Spiritualizing Anarchism, Making Spiritual Practices Anarchistic

Article

SpiritualizingAnarchism,MakingSpiritualPracticesAnarchistic

MarkLosoncz

Citation: Losoncz,M.Spiritualizing Anarchism,MakingSpiritual PracticesAnarchistic. Philosophies 2023, 8,65.https://doi.org/ 10.3390/philosophies8040065

AcademicEditor:Abraham P.DeLeon

Received:2June2023

Revised:29June2023

Accepted:12July2023

Published:21July2023

Copyright: ©2023bytheauthor. LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland. Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle distributedunderthetermsand conditionsoftheCreativeCommons Attribution(CCBY)license(https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

InstituteforPhilosophyandSocialTheory,UniversityofBelgrade,11000Belgrade,Serbia;mark.losonc@ifdt.bg.ac.rs

Abstract: Thisarticlenotonlymentionsspiritualanarchismnominally,asdosomanyprevious articles,buttriestodefineitaspreciselyaspossible.Thedefinitionassumesthattheselfitselfcanbe asourceofunjustifiableauthorityandalimitationtofreedom,andthatspiritualanarchismisnothing morethanbeingopentothatwhichtransegoicallytranscendsournarrowperspective.Thearticle criticallyrevisitspreviousoverviewsofspiritualanarchism,anditselfproposestotakeintoaccount traditionsthathavebeenneglected.Finally,thearticlereversestheapproach;thatis,itconsidershow someofourspiritualpracticescanbemademoreanarchistic,includingmeditation,thepsychedelic experienceandthemysticalexperience.

Keywords: anarchism;spiritualanarchism;spirituality;authority;religion;meditation;psychedelic experience;mysticalexperience

1.Introduction

ThepaperstartswithanoverlookedEasternEuropeananarchisttraditioninorderto emphasizeapointthatwillbeimportantthroughoutthepaper:thatforspiritualanarchism, theindividualisnotanabsolutesecurebasisfromwhichallelseisquestionable,butis itselfinherentlyauthoritarian,anditsnarrownessandlimitationpersearenotworthyof anarchism’sclaimstofreedom.Thestartingpointofspiritualanarchismmusttherefore beself-liberation,thetransformationandself-transcendenceofwhatDarrenAllencalls the“mental-emotionalego”.Thisarticleaimstomaintainthisfocusthroughout.Itwill besuggestedthatthiscanbedonebyrelyingontranscendence,butalsoinasecular way.Exampleswillbegivenofhownotonlyanarchistscanhavespiritualthoughts andtendencies,butspiritualauthorsoftenalsoexpressthemselvesinaquasi-anarchistic way—thereisthereforethepossibilityofafruitfuldialogue.Atthesametime,itwillbe alsoemphasizedthatanalternativereadingofthepastcanbeliberating,i.e.,discovering thatcertainauthorsandactivistshavesaidthingsthatmaybeilluminatingforspiritual anarchismtoday.Itwillbeconsidered,usingtheexamplesofMalatestaandLandauer,how flexibletheconceptofspiritualanarchismmightbe,especiallywhencontrastedwiththat ofreligiousanarchism.Inthelaterpartofthispaper,threeauthorswhohavedealtwith spiritualanarchisminthemostdepthandwiththegreatestclaimtocompletenesswillbe criticallyreviewed(HakimBey(alsoknownasPeterLambornWilson),AnthonyFiscella, SimonCritchley),andwhilepayingcloseattentiontowhattheyconsideraffirmablefrom thepast,inadigression,authorswillbelistedwhohavebeenneglectedinpreviousarticles onspiritualanarchism.Intheconcludingpartofthisarticle,thefocuswillnotbeon thespiritualinterpretationofanarchism,butonthecontrary,ontheinherentanarchist potentialinexistingspiritualpractices(suchasmeditation,psychedelicexperience,mystical experience).Thisanalysiswillbeconsistentwiththemainargumentofthepaper,that spiritualityisaparadoxicalself-transcendenceoftheself.

2.TranscendingtheSelf,TransformingtheWorld

“Insidethereisaworldofpain,/outsideisonlyexplanation./theworld’s yourscab,theouterstain,/yoursoul’sthefever-inflammation./Jailedbyyour heart’sowninsurrection,/you’reonlyfreewhenyourefrain,/norbuildsofine ahabitation,/thelandlordtakesitbackagain.”(AttilaJózsef:Consciousness; transl.ZsuzsannaOzsváthandFrederickTurner)

Thismottoservestofocustheattentionofanarchisttheorynotonsomeexternal institution,butonselfitself.ItisfromtheHungarianproletarianpoetAttilaJózsef, whowasapronouncedanarchistatanimportanttimeinhislifeandamemberofthe UnionAnarchiste-CommunistewhileinParis,andhealsomovedinanarchistcircles inVienna(see[1]).Aswellasbeinganti-stateandanti-capitalist,hisanarchismhada strongspiritualdimension,inspiredprimarilybytheChristianGnosticanarchistteachings ofEugenHeinrichSchmitt(SchmittJen˝oHenrik),centeredontheRebelChristandthe anarchisticspiritualityoflove.

Thequoteisveryinstructivebecauseithasamessagethatdoesnotpitthesupposedly byitselfsovereignandautonomousindividualagainstexternaldominationorauthority (asin“everybodyistheruleroftheirowntemple”),butratherassertsthattheMaster(the “landlord”)becomesinternal,graduallyinteriorized.Itisalsosuggestedthatalthoughthe primarysourceofsufferingisexternal,rebellionmustbeginwithself-liberation;thatis,the selfisthestartingpointofthestruggleforchange.(Thelinemayalsoremindoneofthe classiclinesofFreud,whosepsychoanalysiswaswellknowntoAttilaJózsef,whohimself hadbeenpsychoanalyzed:“Theegoisnotmasterinitsownhouse”).

Thismeansasubtlechangeinfocus.Asiswellknown,anarchismhasfrequentlybeen verymuchanti-religiousthroughoutitshistory,especiallyintheideologicallyaufklärer andscientificallypositivistera,obsessedwithatheismoranti-theism.Inotherwords, anarchismhasoftenrejectedanysubordinationtowhatmightunderminesupposedhuman sovereigntyandself-determination,as,forexample,BrianMorrishaswritten:“toworship orrevereanybeing,naturalorsupernatural,willalwaysbeaformofself-subjugationand servitudethatwillgiverisetosocialdomination.As[Bookchin]writes:‘Themomentthat humanbeingsfallontheirkneesbeforeanythingthatis‘higher’thanthemselves,hierarchy willhavemadeitsfirsttriumphoverfreedom.’”[2].

Spiritualanarchism,bycomparison,couldhaveadeepermessagethatmaybeeven strongerthanAttilaJózsef’s.Accordingtoit,theselfasanindividualisbytheirverynature pronetosubjectthemselvestounquestionedauthoritiesinthecourseoftheirpersonality development(sincetheyareforcedtorelyonothersinthecourseoftheirsocialization), tobecomeaprisonerofdogmas(sincethehabitualrepresentationofcertainviewscan sometimesmakeiteasiertofindtheirwayintheworld).Furthermore,theselfisprone tobeconformisttosocialcustomsandnormsinthenameofadaptation,totakeonroles andevenmasksthatarealientothemwhileadjustingtotheenvironment,todevelopa super-egowithinthemselveswhichstiflestheirneedforfreedom,todevelopanarbitrary idealselftowhichtheycanbecomesubject,etc.Thatis,itmightbethatpreciselytheself asaquasi-monolithic,compulsivelystabilizedself-projection(theoneheldtoaccountby thestateadministrationandcapitalistbusinesses),which,accordingtomany,istobeseen assovereignatallcosts,or,attheotherextreme,onthecontrary,theyseeitasamere victimofdeterminism,thatcanbecomeboththestimulatorandthelimitingwheel-lock offreedom.Itisnowmorethantheinternalizedexterior,suchastheStateWithin,orthe Stirnerianindividualistic“workingforthofmeoutoftheestablished”:theseareindicative ofauthoritariananddominanttendenciesofatypewhosedangersareinherentinthe developmentoftheselfitselfasamentalconstructandintheprocessofthedifferentiation betweentheinternalandtheexternal.

Howcouldweeliminateself-denial,self-coercion,etc.?Howshouldwegovernourselves bydistancingfromourselves?AsJidduKrishnamurti(whois regardedbysomeanarchistsasa non-authoritarianthinker[3])putsit:“thereistheimmenselygreaterdifficultyofrejectingour owninwardauthority,theauthorityofourownparticularlittleexperiencesandaccumulated

opinions,knowledge,ideasandideals.Youhadanexperienceyesterdaywhichtaughtyou somethingandwhatittaughtyoubecomesanewauthority—and thatauthorityofyesterday isasdestructiveastheauthorityofathousandyears.”[4](p.13).Obviously,onlyaselfcan achievethiswhohastranscendedtheirself-limitation,theirnarrowness—anextendedself whosurrendersthemselvestothatwhichisgreaterthanthemselves,namely,aninexhaustible infinity.Thismeansthatyouareyourownenemy(asRudá Iandê formulatesitinhisarticle onspiritualanarchism,“[t]hechallengeismuchmoresubtlesincetheenemyisinstalled insideofourheads”[5]),butalsoyourownmostpromisingsavior,beyondbutstill somehow withinyourself.Thatis,wecannotignoretheparadoxicalnatureoftheself-transcendenceof theself:itisperformedbytheself,yetitpointsbeyondthe self.

