Archive for the ‘nazarita goldhammer’ Category

by Dr. Kevin Boileau, PhD, JD & Nazarita Goldhammer, scientists and psychoanalysts

We dedicate this prolegomenon to all the primates that human beings have savagely harmed, abused, neglected, and forced into servitude or imprisonment, both past and present. We hope that wiser humans will follow and support this prolegomenon with an actual primate rights bill that would become federal law in the United States, and that would influence similar laws around the planet Earth.

It is recognized that all primates, including human beings, have a common
evolutionary origin even though each primate group has differentiated itself from the others, and even though the human group has differentiated to the greatest extent.

It is recognized that all primates have similar nervous systems and capacities for autonomy and suffering.

It is recognized that all primates have complex sets of interests, needs, and preferences, and that the recognition of natural rights protects these. Therefore, all primates and all primate groups have natural rights.

It is recognized that the very existence of a primate group implies that it has the natural right to continue to live free from interference from this living by human primate groups.

It is recognized that the ignorance of disrespect for these natural rights causes serious harm to primate individuals and groups; to nature as a whole; and to human beings.

It is recognized that the respect for the natural rights of all primate groups is inextricably tied to the respect for the natural rights of all human primates.

Part 1

This prolegomenon applies to all beings who are in the class of primates.

We recognize that there has been a historical evolution in the conceptual and legal distinction between personhood and property. For example, we recognize people of certain race, color, age, who have long suffered invidious discrimination, including African Americans, women, children, the disabled, laboratory fetuses, and we recognize that non-human sentient animals such as primates have also been affected and harmed by this distinction.

For example, in some states, dogs are viewed as cash crops, treated no differently from oranges. We also recognize there is an analysis on the moral plane, in which non-human sentient animals have the same relevant, moral characteristics as human beings, but who have also been treated dissimilarly. For example, the class of beings called primates, which includes but which is not limited to orangutans, bonobos, monkeys, chimpanzees, who are individually autonomous, who are capable of suffering and who are aware of their suffering, are treated differently from human primates. There is a historical and analytic component to this understanding of a system of morality, which includes dimensions of the social, political and scientific that treats similar cases dissimilarly. This is the very definition of injustice.

This prolegomenon focuses on this injustice and this analytically illogical treatment and historically illogical treatment of non-human, sentient primates. Its various provisions both separate and collective, intends to correct this injustice by promulgating proto-federal law that protects the rights and the interests of all primates to be free from physical and psychological harm and, moreover, mandates an actual responsibility and requirement that human beings acknowledge, promote, and serve the best interest of all primates in the world today whether they are living in the wild, in a research facility, in any other government organization, in a private home, or in any other place.

It is important to point out that these natural and legal rights of primates do not depend on whether they are considered to be persons or not. The status of persons is based on a Kantian moral system in which rights and duties are considered to exist together, correlatively. This means that for a person to have rights he must also have duties. Given that primates do not have duties it is supposed that they cannot have rights. Therefore, they cannot be persons. However, in the bill that we promulgate here, the natural and legal rights of primates do not depend upon this system of correlative rights and duties. Instead, the foundation is that natural rights come from the faculty of autonomy, sentience, and the potential to suffer. This does not depend upon the assignment of the status of personhood.

It should be absolutely clear that we recognize both natural and legal rights of all primates, including but not limited to human beings because there are no morally relevant differences between one type of primate and any other type of primate given that they all are capable of autonomy, sentience and suffering.

Human rights declarations focus only on the natural rights of human beings, but they ignore the natural rights of other primates to be free from harm and to pursue a natural life pattern as part of a vital role in all eco-systems; to enjoy the common faculty of autonomy, choose life plans, and seek shelter, comfort, and adequate food; and to live amongst their own species in nature family groups. From these natural rights, which are no different from the natural rights of human beings—save the desire to form nation states and human laws—we hereby promulgate the following legal precepts that will protect, serve and foster the natural rights we hereby acknowledge. It is our goal to produce several successive iterations of this proto-law, with the intent that its principles eventually be promulgated as United States federal law.
Part 2

If we compare the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights we can see that they make assumptions that the beings to be protected have natural rights. According to the documents, these rights come from having certain characteristics and then are promulgated by fiat. The methods are exactly the same: certain characteristics lead to natural rights. In the case of human rights, non-human animals are ignored. In the case of animal rights, humans are ignored.

We can see, however, that there is no relevant difference between human primates and other sentient beings who are classified as primates. Logically, this requires us, therefore, to include all sentient beings within an account of rights even though we have not yet done so historically. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the “UDHR,” calls attention to certain features of human beings, such as “inherent dignity,” “equal and inalienable rights,” a “right to life, liberty, and security,” a right not to be “subjected to torture or to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment,” and a “right to freedom of movement.” These speak of a high valuation of human beings that comes just from their identity as humans. It comes from our natural conceptions about human life and our recognition that we must protect important values and goods. In the case of humans, we simply agree that human life is valuable, attaching various positive terms to this valuation. It is a pronouncement by fiat.

In this process we ignore other sentient life, tacitly agreeing that other life is not important enough to include in various statements about natural rights. Historically, animals have not been thought to deserve inherent rights, only gaining value in terms of their instrumental value to humans (which, by the way, Immanuel Kant acknowledges). Yet this does not mean that animals do not have inherent dignity just like humans, or any of the other protections that are listed above. Let’s consider what could account for this.

Historically, we understand that the kind of self that we have created valorizes the development of the autonomous self in which each of us lives in the world in terms of his own mental categories. In this tradition we approach Others in terms of our own subjective interpretation of meaning and analyze Others relative to what we already know. It is an appetitive approach in which we consume Others by reducing them to the same cognitive categories of our own minds and experience.

This is an anthropological mistake that operates both between humans and also between humans and other sentient beings. More specifically, it operates between humans and other primates. We have seen how this anthropological mistake operates in an intra-human context. Now, let’s explain how it works when we consider other sentient beings. First, in a humanism of the “I,” this masterful, egocentric self tries to dominate everything in its path, which closes the natural capaciousness of consciousness into a direction that ends in destruction and horror. This is the consciousness that callously disregards the interests of all animals, most humans, and many primates. You see, just because we come to idolize the ideals of humanism we fall into a self-deception about the praxis. Upon inspection, we see that humans don’t actually do very well in meeting the demands set forth in a universal declaration of human rights because we don’t often protect the inherent and natural dignity of other humans. This is the state of consciousness that is selfish, egocentric, violent, and narcissistic. Yet, unfortunately, the discussion stops at the borders of the human and all consideration for other sentient beings is lost. It appears very clear that the structure of consciousness in egocentric narcissism by humans toward other humans, is exactly the same structure in behavior by humans toward animals. It is the very same egocentrism that causes a human to act violently toward another human that also causes him to preclude animals from a statement of natural rights and therefore, to give implied permission for their instrumental use and violent death. This is the psychological structure that we overcome in an interpretation of our human anthropology.

