So, I wanted to make a graph illustrating the concept of consentual depth, and a few key types of interaction that can result.

“Consentual” and “non-consentual” interactions embody the typical, binary sense of consent, perhaps including permission or agreement as indicated by an act of expression.

“Aconsentual” interactions reflect the absence of either explicit consent or non-consent. It suggests a sense in which consentuality can be thought of as tri-valued (at least), and hints at consentuality as partially a knowledge-problem.

“Barely-consentual” and “nearly non-consentual” are interesting cases near one of two “thresholds of expression”, points at which felt (non-)consentuality and other situational factors lead one to (in some way) express the affirmation or denial of consent.

“Deeply consentual” and “deeply non-consentual” represent the sort of interaction where the desire to consent (or not) is particularly strong. Such interactions are experienced as exceptionally satisfying (or upsetting), perhaps in multiple or very meaningful aspects.

A few notes

With “bare-consentuality”, consent is given but the person’s desire to give consent just barely passes the threshold of expression.

With “near non-consentuality”, one may perceive a felt desire to explicitly deny consent to an interaction, but the feeling is not quite strong enough for this to be expressed.

These two cases are interesting because adopting a binary conception of consentuality may lead us to overlook the potentially vast difference in quality of experiencing a “deeply consentual” interaction and a “barely consentual” one.

Even worse, a “nearly non-consentual” experience may be mistaken as being “consentual” if implicit consent is assumed.

Indeed, the entire range between “nearly non-consentual” and “deeply consentual” may collapse (in a person’s mind) to a single undifferentiated state.

Why it matters

Deep consent doesn’t (usually) just arise by itself, or accidentally!

Especially in non-trivial, ongoing interactions (like a conversation, relationship, or social arrangement), our needs are both complex and changing; subtle and intense. Thus, consentuality benefits from the continual feedback of empathy for needs, feelings & will; balanced flexibly between oneself & others.

Such empathy often involves one’s conscious intent, both actively willed into focus for the moment and honed as a integrated skill over time.

Considering humanity in our current state, both opportunities and limitations can be found for the idea of deepening the degree of consentuality experienced by conscious beings.

For now, it may be hard to imagine every relationship, interaction, or situation becoming one we would consider ‘deeply consentual’.

Often we lack the resources, energy, or skill - or perhaps the consciousness or will. Entering one consentual relation may require setting another opportunity aside.

Luckily though, what we can do is simply be curious about how deeply we and others are experiencing each situation as a consentual one - and, when it seems worthwhile and not too overwhelming, go ahead and try making it at least a bit more satisfying in this way.