Itisworthbrieflymentioningthatitisnotonlyspiritualanarchistswhoarepaying attentiontotheseproblemsandchallenges,butalsospiritualauthorsthemselves,even thosewhootherwisehavenoconnectionwithanarchistmovementsorotherelementsof anarchistthought.Forexample,EckhartTolle,consideredthemostpopularspiritualauthor intheUnitedStates,talksabouttheneedtofreeoneselffromthemind,andclaimsinhis cultbook ThePowerofNow toshowthereader“howtofreeyourselffromenslavementto themind”[6](p.8).Letmenoteatthispointthatthereferencestoslaveryarepartofthe longtraditionofanarchism(andlibertariancommunism);theyrefertotheancientideal oflibertyasnon-domination,andtheyhaveanexplicitlyimportantroleintherepublican traditionofanarchism[7,8].Thiskindofdiscourseisinfactaninversionofwhatweare usedtointhe“classical”,dominantlyaufklärer–materialist–atheistdiscourse,asEmma Goldman’swordsillustrate:“organizedchurchism hasturnedreligionintoanightmare thatoppressesthehumansoulandholdsthemindinbondage”[9](p.7).Anothermotif appearsintheschoolofGurdjieff,thefirsttrulyindependentspiritualteacherofthemodern West:theprison.See,forexample:“Youareinprison. ... Itisnecessarytotunnelundera wall.Onemancandonothing. ... Furthermore,noonecanescapefromprisonwithout helpofthosewhohaveescapedbefore. ... Anorganizationisnecessary.Nothingcanbe achievedwithoutanorganization”[10](p.30).Orthesameforthemanyfalseselveswho lackrealfreedominthemidstofeverydayautomatisms:“Freewillisthefunctionofthe realI,ofhimwhomwecalltheMaster.HewhohasaMasterhaswill.Hewhohasnothas nowill”[11](p.146).Accordingtotheteachingsofthisschool,theeverydaypersonalself isclearlytheprison,andthetruespiritualhigherselfistheembodimentoffreedom.The metaphorofprisonalsoappearsincontemporaryspiritualteachings,suchasthehugely popularfilm Samadhi:

“Themindcanbelikenedtoatrapforconsciousness,alabyrinthoraprison.It isnotthatyouareinprison,youaretheprison. ... Yourself-structureismade upofmanylittleconditionedsub-programsorbosses. ... Theegoisviolence;it requiresabarrier,aboundaryfromtheotherinordertobe ... Yourdivineself hasbecomeenslaved,identifiedwiththelimitedself-structure”[12](15:30,26:00, 46:10,57:00).

Anotherexamplecouldalsoillustratethedirectionsinwhichtheneedforspiritual liberationcantakecertainauthors.HenriCorbin,perhapsthemostimportantmediatorof Muslim(aboveall,Shia)mysticismtotheWestinthe20thcentury,facedthesechallenges himself.ThomasCheetham,Corbin’smonographer,notcoincidentallyreferstoCorbin’s “suspicionofhumanmasters”[13](99)andhisdilemmaof“innerGuideversushuman Master”[13](p.107).“Gurus”mayberenderedsuperfluousbythefactthateveryone’s pathisperfectlyuniqueandindividual(asSufismsays,“thereareasmanypathsleading toGodastherearesonsofAdam”[14](p.XVII),butalsobythefactthatanexternal human“guru”wouldobscureGod’sroleasguide.Butiftheindividualneedsthe“guru” likethepatientneedsthedoctor(whoBakuninwouldhaveregardedastheauthority ofthespecialist)?OnepossiblewayofresolvingthischallengeiswhatCorbinwrites: “Itgoeswithoutsayingthattheforminwhicheachofusreceivesthemaster’sthought conforms tohis‘innerheaven’;thatistheveryprincipleofthetheophanismofIbn‘Arabi, whoforthatreasoncanonlyguide each meanindividuallytowhathealoneiscapableof

seeing,andnotbringhimtoanycollectivepre-establisheddogma”[15](pp.75–76).Corbin alsosketchesthefigureofKhidr,whoisnoneotherthantheteacherwhomediatesasan invisibleguide,andcontraststhiswithauthority.Accordingtohim,everyonehastomake anexistentialdecisioninthisregard,which“announceseitherthateachhumanbeingis orientedtowardaquestforhispersonalinvisibleguide,orthatheentrustshimselftothe collective,magisterialauthorityastheintermediarybetweenhimselfandRevelation”[15] (p.33).Inthesamework,Corbinspeaksofhow“thespirituallyinauguratedbyKhidris freefromtheservitudeoftheliteralreligion”[15](pp.105/55).

Perhapsneedlesstosay,sincemanytraditionsclaimthesoteriologicalgoalofselfliberation,itlogicallyfollowsthattheas-yetunfreestateisdescribedasanextremelimitation,adeficiency.However,asfarasthepossibleanswersandsolutionsofferedare concerned,theseconsiderationswouldraisecriticalquestionsinanyanarchistwhoistruly sensitivetotheproblemofunquestionedauthority,domination,andcommandmentabout theexactstatusofGodasaguide,theinvisibleangelicmediatorortheexternalteacher whoissuitedtothe“innerheaven”.Whatiscertainfromthesebriefexamplesisthatthe issuesofdominationandauthorityarenotnecessarilyunknowntonon-anarchistspiritual authorsthemselves.Infact,acertainquasi-anarchisticdiscourseisacommonfaçonde parlerinspiritualcirclesandteachings,andfordeepreasons.Andthiscouldbethestarting pointforacommondialogue.

Atthispoint,oncethedialoguebetweenspiritualityandanarchismhasbeenbrought closer,letusreturntothedefinitionofwhatspiritualanarchismis.Inhisessay Anarchism andtheWorld,DarrenAllen,afterlistingthesix“dominants”(the(autocratic)monarchy,the (socialist–democratic)state,the(totalitarian–capitalist)corporation,the(mass)majority,the (professional–religious)institutionandthe(technocratic)system)thatmustbegottenrid ofinordertocreateananarchistsociety,addsaseventh:the(mental–emotional)ego[16]. AsIwroteearlier,theego,byitscharacteristicsanddevelopment,canfunctionasasource ofdominanceandunquestionedauthority,aboveallfortheegoitself.Spiritualwriters sometimesspeakoftheenslavementbythemind,aswesawwithTolle,ortheclosureof the“skin-encapsulatedego”(AlanWatts).Here,itmightbethatourconsciousnessisoften aprisonerofthemind’sautomatisms,prejudicesanddogmas.Furthermore,itmightbe thattheycannotdeveloptheirdeeperandmoreauthenticautonomybecauseofaccidental attachmentsandcravings(orunquestionedaversions),thattheyareclingingtoelementsof theobjectual–phenomenalworld,thattheyareatthemercyofpassions,thattheirbinding totheworldisfulloftestimoniesoftheirvulnerabilities,etc.Or,fromanotherpointofview, thattheycanrepressdesiresforallegedlyhigher“self-interest”,orbecomeasuppressor oftheemotional–creativesideofconsciousnessforthesakeofinstrumental–calculative rationality.Fromaspiritualanarchistperspective,wemightalreadybeshackledbythe factthat,confinedwithinourpsycho-physicalcoordinates,wecannotopenourselvesto theconsciousinfinite,whetherimmanentlyconceivedorinatranscendentway.Inthe formercase,theinfiniteisnotamereprivateextensionofourfamiliarinterior,andinthe lattercase,itisnotanalienexteriornecessarilyseparatedfromus.Spiritualtraditionsall havedifferentwaysofframingthequestionoftranscendingtheegoanddifferentanswers. Sometimestheyspeakofbecomingnobodyandself-abandonmentinanemocentricway, hopingforthetotalextinctionoftheego,sometimesofthesanctificationordivinization of(wo)man;thatis,raisingthemtoGodhood.Sometimesspiritualtraditionsaimatthe non-dualisticdissolutionofthedistinctionbetweenselfandnot-self,subjectandobject. Incertaincasestranspersonalspheresisthegoalinwhichtheego’sself-transcendenceis realized,butatthesametime,theearlierphasesoftheego’sdevelopmentareintegrated; inotherwords,thereisakindofdialogicalpartnershipbetweentheselfandtheso-called HigherSelf ... Tosumup,fromthispointofview,theegoisalimitationtothefreedom oftheinfinityofconsciousness,anarrowperspective,acontrolmechanismlimitedby “self-interest”,animpositionofmentalschemas,finitude.Itmaynotbenecessarytodestroy it,butitmustbetranscendedanywaysothatwenolongerimprisonourselves.

Thispartofmyarticleservespreciselytofreeusfromanautomatism,anaïvedichotomy:tobelievethatspiritualanarchismconsistsofmerelyconfrontingdominantand authoritarianinstitutionswithsomethingsimplyandpurelysovereignandautonomous, aboveallwithourselves.Themeaningof“spiritualanarchism”isnotatallself-evident, andthisarticleshouldcontributetofurtherexplorationofitspotential.Oneofthegreatest potentialsofspiritualanarchismistogoevendeeperthanthis,notonlytochallenge thedominantandauthoritariantraitswithinus,buttochallengeourselves,ourverybeing.Definingspiritualityisnotoriouslychallenging(e.g.,[17]).Inthiscontext,itcanbe definedasanexperiencethatundoubtedlyhasasubjectivedimensionandcanenable personalgrowthandtransformation,yetitsdistinctivefeatureispreciselythatittranscends ourpsycho-physicallimitationsinatranspersonal–transegoicway.Thechangeserves tonolongerviewtheworldthroughanarrowkeyhole,notboundbytheconstraints of“somebody-training”(RamDass)andthelimitationsofsomebodiness.Thatis,itis intendedtoshiftourattentiontoaconceptualthird-personperspectivebeyondthemerely pre-conceptualfirst-andsecond-personperspective,toafourth-personperspectivevision logic,andtotheadditionalfifth-,sixth-and ... nth-personperspectives[18](pp.46–51).In otherwords,in“becomingtheworld”,theregisterextendsbyfarbeyondtheparticularity ofthenarrowself,creatingapotentiallyplanetarycommunityofself-transcenders.There issomethingaboutthenominallyprivateperspectivethatisactuallydeeplyaperspectival. AsMiriAlbahariwrites,itisasifsomeonehasbeenraisedinawindowlessroomfrom childhood,andoncetheyfinallyleavetheroom,theywillneveragainidentifyrealitywith therectangularconfinedspace,thatis,asintrinsicallysquare-shaped[19](p.31).Perhaps, finally,throughtheuniversalperspective,theyseethemselvesasanintegralpartofthe wholeuniverse,notwishingtoconquer,subjugate,exploit,ordominateanyotherpartof it.Meanwhile,infinityisincomparablygreaterthanthemeresumofitspartialperspectives.Allnecessarychangeshavingbeenmade,historically,thisisnotfarremovedfrom Proudhon,whowrotedifferentthingsabouttheGodhypothesisinSystemofEconomic Contradictions,butalso,amongotherthings,that“Godisnothingmorethancollective instinctoruniversalreason”[20](p.5).