A secondary argument that accomplishes the same goal involves rationality. The argument has often been made that because animals cannot reason they are of lesser ontological worth than humans. However, this very type of consciousness bleeds back into intra-human affairs in which we subtly come to believe that the more “rational” one is the more he or she is worth. Thus, humans with severe birth defects in which their cognitive abilities are seriously impaired are implicitly viewed as having less value than those with normal or superior abilities (especially in a utilitarian moral system). The defective human (and this extends to those in prison, those who have menial jobs and the like) and the animal rate lower in value than those humans who have better rational capacities. It is a specious argument, and its consequences only serve to fuel the perennial “war of all against all” in our civilization. This is Thrasymachus’s position in the Republic, which Plato shows all too easily cannot serve as a foundation for justice. Moreover, in a derivative way, we can also see how this very same structure of consciousness is foundation to the neglect, abuse, and destruction of the environment. A trans-humanist foundation that treats like cases in like manner amongst the full spectrum of primates challenges this way of thinking.

For purposes of this bill, we will focus on humans and other sentient beings, and leave the environment in general to another day. We shall also leave to another day the definitions of sentient being, animal, and those creatures who/that do not achieve such a denomination. As far as the natural rights of humans go, we engage in a great deal of deception. It seems clear that the notion of [equal] human rights becomes more of something to say—to use in a manipulative way—than to actually practice. Perhaps this stems from a true lack of the ontological parity thesis, the result of which leads to violence toward any Other. In short, there is no basic ontological difference between humans and any other feeling animal that would lead to different moral treatment. We also believe that the exclusion of animals from a bill of natural rights comes from the same thinking that creates a bill of rights for humans but that does not actually respect it. There is also a third argument that does not have any convincing effect whatsoever. This is the argument that in order to have rights one must have duties, for this is what creates a reciprocal system. It is, instead, the case that there are many people who have rights but who are not capable of exercising duties. These people are the elderly and the mentally or physically infirm. Thus, it makes no sense to distinguish rights on this basis, and to conclude that because non-human animals cannot enter into the rights-duties system they don’t have rights. In effect, this continues the “might makes right” mentality and does not get us to a better position than the very narcissistic, egocentric state of mental development. Let us, therefore, leave this dimension and move to the phenomenological aspect that we can articulate through a discourse about solidarity. As a bridge to this discussion, however, we offer an idea about a new foundation for rights for both humans and animals that emerge from a common root. This is the root of life. This is vivantonomy, a new concept that expresses a new human anthropology and a new understanding of the place of humans on the planet Earth. This is a reconstituted humanism.

In the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights it is stated “that Life is one, all living beings having a common origin and having diversified in the course of the evolution of the species”; “that all living beings possess natural rights”; [and further in the Preamble] “that the respect of humans for animals is inseparable from the respect of man for another man.” The declaration goes on to specifically delineate 14 articles that address the notion that animal rights and human rights come from the more primordial dimension of life itself. We have seen how humans have developed a declaration of human rights from the notion of natural rights, although animals and the environment are excluded. In this declaration for animal rights, we recognize a great diversity in living creatures, and specifically acknowledge that each of one has natural rights. These rights come from the sole fact of being alive, and participating in a wondrous, complex eco-system if you will, but more than that, representing a different facet of the interrelatedness of all living beings. We can see that a declaration of human rights that bases its strictures on notions of natural rights cannot escape the fact that natural rights also belong to other sentient beings. Our problem is that we have either neatly ignored or forgotten this fact. or we have callously disregarded it (both a product of the ego-centric mind). We have prepared the reader to overcome these limitations through the provisions of the bill.

Part 3

There are many species of beings that we humans will never see, and many that are in our daily ecosystems that we choose not to see. Yet, they are there—here—rather, constantly watching, looking, appealing—usually to us humans. We don’t see them because our own systems of value are informed by our narcissism: our egocentrism. This type of consciousness therefore closes itself in on itself, not seeing other life, other humans, and our very selves. This is the possessory, dominating subjectivity that instrumentalizes all others, and even in a system indoctrinated by rights and duties, fails to see the Other’s world on its own terms, as its unique manifestation. Here are the 6 axioms that underwrite an understanding of the principles of the natural and legal rights of primates:

First, we must dismiss the notion that humans are better, of more worth, or higher on a value scale. We must substitute it with a new axiom of ontological parity.

Second, we must agree that in principle that most of us have little knowledge about the whole: about how all beings, processes, and structures work together in an ecosystem. We substitute it with a new axiom of rigorous inquiry.

Third, we must accept a new Archimedean point. We cannot pretend to be at the center of the universe or the planet earth. This means that we must render an accounting of all life forms, including ours, holding that all living beings have equal interests and rights. We must, therefore, have an axiom that recognizes we play a part in the whole but are not the whole, and that we must mediate and weigh our interests relative to those of other life forms. If we do conclude that we are the center of the planet then we must reject our species narcissism and our hubris, and replace it with a strong sense of responsibility to all other life forms and to all other primates and primate groups.

Fourth, we must recognize that all life forms come from the same source. This leads us to the reconstituted notion of solidarity. This is a trans-human notion that includes all other life forms equally with the human.

Fifth, we must acknowledge and accept a new depth and breadth of our responsibility to others, including humans, other sentient life forms, additional life forms, and the environment in general.

Sixth, we must work diligently to formulate and articulate a new philosophical anthropology for human beings. This means we must strive for new meaning and understanding of the world and our place within it. This is neither the autonomous subject nor the heteronomous subject but it is a new human. This re-formulates the reality principle. Here are the 31 articles of this Prolegomenon, followed by a philosophical exegesis of their foundation.


Dr. Kevin Boileau & Nazarita Goldhammer

Read Full Post »

September 13, 2016: Vivantology and Non-Violence: Introduction


Good morning everybody. This is your host, Kevin Boileau, at EPIS Radio, fighting his way through the studio to emerge as himself and the host of this show.  I’m here. It’s September 13, 2016, and it is 11:30 in the morning, Central Time, in the U.S. of A.


I’m pleased to announce that we’ve started production of two volumes of radio conversations concerning design, architecture, innovative thinking in self structure related to design, and I’m looking forward to our production staff fighting their way to the finish line of those two volumes.


I’m pleased to announce that today, which is September the 13th, 2016, we’re starting a whole new block of shows on some new concepts, very creative concepts, the most creative, innovative, and it’s a frontier, and in a frontier, anything goes. Certainly, in brainstorming and considering and thinking, and that’s the beauty of doing this sort of media. Frankly, you know, when you sit down and write a book or something like that, there’s a certain thinking process that goes on, even if it’s deeply theoretical, or if it’s literature, obviously, very creative. There’s something unique about radio, that you listen to yourself talk and (then) talk with another person, possibly interview somebody. It is a really different experience. I’m bringing attention to it because we’re embarking on some new thinking, right, wrong, good, bad, or otherwise, and the thinking comes out of a book we published last year—I think it was last year—called Vivantonomy: A Transhumanist Phenomenology of the Self, which is in our ZeroPoint series, 2015.


I’ve been told that we have a couple of other books that we’re getting ready to release some time in the next six months. One is called Killbox. Of course, we have our 2016 journal. We have a book on the work of Henry Elkin, a great existentially-oriented psychoanalyst, so we’re looking forward to having those books released somewhere toward the end of the year, January-ish, something like that. So, stay tuned, enjoy the fall, and we will have those books released.


So, in “vivantonomy,” which is the naming of life, the denomination of life, we take issue with and quarrel with a certain kind of way of being in the world that comes from the Enlightenment. It is an aggressive, acquisitive self-structure. It’s how we relate to ourselves, how we relate to others, how we relate to the Earth, how we relate to things in the relationship between being and having, how we treat all other human beings, and by and large, there is a greedy, possessive element to it.


We’re just, by the way, just setting some ideas today. This is going to be 40 shows and possibly 50, so we’re going to ramble a little bit in the beginning so as not to unduly sediment the road ahead, but we do want to bring forward certain important ideas. One of them is [the concept of] human anthropology. What I mean by that is how are humans, human? How are we being humans? How does that manifest in how we treat those around us? I believe Nazarita Goldhammer is on her way in a limousine to the studio and if the limousine shows up in time I’m going to get her on the show and we’ll start dialoguing with her about these concepts.


The title of the show is Vivantology, which means the “logos of life.” So obviously very related to the naming of life, is the logos of life. Logos is how things work, how we can understand things, a basis for meaning. It obviously involves naming, and so it’s called Vivantology and Non-Violence. We want to take on a long-term dialogue about this human anthropology, the effects of this human anthropology on other sentient beings, including other humans and other primates, other animals, all living beings, all living things, all living systems, and we want to start introducing in this dialogue the concept of non-violence, both violence and non-violence, which is a very interesting topic. We must define violence. We must define non-violence.


Let me give you a couple of preliminary thoughts. More and more people in my experience are concerned that human beings are destroying the planet. We have tons of evidence now about how [there is] in some cases irremediable pollution, where we have destroyed waterways. They’re unsafe. You can’t even be on them let alone use them. We have very clear quantitative evidence about numbers of species that have recently gone extinct. They’re gone. There are no more. There are no more members of certain species. There are many other species that are critically endangered because of human encroachment. It’s not because of anything the animals are doing. It’s because of what we’re doing. Some people argue that we’re in the sixth great extinction. There are debates about whether this is true and there are debates about the degree, but some people believe that up to 75% of the current species will go extinct within the next century or less time. We see this now with African elephants. It will be a miracle to save them. It may be that saving them means that there will be a couple of thousand in one or two highly protected, quarantined parks in Africa. That’s it. It’s unbelievable. The grizzly bear population is very small, the wolf population is very small, the world population of tigers is very small, on and on, and from time to time we will give some of these facts because they’re important and you can’t argue with them.


So, in prior work we have pointed out something about how human beings are with each other, and that’s aggressive. You would do well to think about your own aggression, how it comes from your own anxiety and your own fear, and really think about why you are aggressive, and whether there is a better way. What goes along with aggression is violence. We can talk about aggression in sociology and aggression in psychoanalysis. We can talk about violence, which is the related term, violence. You could be aggressive to various degrees of violence. But what’s happening now is we’re seeing more and more evidence of violence in this way of life. [Also, there are] devastating effects of human violence on other humans, there are unbelievable levels of violence. Don’t we want to survive? Why would we be killing each other if we want to survive and flourish? It makes no sense.


The violence towards domesticated animals (animals that we have brought in from the wild, and then in some cases perpetrate harm on them) is to such a degree that is almost unimaginable. But there are subtle forms of violence, such as structural violence, hidden violence, and the violence that we become attuned to. It is like we become desensitized. So, for example, it’s legal to trap animals in heinous ways that cause an extraordinary amount of suffering. [It is] unbelievable. If you have any idea how much it hurts to be caught in a trap, and then when the trapper comes along they’re often very abusive and shameful towards that scared, trapped animal before they kill it, before they murder it. Another sentient being.


So, there’s something happening in the human pathology, there’s something going on in who we are as a species being. For some people, there’s a concern that this is getting worse, and a concern that we might end up being violent to such a degree that there will be a tipping point that we reach. Once you cross a tipping point, that means chances of recovering from it are almost zero. That’s the concern. I want to talk to Nazarita Goldhammer a little bit about violence. There’s going to be plenty of time to talk about non-violence and strategies to get there. We’re going to have many months to carry on that conversation. But let’s open a conversation about violence and what it means to be violent. Nazarita, are you on the show?


NG: I am. Can you hear me okay?


KB: I can hear you just fine. How about you, can you hear me okay?


NG: Yes.


KB: Fantastic. Okay. Fantastic. So here you are on the show, we talked about non-violent design recently. We’ve had conversations about human anthropology recently, and I’d like to get some of your initial thoughts about violence, non-violence, vivantology, how a science of life or a science of vivantology, a philosophy of life, really pushes up against the ways that we’ve been operating in the world for a long time. I’d like to ask you to explain to our listeners if you would some of your perspectives on this possessive, acquisitive, greedy self that we’ve developed out of the Enlightenment that gets so focused on taking, wrestling away, keeping, squirreling away. There’s a deep, competitive way of being, and I’d really like to hear your thoughts on that as we go forward in the conversation.