Inthe“cultureofnarcissism”(ChristopherLasch)andego-fixation,thistransformation isinitselfsubversivesinceitisiconoclastic,self-deconditioningandself-deconstruction, andalsoasthecreativereconditioningofbasicpatterns.Forsomespiritualpeople,itis veryimportantthattheentityopeningupthroughthenewperspectivesisatranscendent Otherandsacralinnature,whileothers,forexample,perhapswithinasecularspiritual perspective,woulddescribeitasaninternally,immanentlyopeningdimension.Thesetwo perspectivesarenotasfarapartastheyseem.Whatthetwopositionshaveincommon isthatspiritualityisdirectedtowardssomethinggreaterthanourpersonalego,thatis, self-transcendence.Ontheotherhand,whatmakescertaintypesofspiritualityanarchistic istheirconsciousattentiontofreedom,illegitimateauthority,injusticeandinequality, dominance,unjustifiedhierarchyandcommodification.Andsurrenderingegoisticselfdirectionisobviouslyanintegralpartofsolidarityandmutuality,anditcanalsoeasilypave thewayforproperty-lessness.AsCritchleywrites,inthecontextofmysticalanarchism, inaLacanianmanner:“toloveistogivewhatonedoesnothaveandtoreceivethatover whichonehasnopower”[21](p.304);[22](p.153).Finally,letusaddthatspirituality conceivedinthisway,byitsverynature,hasaspecialrelationshipwithauthority.As StevenLukessays,authoritarianrelationscanonlybethematizedperspectivistically,either fromtheperspectiveofactorA,whohasauthority,orfromtheperspectiveofactorB,whois subjecttoactorB’sauthority[23](pp.203–204).Spiritualanarchismdoesnotsimplyfocus attentiononthespecificsituationofactorB,butseeksthird-andn-th-personperspectives thatarebeyondthelimitationsofbothactors.Thealternativetotheillegitimateauthority ofactorAisnottheauthorityofactorB,butopenness,thecomplementarityandcohesion ofperspectives,possiblytheirmerger.AsMaryWollstonecraft[24]observed,asymmetrical powerrelationscorruptbothparties,sosomethingnewisneeded.Yes,theselfcancertainly internalizethestate,butthestatecanalsobeseen,conversely,asanexternalizationof

thelimitedself.Opennessmeansnotonlyflexibilitytowardstheperspectivesofothers, butalsothecreationofnew,broaderperspectives.Theseaspects,accordingtowhichan explicitlynon-individualistinterpretationofspiritualanarchismispossible,maybecrucial because,especiallysinceMurrayBookchin’sMysticalandIrrationalistAnarchism,there hasbeenaone-sidedtendencytosee“mysticalanarchy”asnecessarilyopposedtosocial anarchism[25][p.29].

Theaimistosurpassrigidboundaries,narrowperspectives,artificialdivisions,limitingcontexts—towards“themostcompletecommunity”[26](p.101),inwhichmeand you,mineandyours,mycommunityandyourcommunity,manandnature,humanityand cosmos,theinnerandtheouterarenotsoseparatedastobeunawareofwhattheyhave incommon.Fromthispointofview,“inwardcolonization”mightshowthat“ourmost individualisourevermostcommon”[26](p.105).AsFranziskaHoppenwritesinrelation tothespiritualanarchistGustavLandauer,whomIquotedintheprevioussentences:“An anarchistissomeonewho ... becomesanobodyinthetermsofsociety,movingbeyondall names,race,colour,countryornationandwhoyetbecomesasomebodyinthehighest, spiritualsenseofthetermbyreconnectingtotruecommunity.Thespecificqualityofthe anarchist’s‘world-I’isthatithasnoquality”[27](p.214).Whenalllabelsaredropped,the selfisnotroboticallyinterestedinitsownmotivesorattachedtoaparticularviewpoint anymore.Itcouldmeansteppingoutsideofourselves,thatis,experiencingecstasyboth initsetymologicalandspiritualsense.Or,fromanotherperspective,itcouldserveas delvingintothedepthofourowninnerendlessness,thatis,ultimately,knowingbetter andmorecreativelywhatitistobelongauthenticallytogether,beyondhegemonicseparationanddivision,i.e.,notclosedinonourselves,tocontemplate,toact,torejoiceandto loveinthe“allianceofplenty”(Landauer).(Self-)transformationand(self-)transcendence canhelptobetrulypresentwithothers,totrulysharetheexperiencewiththem,rather thantobeabsentintherelationship.Landauerhimselfspeaksoftherejectionoftheself, oftheanarchistmystics’needtokillthemselves.Whiletherearevariousmomentsof ego-dissolution(forexample,indeepmeditation,ecstaticloveorpsychedelicexperience) whentheegoasapersonalself-systemdisappearsforatime,IamclosertoKenWilber’s integraltheory,whichholdsthatspiritualdevelopmentrequiresthatwepatientlyprocess ourshadowsandthatonecanbetranspersonalifoneisalreadyfulfilledinsomewayasa person.So,Iwouldprefertotalkabouttranscendingtheself.Theemphasisisthusshifted from(self-)destructiontointegrationandcreation.

3.ExploringthePastinOrdertoChangetheFuture

“ByanarchistspiritImeanthatdeeplyhumansentiment,whichaimsatthegood ofall,freedomandjusticeforall,solidarityandloveamongthepeople;which isnotanexclusivecharacteristiconlyofself-declaredanarchists,butinspires allpeoplewhohaveagenerousheartandanopenmind.”(ErricoMalatesta: NewHumanity)

“Wherethereisnospiritandnoinnercompulsion,thereisexternalforce,regimentation,thestate.Wherespiritis,thereissociety.Whereunspiritis,thereisthe state.Thestateisthesurrogateforspirit”.(GustavLandauer: CalltoSocialism)

Spiritualanarchismcanundoubtedlybeliberatingifitexploresitsownundiscovered past,itsown“secrethistory”,resistingthemechanismsofdamnatiomemoriae.Bydemonstratingthatthepastisdifferentfromthedominantinterpretationsimposedonit,thepaths ofthefuturecanbealsostretched.Thetwomottosatthebeginningofthissub-section alsotestifytothechallengethiscanbe.Afterall,whilebothMalatestaandLandauer speakofspirit,thereisadifferenceinthesemanticsandconnotationsoftheword.For whereasinLandauer’smysticalanarchism,whichwasgreatlyinfluencedbythemedieval GermanmysticandphilosopherMeisterEchkart,spiritexplicitlymeansanappealtoGod asground(Grund),Malatestawasinfactnuancedlyanti-religiousandanatheist.Bothof themmusthavebeeninfluencedalsobyBakunyin’sHegelianism,andinHegel,thespirit (Geist)referstothedialecticofthefiniteandtheinfinite,whichisfulfilledintheabsolute,

and—especiallyinHegel’sphilosophyofreligion,butalsoelsewhere—isendowedwith explicitChristiantheologicalmeanings.So,afterall,doMalatestaandLandauermean thesamethingwhentheytalkaboutspirit?Malatestaistalkingaboutwhatis“goodfor all”accordingtotheuniversalall-inclusiveperspective,andheisalsotalkingabout“open mind”,i.e.,transcendingournarrowperspectives,and“deephumansentiment”,i.e.,which isaninnerdimensioncomparedtothesurface,yetinprincipleagivenforall.Forallthese reasons,Malatestamightbeconsideredasecularspiritualanarchistsotosay,especially whenweaddhowdeephisteachingonloveis,asdemonstratedbyZoeBaker[28].

Thisexampleillustrateshowsensitiveandnuancedonemustbeifonewishesto outlinethepastofspiritualanarchism.Thechallengeisnotsmall,sincespiritualanarchism isconceptuallyverydifficulttoseparatefromreligiousanarchism.Spiritualanarchists mayalsodrawheavilyonreligioustraditions,justastheoeuvreofauthorsandactivists whocanbeconsideredreligiousanarchists(suchasLeoTolstoy,MartinBuber,Dorothy Day,JacquesEllul,theanti-authoritarianIvanIllichorReinerSchürmann)mayoverlap substantiallywithwhatIhavesaidaboutspiritualanarchism.Infact,itisoftenamatterof nuance:spiritualanarchistsaremoreskepticalabouttheinstitutionsoforganizedreligion (asin“spiritualbutnotreligious”)andsomeofthemareabletothinkaboutspirituality inacompletelysecularwayandwithoutanyreferencetotranscendence,butthisisat mostatendency.Fortunately,therearenowadaysmanyoverviewsofreligiousanarchism available,soIneednotelaboratehere(forasummaryofreligiousanarchismingeneral, see[29];forthemostcomprehensiveChristiananarchism,see[30]).IwouldjustaddthatI agreewithRuthKinnaandMatthewWilsonthatreligiousanarchismisalsostill“underresearched”[31](p.348),butitisalsoworthpointingoutthatresearchonindividual traditions,Muslimanarchism,Daoistanarchism,Vedicanarchism,Jewishanarchism, antinomianmovements,etc.,isgettingrichereveryyear.Spiritualanarchismshouldbein dialoguewiththesetraditions,whileatthesametimepreservingitsownuniquemessage. Insum,proponentsofthename”spiritualanarchism”havetofightforlegitimacyfortheir particularperspective.Thebestconceptualstrategytodothisseemstobetoplacethe emphasisontheself-transcendenceoftheself,eithercompletelyindependentlyofreligious traditionsorindialoguewiththem,dependingontheorientation.

Undoubtedlythegreatestsystematic,butstillsketchycontributiontotheconceptof spiritualanarchismcanbeconsideredtobeHakimBey,alsoknownasPeterLamborn Wilson,whoinSpiritualAnarchism:TopicsforResearch[32]hasattemptedtoreview whatarethelegaciesofthepastthatcontemporaryspiritualanarchismshouldlookback on,refertoandreconsider.Thetextreferstomanypastmovementsoractorswhich couldalsoeasilybeincludedinasummaryofthehistoryofreligiousanarchism,but therearepossibleexceptionsandshiftsofemphasis:heretics,mysticsandgnosticsare highlighted,aswellasfrequentreferencestopagan,shamanistic,Freemasonicandmagical–occultist–hermeticisttraditions.ThisincludeshisreferencetotheEarthasalivingbeing. However,Wilsonhimselfmakesasharpdistinctionbetweenreligionandspirituality,seeing religionasadenialandalienationoftheimaginalcreativityofspirituality,althoughhe acknowledgesthatspiritualityisoftendiscoveredwithinreligion,andthatinreligious times,anarchistictendenciesareexpressedalmostcovertly,inreligiousterms.Itisnot alwaysentirelyclearhowWilsonthinksaboutGod,asitsometimesseemsironic(see,for example,“[a]fterallwhatproofexistsforatheistmaterialism?—justasspookyasGod, really—theabsenceofmeaning”[33]).Sometimesheseemscommittedtowhathecalls an“allisone”monism,accordingtowhichall-encompassingrealitycanbeseenasboth immanentandtranscendent[33](p.58).Wilson’sattachmenttoIslamicheterodoxyisalso worthmentioning(see[34]).MurrayBookchin,inhisbook SocialAnarchismorLifestyle Anarchism:AnUnbridgeableChasm,hasclassifiedWilson’sworkaslifestyleanarchismand condemneditforitstiestomysticism,theoccult,anarcho-primitivismandirrationalism[29]. However,onthebasisofhisabove-mentionedgeneralpaperonspiritualanarchism,it isdifficulttoagreethatWilsonsimplyrepresentstheoppositeofsocialanarchism,since heclaims—inanexplicitlyanti-religiousspirit—that“[t]heMovementoftheSocialon

theunconsciouslevelconstitutedinitselfakindof(anti-)religion”,andrailsagainst,for example,the“triumphofglobalcapital”[32].Atthesametime,itmustbeacknowledged thatWilsondoesindeedpaylittleattentiontohowthemessageofspiritualanarchism shouldbeputintopractice.