NG: Okay. This is, there’s a lot that I’ve been thinking of lately. It concerns humans. [the question] of which race I am, their duality perception, and their limited perception, like designing a relationship in aggression. What I’ve been thinking about lately is that it’s interesting that humans will destroy their own neighborhood, they’ll destroy their own food source, and if they were rational they would go destroy some other area. They wouldn’t destroy their backyard, but we tend to destroy our own backyard and then blame it on someone else. So, I’m looking at this kind of way that we are that we think that we’re trapped in a dualistic, nihilistic egotistical existence, where we think it’s okay to have destruction within our words, within our actions, within our relationships because there might be for the immediate gain. I’ve been reading a lot on water and grains and the way that people use water around the world. I was recently really struck by how people will destroy their own water table, their own source of water to make money in the moment, knowing that the consequences of that, in a very short time, [will be] to cause suffering. But it didn’t matter, because they would be suffering with everybody else [and] they were okay with destroying the immediate present to make a profit knowing that they were going to suffer. So, this really struck me, it struck me in terms of how humans think. For example, designing an environment. Sometimes people will do everything beautiful in their living room, but the back rooms are trash, [as if] there’s nothing good in them. They don’t care, but the public eye sees the living room and therefore they put all their money into this one part of their house to show other people that they’re good and yet the rest of their house is in shambles.


I believe that this is like everything else that we do. We want a source of food, we want to enjoy. There are people who, like me, don’t eat meat. I’m a vegan, but I know that people will enjoy meat for now, knowing that it is destroying the world and destroying the water tables, the grasslands. It’s killing other species, but they tend to enjoy what they have now, knowing that they will suffer in the future with everybody else for their own actions. I hope this gives you a view of what I’ve been thinking. I’m thinking of two things, and others. There’s a big story out now that porpoises obviously have a very complex language that “scientists” are discovering, and the reason that they didn’t discover it before is because they studied porpoises that were enclosed and of course they had nothing to say to each other because they were trapped but they found that they have complex communication with each other. Not just communicating about something, but normal, everyday talking conversations. It reminded me that there are humans who think that humans are the pinnacle of highest intelligence and growth and they just disparage animals and there are other people who think animals are the highest level of compassion and beauty but they disparage humans. I think that we must really start looking at (it’s called an equalization of our views) like why do we want to destroy the future with what we do now, like what is our motive to do that, why are we drawn to do that for immediate gain? We will destroy all possibility of the future and that’s intriguing.


KB: Well, excellent. Thank you. That’s an excellent start. A couple of other notions here, in a preliminary way, are to think about what’s sometimes called the autonomous self. [This is] because we’re really focused on self-structure, aren’t we? Isn’t that where we’re really focused here? Sure, because as people, it is how we wire ourselves. How we continue to rewire our plastic brains through culture and through individual decision-making that determines a kind of self and determines a kind of strategic decision-making positions, how we go, how we deal with things, how we deal with conflict. So, we have created this self that in the Enlightenment that is a kind of autonomous self who supposedly can think and make decisions, act upon the world and shape the world, and constitute meaning. The problem with that is it comes with a lot of negative qualities, baggage as it were. You end up with a social political system that valorizes competition, valorizes alienation, valorizes private property.


I’ll give you an example of that. The American appetite for hamburgers is so great that cattle ranchers can do almost anything they want to produce beef. That means they can, through various procedures, kill anything that comes on their land that threatens their beef production, whether that is a wolf, a coyote, or even wild horses. We’ve learned that the BLM, the U.S. government, has authorized, they’ve now authorized it, to kill 45,000 wild horses that were rounded up, 45,000, that they kidnapped, who they took away from their families. A lot of them died, and they’ve been holding them in pens, large pens, and they didn’t know what to do with them. They’ve never known what to do with them, from the get-go. Some of them have been illegally sold to slaughter, but they have taken these people, they’re horse people, from their lands where they’ve been for millions of years, and they’ve rounded them up because cattle ranchers want to ranch in these areas, so they want to lease land from the BLM, and they don’t want the horses there. That means these beautiful wild horses are going to be killed. It’s a perfect example of how human, this human, alienated, competitive, possessory human, destroys to get. We’re seeing it right now. I want my hamburger and I’m willing to pay for it, and then the cattle rancher goes out and produces it and they kill. They slaughter their cattle.


But the way it’s going, we’re going to see larger and larger and larger, mega, farms for cattle. We will never be able to keep up with it. The mathematics shows that we will not be able to feed the American population on a beef diet. We can’t do it. It won’t work. So, I predict that what’s going to happen is we’re going to keep producing more and more cattle, more and more beef. We’re going to kill anything that gets in its way, whether it be grizzly bear, wolf, horses. There’s going to be a lot of annihilation of other species, and of course the annihilation of all the cattle. We’re going to create an enormous amount of pollution through slaughterhouses. We already have. But it’s going to increase, it’s going to be an unbelievable amount of pollution that ends up in the waterways from slaughterhouses.


This is a perfect example of a violent way of life that comes about from a certain kind of human being. Of course, there have been theorists who have argued that we can change, that we don’t need to be that way, that we can see violence for what it is, that we can transcend that kind of acquisitive, ego-based, selfish, self-structure. It’s a selfish self-structure. We see theorists like Levinas, Buber, in some cases the very late Sartre, Gabriel Marcel, and these guys are not the only ones, but they’re very important thinkers [making these common points]., What we’re starting to understand is that we don’t live in a bubble, we don’t live in a vacuum, and that has been eye-opening for some people.


I’m one of those persons. I’m shocked at what we do. I’m starting to accept it so that I can help deal with it and help change. But what we have is people living in a bubble where they don’t realize what we’re doing. Then [there are] the very few of us who are starting to get glimpses of these horrendous outputs that we’re producing. It is a large task. But the truth is we can change the self. We can transcend the ego. We can correct a certain anthropological mistake, we can finally admit that capitalism doesn’t work. It really doesn’t.


Capitalism is a structure that is inciting really bad behavior. I mean, people raise dogs, they breed dogs from the time they’re puppies, as soon as they’re old enough to breed they breed them, and breed them, and breed them. Then they throw them into the garbage, for money. [They do this with] pit bulls or blood lions in South Africa [that they breed] to shoot. They breed lions to kill. Some people would say the way that we are being selves is going to result in our ultimate destruction and the destruction of everything else, along with it, and perhaps before. I think the issue about beef is one of them. We just simply can’t keep up with it. It takes too much water and too many resources to raise one cattle unit, just one. It doesn’t feed that many people. So, we’re spending more to produce than we get out of it. It’s a loss. I guess that’s the right way to put it. There’s a loss, an economic loss. So, we all know that if we’re constantly spending more than we make that eventually there’s going to be a tipping point, and then it’s all over. But some people just don’t realize that. You must, therefore, stay out of that tipping point. [This is] because once you’re there, even if business becomes good, you must just stop, move, and do something new.