Inthehistoryofanarchism,theaffirmativeuseof“spirituality”hasbeenrare,butstill recurrent,andespeciallyinthepasttenyears,therehasbeenasignificantincreaseinthe numberofarticlesandinternetpostsonspiritualanarchism.Therestofthisarticlewill discusstwomoretreatmentsofspiritualanarchism,whicharesimilartoWilson’sinterms oftheirsystematicclaimandinthattheyhavealsoamessageoftheirown.

InvaluableisAnthonyFiscella’slongarticleFromBenignAnarchytoDivineAnarchy: ACriticalReviewof“SpiritualAnarchism”,whichgivesathorough,bird’s-eyeviewof allthemanifestationsofspiritualanarchismthatheknows,whilestatingthat“noonehas thusfarstudiedit”[35](p.264),andthatinastrictsense,“wecurrentlyhavenofieldofor broadconversationsabout‘spiritualanarchism’”[35](p.265).Itisparticularlynoteworthy thatFiscella,awarethatwordslike“spirituality”havenonon-ideologicalusage,also stressesthatas“whitepeople’sword”,itisloadedwithOrientalistandcolonialistattitudes. Anyway,thevirtueofFiscella’sreviewisthatitdenouncestheemergingtrendofspiritual anarchismashavingfewnon-Western,andevenfewerIndigenous,representatives(and equallyfewwomencontributors),andhealsosuggeststhatWilson’sspiritualityisfull ofproblematiccolonialistandorientalistaspects.Accordingly,heseekstodrawattention totheoverlookedmovementsthatmightbeconsideredspiritualanarchistatleastina certainway(EarthFirst!,Womanism,MOVE,Auroville,Twelve-Stepprograms/Alcoholics Anonymous,etc.),indigenouspeoples(especiallyNativeAmericans)andnon-Western contributions(suchasKrishnamurti’sorSriAurobindo’s).Fiscellaalsodrawsattention toWesternactorswhoaredirectlyrelevanttospiritualanarchism,yethavenotbeenthe focusofattentioninthissense(W.E.B.DuBois,NoamChomsky,WilliamJames).Fiscella’s typologytakesintoaccountanumberofaspects,suchasthefactthatabouthalfoftheselfproclaimedspiritualanarchistsarecommittedonlytoactivismororganizingwork(and, moreover,manydonotconcernthemselveswiththepracticaldimensionoftheirmessage atall),andthattherearealsofragmentedtendencies,i.e.,therearebothindividualistic andalsomorecommunal–collectivistvariants.Fiscella’sobservationsontheevolutionof spiritualanarchismarenoteworthy.Aftershowingthat“spiritualanarchism”appeared innewspaperarticlesfromthe1890swithwidelydifferingmeanings,heshowsthatit wasusedinatrulyaffirmativewayfromthe1910s,andthenfromthe1930s,thanksto theCatholicWorkermovementandSriAurobindo,itwastentimesmoreinusethanit istoday.Fiscella,bytheway,suggestsfromthearticleshehasstudiedthattwocultures inparticulararethoughttohavebeenhotbedsofspiritualanarchism:statelessshamanic communitiesandBlackliberationstruggles.Fiscellaalsomentionsthepossibleaccusations againstspiritualanarchism,apartfromthecolonialistandorientalistaspects:theaccusation thatitistooindividualisticandimpractical,andthatitmerelyreflectscurrentfashions,that is,“theidiociesofconsumersociety”(Iwouldaddthatformanyanarchistsspiritualityis simply“farcical,supernaturalrubbish,nottomentionhighlypretentious”,a“veryloaded term”[3]).Althoughatthebeginningofhisarticle,Fiscellapromisestocontributeto thereflectiononalternativeswithinspiritualanarchism,hisarticleinfacthasarather disappointingend.For,hereportsthat

[i]nitially,“spiritualanarchism”caughtmyattentionbecauseitseemedtooften pointindirectionsthatinterestedme(i.e.,socialandeco-justicework,radically revisingdominantlanguageandlife-organizingstories,challengingpatternsof violenceinwardlyandoutwardly,buildingcommunity,etc.).Idon’tknowthat weneedasingletermforallofthat.[35](p.305)

WhileIagreethatthesevariousphenomenashouldnotbelabeledwithasingleterm, IampuzzledtonotethatFiscelladoesnotreflectonrichcontemporarydebatesabout themeaningofspirituality,andinfactdoesnotevenattempttoconsiderwhetheritis possibletoascribeapositivemeaningtoitwithoutbeingburdenedwithcolonialand

orientalistperspectives,whileatthesametimenotbeingmeaningless.Thephenomena hementionshaveinfactnothingtodospecificallywithspiritualanarchismandevenless withspirituality.Inmyopinion,themainproblemisthelackofatrulyspiritualinsight intotheneedfortranspersonalself-transcendence.

Beforepresentinganotherarticleonspiritualanarchism,whichissystematicandat thesametimesomewhatoriginal,Iwouldliketocontributetotheknowledgeofthehistory ofspiritualanarchism.Idosoatthispointinthetextbecauseitisadirectcontributionto thealmostencyclopedicendeavorsofWilsonandFiscella.

EugenHeinrichSchmitt(Jen˝oHenrikSchmitt),theHungariananarchist,mentioned atthebeginningofmyarticle,is,Ithink,ofparticularinterest,notonlyforhistoricalphilologicalreasons,butalsobecausehisideascouldhaveafruitfulimpactontoday’s debates.TheGnosticChristianismandanti-violenceofSchmitt’steachingswerebothantistateandanti-capitalist(heeditedtwojournalsinHungarian,titledWithoutState(Állam nélkül)andNonviolence(Er˝oszaknélküliség)),whileatthesametime,asanagrarian socialist,heattachedgreatimportancetotechnicalprogressandlarge-scaleproduction.His “idealistanarchism”wasmodeledonthefraternalcommunityofearlyChristianity,and hewantedtoformaninternationalconfederationofthe”religionofthespirit”.Thus,he wrote,amongotherthings,“Asmanseeshisindividualityasmerelyfinite,theconnection thatbindseverythingtogetheristhesecretofhisownessence,forheistheconsciousness oftheuniverse,forhislifeisnecessarilynotafinitelife,buttheinfinitelifeoftheuniverse, whichhedoesnotsee,however,becauseheisstillachildandtheroughconsciousnessof hisowndignityhasnotyetawakened,heisnotfree”[36](p.131).Thisisverymuchinline withwhatIwroteabouttranscendingthenarrowperspectiveoftheegointheearlierparts ofthisarticle.Afterdescribingthespiritasasharedconsciousness,amoralconsciousness andalifeofdivinelove,hesaysthatthespiritis“acosmicfunction,notsomeseparate spiritualentity,butthemanifestationofthecommunityofbeings”[37](p.47).Aswecan see,Schmitthasalltheaspectsthatcanbethedefiningfeaturesoftheidentityofaclear, self-consciousspiritualanarchism:thinkingintermsoftheinfinityofspiritratherthanthe enclosureoftheego,thecosmiccommunitythattranscendsindividualperspectivesrather thanisolation,thecloseconnectionbetweenself-liberationandcommunalliberation.It seemsthataclearunderstandingofthismaybepreciselywhatismissingincontemporary discourses.EasternEuropeandCentralEuropecouldbetreasuretrovesinthesearchfor sourcesofspiritualanarchism.

Onecouldalsomention,forexample,theAustrianpsychoanalystOttoGross,who,asan earlyrepresentativeinanti-psychiatryandabelieverinsexualliberation,wasanarchistinhis commitment,drawingonBachofen’sproto-feministandneo-pagantheoriesandenvisioning areturntoapre-civilization,non-hierarchicalgoldenage.Besides,itisamistaketolookat EuropeasawholeasifitcouldonlyexpressahegemonicWesterndiscourse.

ItisalsoworthmentioningtheItalianindividualistandillegalistanarchistRenzo Novatore,whospokeofthe“redemptionofmaterialslavery”andthathighspiritualwealth shouldbeinvulnerable,stressingthat,inconfrontingtheexistingspiritualimpoverishment andthe“spiritualmobofdemocraticcivilization”,arevolutionwill“communalizematerial wealth”asitwill“individualizespiritualwealth”.Accordingtohim,“[b]ourgeoisand proletarian,thoughclashingoverquestionsofclass,ofpowerandofthebelly,stillalways remainedunitedincommonhatredagainstthegreatvagabondsofthespirit,against thesolitariesoftheidea”,addingthatbothsurvivalistfascismandsocialismsaynoto spirituality[38].

Inanotherdigression,Iwouldliketoaddonlybriefly,becauseitisrelevanttothe dialoguesofanarchism,thatlibertarianMarxists/communistscanalsobeinclinedto spirituality;see,forexample,whatJacquesCamattewritesinThisWorldWeMustLeave:

therevolutionarymovementistherevolutionofnature,accessiontothought, andmasteryofbeingwiththepossibilityofusingtheprefrontalcentersofthe brain,whicharethoughttorelatetotheimagination.Revolutionhasabiological andthereforecosmicdimension,consideringouruniverselimited(tothesolar system);cosmicalsointhemeaningoftheancientphilosophersandmystics.[39] (pp.71–72)

Itisnocoincidence,ofcourse,thatmanypeoplealsoassociateCamattewithanarchoprimitivism.Tobefair,healsotendedtoseethe“fashionablepreoccupationwithmysticism” asamereadjuncttoWesternhyper-rationalism.Bytheway,intheearlierhistoryof libertarianMarxism/communism,therearealsothosewithwhomspiritualanarchism couldhaveameaningfuldialogue,suchasErnstBlochorWalterBenjamin,whohadboth Marxistandanarchistties.

Afterbriefdigressions,thenextexampleofasystematicandsomewhatoriginal treatmentofthatwhichisakintospiritualanarchismisSimonCritchley’sMysticalAnarchism[21,22].StartingfromCarlSchmitt’sthesisthatallourcontemporarypolitical conceptsaresecularizedtheologicalconcepts,heoutlinessomeimportantstagesofmystical anarchism(Critchleyhimselfdoesnotusetheterm“spiritualanarchism”,butmentions spiritualityseveraltimes):themillenarisms,theMovementoftheFreeSpirit,themysticism ofMargueritePorete,GustavLandauerandtheSituationismofRaoulVaneigem.Whilethe listofactorsandmovementscoveredisnotascomprehensiveasinthecaseofWilsonor thearticlesreviewedbyFiscella,Critchleycertainlyoffersanin-depthreadingofsomeof them.Afewpointsandargumentscanbemadehere.Critchleymentionstheexamplesof “redemptive,cleansingviolence”,theWeatherUnderground,theRedArmyFactionandthe RedBrigades.Asidefromthefactthattheexamplesarenotfromthehistoryofanarchism (andthattheyaretendentious),Critchley’sarticlewaspublishedin2009,whenhehadat hisdisposalPeterGelderloos’sseminal2007anarchistbook HowNonviolenceProtectsthe State [40],whicharguesthatnonviolenceisineffective,racist,statist,patriarchal,tactically andstrategicallyinferioranddeluded.Infact,Critchley’sdogmaticpacifismoffersno relevantargumentsagainstGelderloos’sideas.AlsoproblematicisthewayCritchleyrefers toself-deification,inthisway:“[d]efendingtheideaofbecomingGodmightbeseenas goingalittlefar”[21](p.304),andthen,relyingonBadiou,whoishostiletothemystical experienceingeneralandalsotoanarchism,presentsself-deificationasanobscurantist “discourseofglorification”.Thisisunworthyofthehistoricallycomplex,nuancedandcarefultheologicalreflectionsof theosis, sometimesalsocalledperfectio,andmissesthesignificance offindingthedivinespark(scintillaanimae) withinus,whichinsighthumblyobservesthat “Godisouressence,butwearenotGod’sessence”(itisnocoincidencethatattheheart ofthetragicallydeceasedKirstenBrydum’sspiritualanarchismwasalsotheideaofthe divineasimmanence,whichrecognizesGodastheself,andthatshealsoclaimedthat“the Church,theState,andtheWorkplacefunctiontoalienateusfromourdivinityandfrom oneanother’s”[41]).Thisrigidhostilitytoself-deificationisalsocuriousbecauseCritchley, moreover,speaksafewlineslaterof“theimmortaldimensionofthesubject”[21](p.304), althoughheclaimsthatthe“onlytestimony”tothisislove.Throughoutthearticle,love isgivenaprominentrole,andiseventhefocusofthe“Conclusion—thepoliticsoflove” section.Itseemsthatloveistreatedhereinatooindividualisticorinter-individualistic way,thatCritchleydoesnottakeenoughaccountofthecommunal–socialdimensionsof love(anexcellentcontemporaryexampleofacriticaldiscussionofthisisAlvaGotby’s TheyCallItLove.ThePoliticsofEmotionalLife[42]).Unfortunately,Critchleyalsofalls somewhatpreytoego-deathjargonwhenhewritesthatloveis“thedaringthatattemptsto extendbeyondoneselfbyannihilatingoneself”[21](p.304).Onthecontrary,Ithinkthat loveistrulyvaluablewhenitisdialecticallybothself-transcendenceandself-preservation, whenwecansurrenderourselvestoothersandtothecommunity,butwhenwecanalso remainourselves.Nevertheless,Critchley’swritingsareanimportantcontributiontothe traditionofspiritualanarchism.

4.MakingSpiritualPracticesMoreAnarchistic

“Spiritualzombiesnolongerheartheirinnerguide.”(AliceWalker)

“InthiscommunityeconomicswouldbedecentralistandHenry-Georgian,politicsKropotkinesquecooperative.Scienceandtechnologywouldbeusedas though,liketheSabbath,theyhadbeenmadeforman,not(asatpresentandstill moresointheBraveNewWorld)asthoughmanweretobeadaptedandenslaved tothem.Religionwouldbetheconsciousandintelligentpursuitofman’sFinal End,theunitiveknowledgeoftheimmanentTaoorLogos,thetranscendent GodheadorBrahman.Andtheprevailingphilosophyoflifewouldbeakind ofHigherUtilitarianism,inwhichtheGreatestHappinessprinciplewouldbe secondarytotheFinalEndprinciple—thefirstquestiontobeaskedandanswered ineverycontingencyoflifebeing:‘Howwillthisthoughtoractioncontribute to,orinterferewith,theachievement,bymeandthegreatestpossiblenumberof otherindividuals,ofman’sFinalEnd?”(AldousHuxley: Forewordtothe Brave NewWorld,secondedition)

Thespiritualpathisfullofdifficulties.Whenpeopledecidetotakeupthestruggle againsttheirspiritualpoverty,theyareexposedtoanumberofexternalandinternaldangers(see,forexample,[43]).Oneofthemaindifficultiesofspiritualself-transformationis alsooneofitsmostattractive:thatonewhoembarksonthispathnolongerreliesonmere faithbutonexperience,thatis,onemaybecomepragmaticallyandnon-authoritarianly skepticalofpre-establishedanswers.Ifindeedoneisnotguidedbyunconditionalrespectforauthority,onemayrejectprivilegedaccesstoanythinginfinitelygreaterthan thepersonalego(whetheronespeaksoftheclericalclassorofothers).Theinfinityof consciousness,whetherconceivedimmanently,transcendentlyoracombinationofboth, cannotbeprivatizedormonopolized.Itismorethanmereintrospectionorexclusiveaccess toanexternalentity—itisanopeningofconsciousness,atranscendingofperspectivesinan otherwisepathologicallyclosedsociety.Onecouldagreewithintegraltheorythatspiritual experiencebyitsverynatureshouldnotremainakeyhole-likeisolatedexperienceora privileged,incommunicableperspectiveofasingleindividual:theremustbeinjunction, byvirtueofwhichotherscanlearnhowtogainspiritualexperience;theremustbeapprehension,thatis,theself-perceptionofwhattheinjunctionhasbroughtusto;communal confirmation,byvirtueofwhichwecancheckourexperiencewithotherswhohaveused thesameorsimilarinjunction[44](p.273).Thistriplecriterionworksagainstprivilege. Accordingly,“theWay”or“theWays”areinprincipleaccessibletoall,directexperience andcommunalfeedbackcanservetoensurethatspirituality,and,inlinewiththis,spiritual anarchism,isneitherone-sidedlyindividualisticnorstiflinglycollectivist.

Ofcourse,thereistheclassical“metaphysicsoftheleft”(dialecticalmaterialism, reason,logic,science,progress,etc.),whichtendstobeinherentlyhostiletoanynotionof spiritualanarchism.Thisattitudeshouldnotbeconfrontedwithdiametricallyopposed views,butwithaholisticapproachthatacceptstherelativevalidityofnon-spiritualaspects andcanevenenterintodialoguewiththem,integratingthem.Forexample,thereisno doubtthatanarchisminthe21stcenturyshouldnotsimplyreverttopre-rationalaspects ofarchaic–magical–mythicalages(JeanGebser’swordsandtheoryareusedhere,butI donotclaiminaprogressivist–modernistandWestern-centricwaythatanyeraorstate wasnecessarilyentirelyprerational),butcandevelopamorecomprehensive,freer,mature, transrationalstance,withoutignoringtheinspiringaspectsofpreviouseras,andalso criticizingthelimitationsofaunilaterally“mental”–rationalstance.Inotherwords,in contrasttoaone-sidedinstrumentalrationalitywhichsubordinateseverythingtoitsown interests(fromnaturetolaborforce),whichtendstosimplify,tothinkintermsofblackand whitecontraries,tothinkintermsofexclusive“nothingbut ”statements(asinextreme materialism),andtolackintrinsicvalues,amoredialogicalpositioncanbedeveloped.This positionmightandshouldrejectthevariousmanifestationsofdomination,bothobvious

andsubtle.ThiscanhelptoovercomewhatWilsondescribedinhisarticleonspiritual anarchismasa“contemporaryplagueofmeaninglessness”[32].

Whatismore,Ithinkthatcontemporaryspiritualanarchismshouldbeinclosedialoguewithneuroscience,andshouldknowasmuchaspossibleaboutthebodily-neural correlationsofthefunctioningofconsciousness.Inthisrespect,IfindScottEmerson’s articleontheanarchisticnatureofconsciousnessitselfandhow,althoughthebrainmayat firstappeartobeadictatorship,itisinfactorganizedinadecentralizedway[45],andvery promising.HereInotethatthecontemporaryFrenchphilosopherwhoisoneofthemost enthusiasticpromotersofthinkingaboutneuroplasticity,CatherineMalabou,isalsooneof themostimportantcontemporarycontinentalanarchistthinkers[46–48].Beyondthis,of course,spiritualanarchismcanpointtoexperiencesthathaveescapedtheviewofscience becauseofnaturalistichegemony.Thisdoesnotmakeitanti-scientific;itmerelypoints outthelimitationsofcertainscientificviewsandpractices.Afterall,scienceitselfcanalso becomeanunquestionedbelief,dogmaorauthority,andtherefore,some“epistemological anarchism”(PaulFeyerabend)isneededasaremedy.

Sinceitissuggestedthroughoutthisarticlethatspiritualityisprimarilya self-transcendenceoftheego,thatis,anopennesstotheconsciousinfinitebeyondone’s ownperspective,itisonlynaturalthatinthiscontext,aspecialplaceshouldbegivento thosepracticesandstatesofmindthatcanhelptoachievethis.Inthisrespect,Istrongly disagreewithFiscella,whoarguesthat“themostindividualisticvariantsof‘spiritual anarchism’tendtoemphasizeautonomy,personalissues(druguse,sexuality,asceticism, etc.),magick,andormindexpansion”[35](p.262).WhileIdonotagreethatthepersonal/individualandthecommunalcaneverbeseparatedinthisnon-dialecticalway,and havemyselfstressedthatspiritualanarchismmusthaveadeeperdoctrinethananaïve messageofmereautonomy,Ialsobelievethatthesepractices,whateverthecircumstances inwhichtheyhavetakenplace,haverarelybeenexclusivelyindividualisticinnature. Itisonethingthatsexuality—especiallysexualitywithaspiritualdimension—isnotby itsverynaturepurelyindividualistic,butFiscellaalsoignoresthefactthat,forinstance, psychedelicexperienceisalsoveryoftencommunal[49].Togivejustoneexample,in Brazil,membersoftribesalsooftenconsumeayahuascacommunally,butthesamecanbe saidofcommunitiesthatconsiderthemselvesChristian,suchasSantoDaime,Barquinha ortheUniãodoVegetal(paradoxically,RichardNixonwasmoreawareofthecommunal powerofpsychedelicswhenhebegantostigmatize,demonizeandpersecutetheminthe shadowofprotestsagainsttheVietnamWar).Justasmanyspiritualpeoplethroughout historywhohaveengagedinasceticpracticeshavelivedincommunity,forexample,in monasticism,andhavebeenexplicitlyempoweredbytheirenvironment.Whatismore,it iscontradictorytocallmindexpansionindividualisticandpersonal,sinceitrefersprecisely tothatwhichistransindividualandtranspersonal.Toputitbriefly,Fiscella’scommentis tooone-sidedandsimplistic.