So, we argue in our book Vivantonomy for a new kind of, a new standing of solidarity, and a new kind of responsibility. I just wanted to point out that there are fewer than 50,000 [wild] horses that exist in the United States. I just wanted to mention that, because what this means is if we kill the 45,000 that we’ve already imprisoned, we only have 5,000 left. What that means is the population is so low that we might not be able to protect it. I’m just now reading something here about Oregon mustangs, they were captured last Wednesday in a roundup. They’ll never run free again, they’ll never see their families again, and it’s unconscionable. It’s absolutely unconscionable.


I’ll give you another example. It’s part of this example. So, part of what the BLM was going to do was to implement a humane plan to sterilize these horses, but what they did instead was to create a way of sterilizing the horses. I’m going to describe it to you because this is an example of violence. What they do is a veterinarian reaches into a female horse’s vagina with a knife and makes an incision in the vaginal wall and manually twists and severs the ovaries with a tool with a chain on the end of it, which obviously causes bleeding and infection. This is unbelievable. We’re doing all of this to get rid of anything that would get in the way of cattle.


This is unbelievable to me. I mean there are 50,000 wild horses, and I’m harping on this because there are many, many examples of this, but it’s good to stay with one, because we’re doing this. It’s good to stay on this example because [it is important]. Sally Jewell is the Secretary of the Interior. Her phone number is (202) 208-3100. You could call her, actually, and tell her what you think. This is unbelievable [what the BLM is planning.] But we’re doing this across the board. [For example,] there are other people who want to build great big condos all around the Grand Canyon. Now, if we do that, we will kill 99% of the animals who live there. No question about it. We will end up polluting, we will end up polluting one of the most beautiful places in the world. This is unacceptable.


So Nazarita, and here’s another thing that’s going on in Korea and other countries: [In China] they’re breeding teacup puppies where they can almost fit in your hand, so that people can carry them to work and put them in their purses, and they’re now cutting them out by C-section before they’re even mature. They’re doing everything they can to make them these little designer dogs. This is madness, it’s utter madness, but this is what we’re doing. In our book Vivantonomy, Nazarita Goldhammer and I started developing several related concepts. One of them is solidarity, a new kind of a solidarity to where we don’t just have solidarity with our best friend, or with a spouse or a family or a community. [Instead], we have solidarity with life. In other words, we are so loyal to life, and we always promote life in such a way that we create this other concept. It’s a new level of responsibility, and it means that we become responsible for the responsibility of the other. That means not hurting somebody, not excommunicating them, not killing them, not being violent to them, but taking the responsibility to teach them. Teach them, train them, to help them learn things that they need to know. These interrelated concepts of solidarity and responsibility are very important for the development of a new anthropology that’s based on vivantology. So, I’m going to ask Nazarita Goldhammer if she would to dialogue with me a little bit about solidarity and a new kind of solidarity and this new level of responsibility. Nazarita?


NG: Yep. Yep. Yep. Solidarity and responsibility for the other. Those are deep, profound, important words that should have meaning to everyone. They should trigger some deep place inside of us that gives us a way to go forward as better humans, better people who are solid with each other that fight for things that are not right. I think we must start with something that says why do you have a view that you have? Where is your view from? Do you believe that you need to eat protein to be healthy? Do you believe that you have animal protein to be healthy? Where is that view from? There’s another view that came out in the news, today, this morning, and it’s how the sugar industry made some damning evidence of heart disease, linking sugar to heart disease disappear, and to blame it solely on saturated fats.


I know if you ask most Americans what they believe [about this] is that saturated fat is the cause of heart disease. Maybe sugar is linked to diabetes. Maybe, you know I think so, but they won’t really link it to heart disease because the sugar industry covered up this evidence and more importantly, they paid the researchers to skew the evidence. The person who was in charge of the skewed evidence became part of the food pyramid for the nation which everybody [now] believes. That’s why and when you’re really looking at what is your real belief, what do you think of solidarity, what do you think of the responsibility for the other?


Do you think “Oh, you know they’re Italian, I’m not responsible for them Italians, I’m only responsible for my ethnic group. That ethnic group is on their own. I’m not responsible for animals because God gave us mastery over all of them to use as we will, so we have to really look at beliefs, at desires, the way that we process information and we have to ask: “Where does this come from? Do we have beauty strips in our minds that we don’t really want to look at where something comes from?”


I just want to point out that there’s a big movement of humane treatment of animals so that we can eat them.  [Food industries are promoting the ideologies of] no hormones, no bad preservatives, [for example with] chicken. But what that means the person who raises the chickens can’t sell them in that way, cannot give any antibiotics so chickens [who] are sick and they can’t help them because people don’t want to buy antibiotic-filled chicken. So, I think we need to really look at the way we’re using the earth, [how]we’re using animals, [how] we’re using each other, and see that we are [in a mode of] anti-solidarity and we need to change that. We need to really look at what [is in] our hearts, really know what is really the future of our world. If we don’t change now I believe that we’re heading for the tipping point as you like to say and which is true and that we will never recover from, we will annihilate ourselves and everything else on the planet. We now have opportunities to choose what we’ll do.


KB: Let’s focus then on that responsibility that Nazarita Goldhammer is pointing out. We have just about three minutes left. I want to just talk about that responsibility and clarify that. In American jurisprudence, responsibility has always been that you can do whatever you want with your life if it’s lawful, if it’s not directly impeding on a legal interest of another person. Beyond that, responsibility may come from your ethnic group, your family, your culture, your religion, some other place, which is more informal. There’s no jail penalty if you violate it. You might be in trouble with your church or your family, and sometimes that can be severe, but in American jurisprudence we let people do whatever they want to do. We don’t have a notion of what I would call a strong version or a proactive, deep version of responsibility. We are advocating in our work a much deeper level of responsibility that is proactive, which means number one, I must be responsible for everybody else’s responsibility. I must make sure that everybody is doing what they’re supposed to do. That means I must reach out. I need to talk to people. I need to engage in critical dialogue with them in a kind way but [also] to challenge them. [I must] challenge, perhaps, their lack of the exercise of responsibility. I must challenge myself. It’s a way of deepening your self-structure, and the way we do that is by constantly challenging ourselves and rethinking the ways we approach others, rethinking the way we approach the world in general, and developing a new kind of self. Frankly, it’s a new kind of self.


What’s happening around us—and this is no joke—the amount of extermination and violence and eradication of life is huge. That’s part of what we’re going to be talking about over the next ten months, perhaps even a whole year, because what could be more important. We’ll see you next week. We’re going to talk about the six axioms presented in Vivantonomy just to get some concepts out on the table.


This is Kevin Boileau, your host at EPIS Radio, signing off and wishing you all a good week.

Read Full Post »

September 29, 2015 – Psychoanalytic Approach to Conflict Resolution

Good afternoon everybody, this is Dr. Kevin Boileau with EPIS Radio. Good afternoon. It is Tuesday. It is Tuesday, September 29th. September 29th. Yes, it’s the end of the month. September 29th, and it is 1 p.m. Mountain Time. It is noon on the west coast, in San Diego, it is 2 pm in Chicago, and it is 3 pm already in Florida. Excusez moi. When we come back at you next Tuesday, we will revert to our normal 10:30 a.m. scheduling time, and we apologize to all our listeners who had expected a 10:30 show. Here we are at 1 o’clock. As you know, all of our shows are archived in perpetuity. You can access them on your way home from the store, surfing on the west coast, flying back from your business trip to Texas, whatever you need to do.

We have concluded, at least for now, our work on the radio on trans-humanism and we’re going to shift gears for the rest of the fall, that means today, and October, November and December, and then we’re going to start a whole new block. We [will] have this block for the rest of the fall. It’s going to be on conflict resolution and psychoanalysis – a psychoanalytic approach to conflict resolution. In January, we aim to start a whole new block. So please enjoy the next twelve or thirteen weeks of programming.

Why is this important? Why are we doing this? Well, it’s because the human world is a mess. And yes it’s true that there are beautiful things, and yes it’s true that some human beings do amazing things. It’s also true that most human beings don’t. Most human beings are selfish; they live in their aggression cycles in their limbic brain system. They, in situations of difference or conflict, have a very difficult time moving into their cerebral cortex and searching for solutions that are positive and constructive for everybody involved. Today in the studio is one of our mediators at BCS [Mediation], Nazarita Goldhammer. She’s also the Director at the Existential Psychoanalytic Institute and Society. She was able to take just a few minutes from her busy work schedule to pop into the studio and make sure everything’s going well, just like a director is expected to do, even though we also expect directors to work well into the evening – that’s why they’re the directors. So we really appreciate very much that Miss Goldhammer could actually come into the studio today. Thank you, Nazarita.

What’s really motivating this show is an intense amount of research into dispute resolution design, which we’ve been doing for a number of years. And we’re eyeball-deep into that research. We’re studying game theory mathematics as it relates to applied psychoanalytic theory, phenomenology, both existential and transcendental, and critical theory. If you look around you, you’ll see that the way that people solve conflict is not always what we want. It’s not always ideal. You know, there’s the gun, the knife, the fist, the adversarial court action, the duel: they’re all the same. They’re about winners and losers, and this goes right along, hand in hand, with a competitive, capitalist, free market economy, which is killing the world. We have some people who have tens and tens of billions of dollars and can satisfy any whim they want to at any time, I mean literally, anything they want to do. We have other people who, today, will actually starve to death. They’ll starve to death because they don’t have enough food to eat. This is a huge problem. This is a huge justice issue. But even beyond the justice, the socio-political, the moral, is the economic. And in the economic, there is simply no way that this can continue. The disparities in wealth, the way that we’re murdering the earth, murdering non-human beings for food, is not sustainable. Just do the math. If you don’t believe me, go out and start doing the research and do the math. We are on a one-way ticket to oblivion.

And so part of this leads to a structuralization of our culture, of our societies, our communities, that fosters, and that means in an evolutionary way, promotes competition for goods that one person or one group gets and another person doesn’t get, or another group doesn’t get. So you can see all kinds of unrest that occur, also, in just a local level in the organizations that you’re a part of, or in your personal life, your social life. So we have these structuralizations in conflict resolution that when we look at it [them] from a game theory mathematics approach, rarely lead to both parties or all parties being satisfied. And it’s unfortunate because we miss the boat on a lot of these so-called resolutions.

So in our institute, we’re looking at other forms of design for dispute resolution. So we want to focus on psychoanalysis, phenomenology, critical theory – these interrogating disciplines that actually have a lot of merit and a lot of power to them. Mediation. I want to focus on mediation. I don’t want to focus on litigation directly, at least not right now. There is a psychoanalysis of litigation, to be sure, and there’s a psychoanalysis of any kind of structuralization of a dispute resolution process. So mediation has gone through the informal stage. It started to become professionalized and [is] called settlement mastering, or settlement agreements, [that] largely focused on the law. Again, [this is a] kind of a dogmatic substantive approach that was adversarial in nature, and once upon a time not so long ago, somebody came to a very clear idea that instead we should focus on what parties really want, what they think they want, what they need, to be sure, and what their preferences are, ranking some preferences; and then somehow put all those together in a creative algorithm, and create solution sets. And indeed, we have needs-based, or interest-based negotiation and mediation.

An even newer development is the transformative phase of mediation where people actually realize that their self systems are not static; they’re not sedimented. They can change; they do change; a person’s rankings of value in their life change. They go through lots of evolutions. And in a conflict situation, it’s a perfect time for a person to reexamine his or her value rankings, and possibly deliberately change their self-structure to something that’s more suitable to their future. And it’s also true that underlying this way of thinking is the challenge to the Cartesian translucent self –  this idea that somehow the mind is potentially translucent consciousness or that we can become fully aware if we have clear and distinct ideas if we use the right methodology. Freud comes along. Marx comes along. Nietzsche comes along. A lot of people come along and start attacking this notion.

Psychoanalysis is one of these attacks: the idea that the self is far more complicated than this translucence and that part of the self is unconscious, either by choice or other factors that we can get into as we go. And with this new philosophy of mind, it changes how we approach conflict resolution, how we approach litigation, how we approach mediation, because we start to see that people aren’t these fully moral agents who are aware of what they want; and instead we find that people are mostly unaware of what they want. And so in this new philosophy of mind we’ve got this unconscious set of forces; this unconscious level motivating a person towards thought, intentional structures, emotional experience, and then behavior in the world, and certainly behavior relationally, and certainly relational behavior that involves stepping into conflict in dealing with it.

In these conflict resolution approaches, the litigation format is trial. And there’s a due process discovery procedure, questions that are asked, and answers, and all of this evidence is blossomed and is delivered to a jury or a judge, a neutral decision-maker who makes a judgment. Mediation formats are all over the board now because mediation is in flux. We have arbitration which is more like a court system than mediation. We have reconciliation. We have conciliation, and perhaps there are even other designs and newer designs that we’re not aware of right now. But our institute, it’s called BCS Dispute Resolution Institute, studies, with mathematics and logic, the way people deal with their unconscious motivations, their anxiety, their fear, and how they strategize or orient themselves towards a conflict situation, and we call those games. They’re just games. It’s very interesting to see how these psychoanalytic theories can help us understand the relationship between unconscious material and somewhat conscious strategies or games that people play in transactions of difference or conflict.