Inasense,ourwholemodernlifeneedsananarchisticre-spiritualization.Thisalready appliestobirthitself.Inmanycountries,itnowseemsnaturalforwomentobetakenoutof theirhomesandtogivebirthtotheirchildrenunderalienatedstatecontrol,distortingthe naturalprocessofchildbirth,attheriskofabuse.Theeventthuslacksthejoyofanewlife, thedeepspiritualmeaningofattachment,thepeakexperienceoftheconsciousness-altering processofchildbirth(onthis,see,forexample,inthecontextoforgasmicbirth:[50]). Somethingsimilarappliestotheendoflife,death.Deathismostlytabooedinourmodern societies,andthedyingareveryoftencutofffromtheirhomesandlovedones.Although theproliferationofreturnsfromdeath,ofnear-deathexperiences,islargelyduetothe medicalizationofdeath,inalienated-statecontexts,thereislittleopportunityforafull experienceofafarewelltolifeanddeathasaself-transcendingspiritualexperience(fora comprehensiveoverview,see[51]).Ofcourse,itisalsotrueofbirthanddeaththatifittakes placeinafor-profitbusinessratherthaninastatecontext,thereislittleroom,besidesthe focusonthe“success”oftheprocess,fortheintrinsicspiritualvalueoftheexperience.The samecanbesaidforloveandsexuality.Forexample,despitetheliberationofloveinthe

West,whichbeganinitsentiretyinthe18thcentury,anditsincreasinglyclearself-worth,it tookonmoreandmoredistortedforms,eitherbecauseofover-regulationbythestate,or becauseofthelackofknowledgeofloveandtheflightfromitinlatecapitalism,whichis atomized,sufferingfromsocialisolationandlackofrealattachments,whichevenledEva Illouztospeakof“theendoflove”[52].Allofthisisexacerbatedbywhatisoftencalledthe “crisisofthefamily”,butisawidercatastrophe,rootedinthedisappearanceofpre-modern communalties[53].Unfortunately,thelinkbetweenpseudo-spiritualityandsexualityhas manysuperficial,consumeristmanifestations,butifweconsiderthespiritualityofsexuality simplyasthesurrenderofoneselfinaself-transcendingwaytotheeventoftranspersonal unionwithanother,thetermmightrecoveritsauthenticmeaning(foracomprehensive discussionofsexualityasanalterationofconsciousnessandunion,see[54]).Wecould talkaboutmanyaspectsofourlivesinthiswaythatmaycontributetothereenchantingof life.Thereisnodoubtthattherearemanymovementsandaspirationstocounterexisting negativetendencies,andwemayhavearighttobesomewhatoptimistic.

Theillegitimateandalienatingstateauthority,theauthorityofexpertswhenitcannot bequestionedorsupervisedbythecommunity,theabstractandalienatingdominationof value(anditsself-valorization)inprofit-producingeconomicmechanisms,thecontradictionsbetweenthespheresoflifeandworkoflatecapitalismareallobstaclestolivinga spirituallyfulfilledlife.Ratherthangoingintoallofthem,threepracticeswillbeanalyzed herethatarecommonlyregardedasexcellentwaysofhavingaself-transcendingspiritual experience:meditation,psychedelicexperienceandmysticalexperience.Thereisaninherentanarchisticpotentialinalloftheseexperiences,justthepracticeofpeopleengagedin themcangraduallybecomemoreandmoreanarchistic.

4.1.Meditation

Letusstartwithmeditationinthebroadersense,inthesensethatitencompassesits environment,itsassociatedpracticesandteachings.Theworld’smeditationtraditionsare richandvaried(see,forexample,[55]),withcognitive,somatic,therapeuticandconceptual aspects,anditisbynomeanseasytobringthemalltogether.Nowadays,itgenerally refers“topracticesattemptingtobringaboutaheightenedstateofattention,clarity,mental quiescence,orahostofrelatedmentalstatesalongacomplexspectrumculminatingin transcendence”[56](p.3).Themeaningoftranscendenceshouldnotbemisunderstood here,sincetherearealsofullysecularversionsofmeditation(suchastheNorwegianAcem orthemeditationproposedbythenon-authoritarianKrishnamurti).Transcendencehere refersabovealltoself-transcendence,whichisattheheartofthisarticle.Althoughtherapid globalspreadofmeditation(andwithittheexplosionofinterestinmindfulness)raises anumberofquestionsabout(post)colonialismandOrientalism,forthemomentitseems moreimportanttocriticizetheideologyofBuddhistmodernismandexceptionalism[57], anditisregrettablethattheWestisinfactshuttingitselfofffromitsownmeditative andcontemplativetraditions,andtoooftenlookingtosourcesoutsideitselfthatseem exotic(thisissomewhatsimilartothecriticismsofyoga:[58]).Onecouldbeinfavor ofthepreservationofthepurityofeachtradition(ofcourse,lookingcriticallyatwhat isunacceptableaccordingtoourcurrentideals),butwiththecross-pollinationbetween meditationlegaciesandpracticesandneuroscience.Meditationthusinvolvesthealtering ofconsciousness,butneverinitsoriginalformasanendinitself,butinthemidstofethical self-cultivation,withtheaimofahighersoteriologicalstate,andwithanontologicalinsight intothenatureofreality.

Towhatextentcanmeditationbeanarchisticinanysense?Itisnoaccidentthatthe termself-liberationisoftenusedinthecontextofmeditation.Whileitmayhavemany communaldimensions,itisultimatelyafirst-personperspectivepractice,atleastinregard tothestartingpoint,that“freesthemindfromexternaldemandsandalsofrominternal themesofunfinishedbusinessthatpressureforplanningandproblem-solving”[59](p.IX). Meditationreworksinternalandexternalstimulusinformationbyde-linkingsensations andthetendencytorespond,therebyincreasingthespaceforfreedomofmaneuverand

creatingthepossibilityofvolitionalself-regulation.Tothisextent,thereisreasontospeak ofatranscendenceoftheusualseparate-selfsenseandadeconstructionoftheself,sincethe observingselforabsorbedpureconsciousness,developedduringmeditation,disidentifies frommanyself-representations,whichgraduallyincreasesthedegreeofself-detachment. Thestateofconsciousnessthuscreatedgetsridofautomatisms(forexample,bareattention oropenmonitoringcanletmentalcontentsbefreebylettingthemcomeandgo),restrains thecensorshipofthemind,createsrelativeindependencefromthecontentsofawareness, etc.Alsoimportantforspiritualanarchismisthatmeditationcanhelptodispeltheillusion ofcompactness,i.e.,seeingthingsintheirprocessualityandbroadercontext,intheir fragilityandtransience,deconstructsthestabilityofexistingentities,andthismightalsobe relevantforseeminglycompactinstitutionsandmechanismsofdominationandauthority. Insum,therearestrongreasonstoagreewithJackEngler’sandDanielBrown’sfindings[60] thatinsomeways,meditationstrengthenstheego(asitbecomesmoreorganized,pays attentioneasier,moreeasilyexertsvoluntarycontroloverimpulsesandbehavior,etc.), butatthesametime,throughself-transcendence,itevokesastateofconsciousnessthat viewstheegofromamoreintegrated,broaderanddeeperperspective.Finally,itshould beaddedthat,throughdeconditioningandreconditioning,meditationreplacestheusual automaticandunquestionedinterpretationswithamorethoroughrealitytesting—andthis toocanbeanextensionof,orapreconditionfor,anarchisticpracticesandcriticalthinking, butalsocultivatingcompassion.

Thespreadofmeditationandmindfulnesshasrecentlycomeinforalotofcriticism, whichcanbesummarizedasMcMindfulness.Accordingtothiscriticism,mindfulnessbasedstressreductioninparticularistoomuchintegratedintothesystemofindividualistic andde-politicizedself-technologiesofferedbylatecapitalism,andhasessentiallybecome aconsumerist,commodifiedchoice.Furtheraccusationsarethatmeditationdoesnothelp tochangetheworld,butconformisticallyleavesitasitis,andfurthermore,itislinkedto practicesthatareethicallyhighlyproblematic,inadditiontothefactthatWesternpractitionersdivorcemeditationfromitsethicalframework,contrarytoimportanttraditions. However,itdependsonthecontextandtheintentionsofthepractitionerastowhatthe inherentself-liberatingpotentialsofmeditationareusedfor,andtheseobjectionsdonot affecttheveryessenceofmeditation.Fortunately,therearenowwritingsavailablethat answertheseobjectionsindetail[61],deconstructthemythofMcMindfulness[62]and outlinecritical,sociallyawareandengagedformsofmindfulness[63].Itisworthquoting hereMichaelW.Taft’sTheAnarchist’sGuidetoMindfulness:

“Inaworldthatisconstantlyvyingforyourattention,becomingselectivewith thatattentionisanactofrebellion. ... Tosit,toreallysit,isanactofrebellion. Itrequiresyoutuneoutthestimulidemandingyourattention.Itrequiresyou upendthetraditionalvaluesofmodernwesterncultureandstop.Itrequiresyou submityourdesirestoanintention.Itistheoppositeofwhattheywantandit fliesinthefaceofallofthewaysthey’veconditionedyou. Itprovidesboth individuationandcommunion.It’salsooneofthemostradicalthingsyoucan do”.[64]

Ratherthanreviewingthesedebates,letusfocusonatopicofparticularrelevanceto spiritualanarchismandinherenttothepracticeofmeditation.

Itisabouttherelationshipbetweentheteacherwhoteachesmeditation,whotransmits itstraditions,andthedisciple.Itiswellknownhowmuchabusethereisofteachers teachingmeditation,sexualabuse,financialabuse,abuseofpower,etc.Fortunately,we haveapublication,JoelKramerandDianaAlstad’sGuruPapers.MasksofAuthoritarian Power,whichsystematicallyreviewstheproblems[65].Forspiritualanarchism,the questionhereiswhetherthisrelationshipisinherentlyunacceptable,orwhetheritis possibletohaveapracticethatrefutesthepossibleobjectionsofanarchists.

Anarchistshavealwaysbeencautiousandcarefulaboutdifferentformsofauthority. Forexample,intheAnarchistFAQwrittenbyIainMcKayandothers,intheirarticleWhy areanarchistsagainstauthorityandhierarchy?[2],theyargue,drawingonBakunin,Erich

Frommandothers,thatauthorityhastwomeanings,onerationalandtheotherirrational. Theformerisbasedontheabilitiesofcompetence,i.e.,sociallyacknowledgedexpertise andperformance;helpsthepersonwhoreliesonitandtheyaresupposedtoacceptthe authorityoftheirownfreewill;authorityissubjecttoconstantscrutinyandcriticism;itis inprincipletemporary.Thelatter,ontheotherhand,ofteninstitutionalized,isbasedon power,onahierarchyofratherasymmetricalinequality;itisusuallyfixed;anditexercises dominanceoveroroutrightexploitsthesubjectsubjectedtoit.Perhapsneedlesstosay,from thispointofview,many“gurus”orteachersshouldbeunacceptabletoaspiritualanarchist, sincemanyofthemhavemerelyafixedpositioninaninstitutionalhierarchy,sometimes notfreelychosenbytheindividuals,theauraormerespectaclearoundtheteacherisoften thedecidingfactor,ratherthanactualcompetence.Furthermore,theteacher’steaching isoftennotquestionedinanywayandtheirstatusisgenerallynotrevocable,anditis commontoexploitratherthanhelpstudents.Butisitpossibletoimagineateacher–disciple relationshipthatwouldbeacceptablefromtheviewpointofspiritualanarchism?

Onthispoint,onecandrawonJohnWelwood’sOnSpiritualAuthority[66]toargue thatspiritualanarchismcanconceiveofanalternativemodel.Welwoodhimself,almost anarchisticallybutcertainlyquestioningillegitimateauthority,distinguishesbetweena bondage-creatingspiritualteacherandonewhopromotesliberation.Hearguesthatthe connectionwiththeliberatingteacherisinterrelational,characterizedbymutualinfluence, akindofpartnership.Suchateacherisresponsive,butdoesnotimposeherselfofhimself onanyone.Thediscipleexpectstorecognizesomethingintheteacherthattheycouldlearn fromthem,atastagewhenthelearnersarenotyetabletofindtheirinnermaster—andin thissenseisdrawntosomeonewhohasdonetheworkandcanthusbeofhelp.Insteadof apreprogrammedagenda,therightteacherflexiblyfollowstheprogressandwellbeing ofthelearner,akindofmutualadjustmenttakesplace,reinforcedbyasystemofmutual andcontinuousfeedback—thelearnerisnotsubjecttotheone-sidedinstructionsofthe teacher.Infact,itisadialecticalprocesswherebytheteacher’sauthorityservestoenable thedisciple,throughself-transcendence,tonaturallyrecognizetheauthenticauthority inherentwithinthem.AsWelwoodputsit,inthenameofthemaster:

“Grantingmethisauthoritycanbeasteptowardrecognizing theirownauthority— thattheyareindeedtheauthorsoftheirownexperience,ratherthanpassivevictims ofcircumstance.Inaparallel,thoughfarmoreprofoundway,agenuinespiritual master’spresencemayserveasamirrorthatreflectsbackto studentsqualities oftheirawakenedbeing:openness,generosity,discernment,humor,gentleness, acceptance,compassion,straightforwardness,strength, andcourage”.[66]

Welwoodfurtherreinforcestheaforementionedbinaritybydistinguishingbetween mindfulsurrenderandmindlesssubmission,stressingthattheformer,unlikethelatter, isanopeningtoadeeperdimensionoftruth,thattruesurrenderisnotenslavement,not givingoneselfupforthesakeofanidealizedorblindlyreveredotherforthesakeofsome gain,notaregressiveretreatfrommaturity.Theliberatingteachersarehappytorevealtheir resourcesandtheirownexperiences,eventotalkhonestlyabouttheirownweaknessesand failures.Theydonotascribeprivilegedstatustoothersortoinitiateddisciples,insofaras theyconsidertheteachinginprincipleaccessibletoall,anddonotpromoteheardbehavior withinthegroup.Suchateacher–disciplerelationshipdoesnothermeticallysealtheir relationship,butrathertranscendsthetwoofthemandisdefinedbyanopennesstothe commonbeinginbothofthem,transcendingkeyholeperspectivesandegocentricity.As Welwoodwrites:

Surrenderdoesnothaveafiniteobject;onedoesnotgiveoneselftosomething limitedandbounded.Ifonedoes,thenitismostlikelysubmission—tothe teacher’spersonality,orthe‘Cause.’ Theauthenticteacher-studentrelationshipleadsbeyondnarcissismbyshowingstudentshowtodevotethemselvesto agreaterpowerthatlieswithin,yetbeyondthemselves. Genuineteachers encourageself-respectasthebasisforself-transcendence.[66]

Atthispoint,itisworthmentioninganexampleofparodic–ironictreatmentofspiritual teachersthatisclearlynon-authoritarianinnature,butwhichinfactalsomanifestsan authenticspiritualteaching.TheexampleisVikramGandhi’s2011documentaryKumaré,in whichGandhiplaystheroleofafictionalguru,“SriKumaré”,andusesarbitrarilyinvented practicesandteachingstogainanumberofdisciplesinArizona.Themovieillustrates howeasilyuncriticalpeoplecanfallpreytospiritualimpostorsandtheauthoritarian atmospherethatsurroundsthem.Themoviealsoridiculesthewayinwhichpeople,with theirOrientalistleanings,acceptbaseless“exotic”lessons,posturesorotheraspectswithout furtherado.Atthesametime,itcanbesuggestedthatthefilmalsocontainsanauthentic spiritualteaching.Infact,Kumaré actuallyteachestothedisciplesatcertainmoments whatGandhi’srealmessageis;forexample,hewritesontheblackboard“Self=ideal self”,repeatingthat“youhavetofindKumaré withinyourself”and“everyoneisagreat guru,everyonehasaninnerteacher”(complementedbytheteachingthat“externalguru isanillusion”).SriKumaré’sorVikranGandhi’steachingisfulfilledbytheendofthe movie—afterherevealshimselftothedisciples,i.e.,henowshaveshisheadandadmits withoutposturingthatKumaré wasafictitious,falseguru,alargenumberofthedisciples remainfaithfultohim,acceptingtheteachingthateveryonemustrelyfirstandforemost onthemselves,theinnerteacher.Thepartwhere,stillasKumaré,heasksthedisciples tochangeroles,pretendingtobetheguruwhilegivingadvicetoKumaré asthemselves, issymptomatic.Intheprocessofself-transformation,Kumaré isinfactfacilitatingthe developmentoftheobservingself,ahigherandmoreopenthirdperspectivethrough self-transcendence.Intheprocess,Kumaré endsupplayingtheroleofameremirror.The wholemoviethusembodiesaparadox:Kumaré triestoprovetopeoplethattheydonot needaguruasanexternalauthority,buthedoessolargelythroughtheuseofclassical spiritualtechniques,i.e.,thediscoveryofinnerdepth;truthandfreedomareinthiscase alsorealizeddialectically,thatis,withexternalhelp.Thefilmisaspectacularcritiqueof illegitimatespiritualauthorityand,atthesametime,infact,apraiseoftheteacher–disciple relationshipbasedonhelpandpartnership.SomethingsimilargoesoninShivSengupta’s AdvaitaholicsAnonymous:SoberingInsightsforSpiritualAddicts[67],whichisfirstof alladdressedtothosewhoaredisappointedinspirituality,thosewhohaveescapedfrom themselvesortheirenvironmentthroughspiritualbypassing,spiritualaddiction.While itisdebatablewhenSenguptaseekstokeepspiritualitypurelypersonal,individual(he himselfhasalreadysoughttopromotehisinsightsthroughblogposts),itisremarkable that,inopposingillegitimateauthorityandhierarchy,healsoendsupofferingateaching thatisveryclosetoKrishnamurti’s,albeitwithmoreself-irony.

4.2.Psychedelics

Eversincehumanityhashadpsychedelicexperiences,whatitexperienceshasgenerallybeenascribedadeepspiritualsignificance.Thepersecutionofpsychedelicsby Westernsocietieshastakenplaceonseveralscales,firstwithrepressionoftheEleusisian mysteries—somespeculatethatwitch-huntshadasimilardimension—andfinally,withthe colonizationoftheAmericas,asthegloballymostrichpsychedeliccultureswerebloodily persecuted.Beforethestigmatization,demonizationandcriminalizationofpsychedelicuse beganintheNixonianera,i.e.,the1970s,therewasanaspectoftheWesternrediscoveryof drugsthatcouldbeconsideredspiritual(and/orreligious).Forexample,AldousHuxley inDoorsofPerceptionlikenedtheexperienceofmescalinetoamysticalexperienceof Being[68],andmanyworkssuchasHustonSmith’sCanDrugsHaveReligiousImport? haveaddressedtheissue[69].TimothyLeary,oneofthestrongestWesternadvocatesof psychedelicsinthe20thcentury,hasevenwrittenalongessayentitledStartYourOwnReligion[70].Thepsychedelicrenaissancethatisnowtakingplaceiscloselyintertwinedwith otherspiritualtrends.ItisnocoincidencethatLambornWilsonhasdealtwithayahuasca onseveraloccasions[71,72].

Fromthepointofviewofspiritualanarchism,theabsurdityofstaterestrictionand illegitimateauthorityisfatal,sinceitisanexperiencethat,witharesponsibleattitude,

andwithdueregardforthesetandsetting,psychedelicscanbeaninnocentpartof recreationalactivity,orcanevenbecomethesourceofpsychologicaldevelopmentand spiritualself-liberation.Itmightbearguedthatspiritualanarchismmustbecriticalof thethreeoptionssuggestedas“emancipatory”:meredecriminalizationcertainlydoesnot solvetheproblemofpsychedelicexperiencebeingmarginalizedasa“suspectactivity”, laissez-faireliberalizationraisesseriousquestionsofresponsibilityandlegalizationis problematicbecauseofthestate’sarbitrarinessandnarrowvision.ThisiswhyIthinkthat spiritualanarchismshouldconsiderafourthoption,theregulationofpsychedelicswithin self-organizingcommunitieswherethereisawealthofaccumulatedexperience,where authorityispluralandquestionableinprinciple,andwherethesharingofknowledgedoes notleadtothedominationortheproliferationofprivilegesforanyone.Suchisthecaseof the“DaathHungarianPsychedelicCommunity”,whichitisnoexaggerationtosayoperates inananarchisticmanner,sinceitisindependentofthestateandcapitalistmechanisms,has noleader,onlyacoordinator,andaboveall—tousetheMarxianexpressionfavoredby libertarian–autonomistItaliancommunists—itisgovernedbythewisdomofthegeneral intellect[73].