We always want to keep in mind that there’s an unconscious element and a conscious element in a self structure. They come together. I’s not a neat division, and as we look at some of the newer models in psychoanalytic theory, we see them very much unstructured, like there’s something above the waterline and something below the waterline. It’s much more complicated than that. For the sake of our discussion though, let’s suppose that everybody’s self system has some unconscious content and motivation, and some conscious. And I think that’s very helpful. And also consider that we can use a powerful way of diagramming conflict using any kind of diagram that’s helpful: storytelling, identifying games and how they come together, what the likely results are. If you want to use numbers, we can use numbers, as is used in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. There’s lots of ways of expressing these strategic positions and what their outcomes are.

And so if somebody’s trying to resolve a conflict and they’re not aware of game theory, they’re not aware of their unconscious, or that there even is such an element, they’re going to be trying to solve conflict with both legs broken and their arms behind their backs. They’re not going to have the tools necessary to solving them. We also find in our work that there is somewhat of an algorithm, a kind of a hard-wired matrix or filter constituted in early childhood due to a person’s situations, sufferings, deficiencies, whatever was going on at home, and [that] created a certain way of coping with one’s environment and certainly with other people. As you can imagine, these operate very below a pond or lake, at the very bottom. And so we might see manifestations up top, waves and such, seaweed growing, you know, whatever’s going on up top, but the strings are being pulled by whatever’s going on at the bottom.

Or if you don’t like that metaphor, we can use a different one. The strings are really being pulled from elsewhere, some other place other than a person’s conscious mind. This is very important because indeed, if you’re involved in solving a conflict as a professional person, if you discount game theory, if you discount this philosophy of mind with an unconscious, you might solve conflict. You might be very good at it, but you’re doing it by ignoring a very powerful and helpful dimension. And we think that if you take that dimension into account, you might actually do better work. So we have come up with a window into conflict resolution and we’ll focus on mediation. We’ll focus on mediation, and we’ll use the three-person model. There’s two conflicting parties and a third person [who] is hired to help them solve their conflict.

So the other element that is preliminary and important is to really get that every time you enter into a social environment of any kind, you’re infecting the environment in obvious ways and you’re also infecting that environment in unconscious ways. And so we call this the phenomenological field. It’s the field of all phenomena that occurs between all people at various levels. It can be very conscious; it can be very unconscious, but there’s something occurring. If you can just look at it like a fish tank, and there’s water in it. And above the line, we have these obvious things that we’re doing like conscious discussion, protocol formats for a mediation process, how we dress, how we talk, where we meet, etc., etc. And then there’s a lot of stuff happening under the waterline. But the fact of the matter is, the container of the fish tank is actually a phenomenological field. That’s my point. And we’re more or less aware of what’s happening.

The question is how can we use psychoanalytic theory to solve a case, knowing that we professionals affect what’s going on? Knowing that we don’t really and entirely understand the backgrounds of the individuals, let alone our own, and we really want to have that understanding, right? Because if we have more of that understanding, it’s safe to say that we’re going to have more information, more knowledge, about what will really work for disputing parties. Sure, I suppose it could be viewed as a giant reel of information and data. That’s true. That’s actually true. So the question is now, what sort of psychoanalytic approach could be helpful? Well, we’ve come up with some models.

So the model starts with the assumption that we infect the mediation process, and we have our own issues, our own longstanding issues that we’ve worked on, more or less. So the models that we’ve created are: number one, the existential model; that’s the existential phenomenological model; the second one is the empirical psychoanalytic model; and the third one is the structural-linguistic model. You have to understand that, and this is really a good place to start, to launch in this direction, is that right now we’re largely using needs-based or interest-based mediation. So the idea is that if you can figure out what the person needs and what they want, and you can do that for both people, then you might be able to create some combination of the distribution of goods involved to satisfy both people. And that if you employ this competently, you don’t ever have to talk about the law or their rights or anything like that. So the law or their rights might be somewhere you might turn if the parties are in an intractable position.

If we take needs-based mediation though, then we’re into this problem of what is the self, what is the human anthropology, and that’s when we come face to face with this new conclusion that we’re not fully aware of anything. We’re working on it. So we’ve seen in these processes that people change their mind about what they need. Sometimes they don’t know what they need and sometimes they never know in a conflict resolution process. That’s a very, very difficult problem to face as a professional, if somebody doesn’t really know what they want or they need. The other issue is that people change what they want and what they need, even in the course of the dispute resolution process. So you always have to be aware of a moving target, a moving mind, as it were. So what you think is a need or an interest or a preference might not be, and you have to be sensitive enough and savvy enough to get that because people often speak in code. And then [there is] also the problem of change: changing needs, changing interests. And in fact, often when people start exploring their larger conflicts, they actually start thinking about having a different life with a different self, frankly. So your job as a professional is to help them gain that awareness through dialogue, through challenging questions, through a heck of a lot of empathy, being highly empathic to the whole struggle.

One model is this existential phenomenological model. We’re going to talk about it a little bit. We’re going to delve into these issues more in the future. The idea is that we can actually transform the individuals in the conflict. You know, people often, at some level of development, they will make the argument that they want to be respected for who they are. “I want to be me,” people will say. “I want people to respect me for who I am.” And in transformative mediation, as we see it, the self structure is a fluid, changeable structure that should change through time, that is supposed to change through time. We want to get rid of unwanted baggage, unwanted dysfunctionality, revisit our values, our objectives, our intentionalities, that that’s really healthy, to keep kind of a fluid self system going, between ego and unconscious subterranean waters. So keep that in mind, that there’s transformative mediation and transformative self processes that actually occur in dispute resolution, and you can see how that can soften up two opposing sides, if that makes sense.

So the first view is what we call the existential approach and this is the idea that ideally, and in principle, the mind or consciousness is theoretically capable of being translucent. But that’s too much of an ontological burden on the self, for anybody. I mean literally, anybody. So we create these pockets or regions of black holes. We engage in strategies of self deception about who we think we are and, in fact, clinging to a certain kind of self structure just is one definition of self deception. And you’d be amazed at how people will defend a certain identity or what they think they want, and they’ll fight tooth and nail for it, and they’ll realize at some point in the future – they always do – that they never really wanted that. And it’s really deflating, right? Here you are, you fight like heck, you fight like heck for something, for some kind of a good, and then you realize that it was just an illusion.

And what this existential approach uses is the phenomenological method, and ideally, and subject to budget and context-appropriate processes, you not only as a mediator would engage in the phenomenological method, but you would get clients to do this as well. And that means to bracket assumptions – and we’re talking about clients now – bracketing assumptions, biases, prejudices, expectations, going into a beginner’s mind, letting go of the big conflict and the constellation of conflicts, and setting aside what people are most attached to, just setting it aside, and moving themselves into a position in consciousness where they can be more what we call “experience near.” And they can re-ground themselves foundationally in their own relationship to their body, to the material world, to their sociality, like who they really want to be. Do they want to be remarried again, do they want to be single, do they want something else? Sometimes this means new jobs, new careers, shifting in a number of ways, socially and materially, and then also dealing in new ways with the unanswerable questions, the questions of uncertainty in life. There are questions of uncertainty. And some people try to answer them through spiritual practices, religious practices. Some people try to answer them through philosophical or scientific practices, but the point is that it’s another dimension that we can take on. We can also, as I’ve said, look at a new way of relating to our self.

Read Full Post »

EPIS Education, a division of the Existential Psychoanalytic Institute & Society, is now accepting applications for the 2018-19 school year for its new program in non-violence, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and critical theory.

Please contact Dr. Kevin Boileau for details at kbradref@gmail.com.

Read Full Post »

New EPIS Seminar: A Trans-Humanist Phenomenology of the Radical Other


One of the existential domains in Dasein analysis, existential analysis, and humanistic psychologies is the (living) physical world. This is the furniture, processes, and complex life domains in which we live. However, because of various ideologies that distort ontological valuation, we end up pushing much of this world to the periphery. This includes the non-human Other. This is the radical Other.

In conjunction with the Non-Violent (Life) Design Institute, the Existential Psychoanalytic Institute will be offering a seminar in a trans-humanist approach to the radical Other. This is a seminar in critical theory, psychoanalysis, and existential phenomenology, focusing on the structures of the world in which humans live, including those of non-human Others – – from both subjective and objective phenomenological orientations.

Amongst other meanings, we fail to understand why we have so subjugated this domain of our existential lebenswelt, and all its inhabitants, to our own peril and to the moral catastrophe that we wage on the Earth, and Them, every day.


Dr. Boileau, Dean of Faculty

Read Full Post »

I offer this short excerpt from the book Vivantonomy, and hope that our readers will enjoy it.  It is part of our contribution to a new human anthropology.

Kevin Boileau

  1. Introduction

I am writing this book in Missoula, Montana, USA, in fall of 2014 and the early part of 2015.  It comes from several years of thought, teaching, research, work with Professor David A. Boileau, work at the Existential Psychoanalytic Institute, work with the Global Center for Advanced Studies, work at the BCS Dispute Resolution Research Institute, and valuable dialogue with Professor Burggraeve himself.  While it is true that I practice, teach, and write in the areas of psychoanalysis, critical theory, and phenomenology, it is also true that I have spent decades of my life studying moral theory.  My work here comes from all that I mention, but I must state that the content of this book is perhaps important to me primarily because of the gravity of moral issues currently facing human beings.  I take full responsibility for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies.  However, much of my thinking comes from several earlier volumes of mine and I feel confident that I have been true and fair both past and present.

Primary written sources for my work include my prior books entitled Genuine Reciprocity, Essays on Phenomenology, Manifesto on Solidarity, and Critical Existential Psycho-Analysis (and all notations and references); Professor Burggraeve’s book From Self-Development to Solidarity (along with all his references to original work by Emmanuel Levinas), and in general, all the work he has done on Levinas, including his new unpublished essay “Bound to the Other Before Any Contract,” which focuses on the triplicate of the French Revolution, which he wants to re-order to fraternity, equality, freedom.”; private notes and correspondence between David A. Boileau and me; and finally, all the work that I have published in other formats in psychoanalysis, cooperative conflict resolution, and phenomenology.  My endnotes reference my original ideas, contributions of ideas from others, or the source books I list above.  The main purpose of my contribution is not to demonstrate broad knowledge about who is writing in this area.  In contrast, it is to present some focused ideas that I have been working on for over two decades, and about which some clarity is starting to emerge in my own consciousness.

I have organized this text as an introduction in a general way to my perspective on the thought of Levinas, some of my interpretations of Burggraeve’s work I mention above, my thoughts about what I call a “trans-human” approach to solidarity, and a rapprochement of my work with Burggraeve’s, especially focusing on the notion of responsibility and human fraternity. Let us now turn to some general thoughts about Levinas, which will bring my work alongside Burggraeve’s.  Then, I shall follow a simple progression of thought in the main body of my essay.  This will show how our modern anthropology of the human has progressed from the autonomy of Kant to the heteronomy of Levinas, and to the trans-human approach that I outline.  Thus, we move from what I call the “possessive self” of the Enlightenment to the other-directed self we see with Levinas, Burggraeve, Marcel (carefully reviewed in my Critical Existential Psycho-Analysis) and others, which increases the demand for responsibility and which re-configures our anthropology.  I then propose a new type of humanism that is other-directed, to be sure, but which moves beyond a humanism that focuses solely or primarily on humans and human benefit.  In this humanism, which constructs a ”trans-human” anthropology, the focus goes beyond humans in order to take into account on an equal basis with a principle of ontological parity, the environment, and perhaps more import, all sentient life.

I will thereby argue that this trans-humanist move is necessary in order to complete the historical-theoretical line of thinking that Levinas starts and which Burggraeve develops and refines.  I propose that this trans-human approach is consonant with the thinking of both Levinas and Burggraeve, and that it allows us a deeper sense of the heteronomous approach, surpassing it through a radicalization of its theoretical core.  Further, it develops our notion of fraternity, refines our sense of solidarity, enriches our beliefs about mutuality and reciprocity, and finally, broadens and extends the requirements of responsibility for each of us, and all of us.  In the end, I believe that this is the most important consequence of this progression.  I also might add that my work is exploratory in the sense that a trans-humanism purports to “cross” or go beyond both humanisms of autonomy and heteronomy but then proceeds to return to both.  I hope that the reader can generously interpret my intent, which is solely to enrich Professor Burggraeve’s refined notions of fraternity and responsibility, and to continue to develop our understanding of what is truly an ethic that relies on a radicalized heteronomous anthropology.  I must confess that as we make our commitments to greater levels of responsibility and to an anthropology that deepens its commitment to all others, and to the Other, we necessarily find ourselves at sea—with loss of autonomy, ego, and personal identity as we have known it.  I am grateful to both Professor David A. Boileau and to Professor Roger Burggraeve for helping me develop this work.  Because of the nature of these ideas, much of what I write here is in part motivated by faith in the not-yet-known.  Let us turn to some general thoughts about Levinas as we proceed to the problem at hand.

Kevin Boileau

Nazarita Goldhammer

EPIS Education

EPIS Press

The Existential Psychoanalytic Institute & Society


Read Full Post »