Ascommunitieshaveputpressureonthestate,andthestigmaandrepressionagainst psychedelicshavebeenreducedusingtheTrojanhorseofpsychedelictherapyandthe growingbodyofscientificresearch,anewseriousproblemhasemerged:theinstrumentalizationofthepsychedelicexperiencebymajorpharmaceuticalcompanies.Inadditionto thesubordinationtothemechanismsofcapitalandprofitability,itisparticularlyimportant thatthespiritualdimensionofexperienceiseclipsedandcanbedissolvedintoself-help practices,eventheconformitytothesystem,oftheself-managingneoliberalsubject.Fortunately,theplaceofthepsychedelicexperiencewithinlatecapitalismisincreasinglysubject tocriticaldiscourse,andfurtherimportantquestionsarebeingraisedaboutinclusion, diversity,equity,culturalappropriation,genderandnaturalsustainability(see,forexample, thebookentitledPsychedelicJustice[74]).

Whycouldthepsychedelicexperiencebesoimportantforspiritualanarchism?Preciselybecauseitcanhelpself-transcendence.Psychedelicsfacilitatethemechanismsof neuroplasticityatthemolecularlevel,allowingneurobiologicalmodulationofDefault ModeandSaliencenetworks.Thismeansthattheycontributetothelooseningofrigidly entrenchedneuralpathwaysandthereconditioningofself-modeling,whichmayalso leadtoarethinkingofsocialnormsandrules.Thisiswhyitissooftensuggestedthat unbindingtheself-modelmayalsohavesystem-criticalconsequences.Transientnetwork disintegrationandresettingbeliefs,there-wiringofelementarysubjectivemechanisms,can alsooccurinawaythatleadstototalego-dissolution,andalsoinawaythattheordinary senseofselfissignificantlyalteredandbecomesembeddedinsomethinglarger,suchas thesurroundingnatureoraninfiniteconsciousness,inthesenseofself-transcendence.

Meanwhile,theworldviewonpsychedelicscantakedifferentdirections.Ontheone hand,thosewhohavesuchexperiencesmayradicallyquestionthescientificallydominant naturalism,forexample,intermsofakindoftranscendentalidealismormonism[75],or, forexample,psychedelicexperiencesinindigenouscontextsmaybeinfluencedbyworldviewsthathavebeenthefocusofincreasingscientificattentionsincetheontologicalturnin anthropology.Inthisrespect,anintriguingquestionarisesconcerningspiritualanarchism. Ontheonehand,epistemicauthoritycanbeattributedtothepsychedelicexperiencein general(onthis,see[76]),and,ontheotherhand,authoritycanalsobeattributedtothebeingsthatoftenappearinpsychedelicexperience(fromMotherAyahuascatoMotherEarth tothepersonifiedMushroom).Whatiscertainisthatexperiencersexperiencetheagencyof psychedelicplants,whichisusuallynotpropositionalbutratherexemplary;forexample,it worksbyparadigmaticscenesorbythedemonstrationofknowledgebyacquaintanceand teachingknow-how.Regardlessofhowoneunderstandsthisphenomenon(asaprojection oftheexperiencer’sunconsciousorwhetheroneindeedacceptstheautonomousagency ofbeings),forspiritualanarchism,thisauthoritycanhardlybeunquestionedandrather desirableinakindofrelationmarkedbyakindofpartnership.Inaddition,thepsychedelic

experiencemayalsobeunderstoodfromtheperspectiveofanaturalized,secularspirituality(agoodexampleisthemodelofferedbyChrisLetheby[77](pp.196–205)).Itis importanttonotethatalthoughthepsychedelicexperiencehasinherentanarchisticpotential,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatpsychedeliccommunitiesarenecessarilyanarchistic oranarchist.AlanPiper’sresearchhasclearlyshownthatthepsychedelicexperiencecan beinstrumentalizedbyfascistandfar-rightcommunities[78].Inshort,itistrueheretoo, asinthecaseofmeditation,thatthepsychedelicexperienceisnotindependentofthe surroundingsocio-ethicalcommunity,thesetandsetting,thepsycho-spiritualdimensions oftherelationshiptoit.Anexcellentpositiveexampleofhowapsychedelicexperiencercan becomeopentoanarchismisTerenceMcKenna,whoiswidelyregardedasthe“psychedelic guruofthe90s”andwhohasexpoundedthatpsychedelicusecouldpavethewayforthe witheringawayofthestateandanarchy[79],alsomentionedgreenanarchy[80],talked about“anarchybeingtheideal”andenvisionedcreativedemocraticcommunitieswithoutleaders[81].Overall,wecansaythatpsychedeliacancontributetorethinkingand expandingthemodalspaceofexperience.And,moreover,itcancontributetowhatH. L.T.Quanhascriticizedas“despiteitsclaimofheresy,anarchismintheWestremains faithfulandobedienttotheontologiesandlife-worldsthatgavebirthtoit”[82](p.125).In otherwords,thepsychedelicexperiencelivedthroughtheprismofspiritualanarchismcan alsocontributetothequestioningofdominantontologies.Thiswouldmeanleavingour comfortzonewithintheconsensusreality,amoreparticipativeandegalitarianontology, morepluralapproachestoreality.

4.3.MysticalExperience

Weshouldbeverycarefulabouttheterm“mysticalexperience”,sinceitisamodern categorythatcanonlyhavearetrospectivemeaning.Thepeopleofpremoderntimesdid notstrivetohaveamysticalexperienceforitsownsake,butengagedinacomplexethicalsoteriologicalactivityofseekingtoknowreality,forwhichwe,asex-postinterpreters,use theterm“mysticalexperience”.Itreferstoanexperiencewhichisnotaccessibletoour sensoryperception,whichisguidedbyourmentalconcepts,andwhichthusrevealsthetrue ordeepersideofreality.AccordingtoWilliamJames’classicdefinition,mysticalexperience hasnoeticqualities,ineffability,paradoxicality,transiencyandpassivity.However,since thelate19thcentury,ourthinkingaboutmysticalexperiencehasbecomemorenuanced (see,forexample,[83]).

Themysticalexperiencehasalsobeenrepeatedlyaccusedofbeingindividualistic, i.e.,devoidofcommunity,likemeditationandpsychedelicexperience.Thisaccusation isinherentlyproblematicbecausethemysticalexperiencetendstoeliminateorrelativize thedistinctionbetweentheinnerandtheouter,andindeed,DorotheeSoelleinherbook TheSilentCry.MysticismandResistanceseekseven“toerasethedistinctionbetweena mystical internal andapolitical external”[84](13).AccordingtoSoelle,“mysticismcan beregardedastheanti-authoritarianreligionperse”[84](p.36),sincepreestablished dogma,unquestionedinstitutionsandprivilegedclassescannotbeacceptedbyit.Asa professoroftheologyandanactivistinthepeaceandecologicalmovements,Soelleframes mysticalexperienceasaresistancetocontemporarydestructiveforces,fromconsumerism toeconomicinequalities.Sheillustrateswithaseriesofexamples,fromMüntzertothe Quakers,that“contemplativeactivism”isverypossible,andcanbetransformativeona globalscalethroughthepowerofimaginationanddirectexperience.Theguidingmoral–practicalprinciplessheproposes,whichfollowfrommysticalexperience,areego-lessness, property-lessnessandnonviolence.Inotherwords,mysticismcanbethefoundationof anewkindofrelationalityandfusion,sincethereisnostructurethatcanstandbetween itanddirectexperience.AlthoughSoelledoesnotexplicitlydeclareherselfananarchist, shealwaysusestheterm“anarchist”inapositivecontext(forinstance,sheclaimsthat mysticsspeakan“anarchisticlanguage”[84](p.63))andreferstoseveralanarchistsinher work—herunadulteratedanti-authoritarianspiritplacesherinthetraditionofspiritual

anarchism.Soelleisthuspartofatendencywhichstressesthe“inherentpoliticsinall mysticism”[85](p.541).

ItisworthdrawingattentiontoPhilipWexler’sMysticalSociety:AnEmerging SocialVision[86],inwhichhearguesthatanewspiritualsocialmodelisemerging,one thatpitsintegrationagainstalienation,andinwhichholisticrelationality,conceivedas “re-cosmicization”,takesprecedenceoverfunctionalspecialization,thesearchforthe transcendentaloverspiritualemptiness.TakingWeberiantheoryfurther,hearguesthat itisakindofinnerwordlymysticismthatdoesnotturnawayfromtheworldinan escapistmanner,butischaracterizedbyatendencytoresacralizeit,yetthereisaconstant “reselfing”,asystematicandcomprehensivere-inhabitationoftheselfthatalsodefies theseparationbetweensociallifeandtheindividual.FromWexler’spointofview,this canbeseenasamysticalphenomenonbecauseitischaracterizedbyde-mediation,i.e., thedesirefortheimmediacyandrevitalizationofbeingratherinsteadoftheexisting socio-culturalinfrastructures.Wexleralsotakesintoaccountthatalreadyattheendofthe 20thcentury,whatwemightcallthedemocratizationofmysticalexperiencetookplace. Forty-threepercentofallAmericanandforty-eightpercentofallBritishpeoplehavehad oneormoremysticalexperiences[87](p.3).Thenumberhassinceincreased(a2009 surveyfoundthat49percentofAmericansclaimtohavehadamysticalexperience,afigure thatisparticularlystrikingwhencomparedwith22percentin1962)[88].Somethingis undoubtedlyhappeningandchanging;however,thequestionarisesastowhatexactly.

Fromthepointofviewofspiritualanarchism,thistendencyisabsolutelywelcome, insofarastheincreaseinsensitivitytospiritualexperienceisaccompaniedbytheneedto significantlyreformsociety.Mysticalexperiencemaybeattractivetoanarchismbecause, althoughtheexperienceisnotentirelyself-authenticating,asitcanbetrulyempoweredby communalconfirmation,itsstartingpointandprimarymediumisthedirectexperience ofself-transcendence,forwhichinstitutionsofunquestionedauthority,domination,etc., areunnecessaryandevendisturbing.Themysticalexperienceisinfactthemostdifficult ofallforthespiritualanarchisttograsp,sinceitcaninsomewaypermeatemostspiritual experiences,includingthemeditationalreadymentionedandthepsychedelicexperience. Meanwhile,spiritualanarchismcannotlosesightthatmysticalexperienceisalsoindanger ofbeinginflated,thatinsteadofgenuineself-transcending,transformative,transpersonal experiences,merelypre-rationalideasfloodthepublicdiscourse,asafalseremedyfor themechanismsthatseektorationalizeeverythingaccordingtothetriadicstructureofof state–capital–labor.

5.Conclusions

Thestartingpointforthisarticlewasthepremisethatinsteadofasimplisticjuxtapositionoftheautonomousselfandcoerciveinstitutions,spiritualanarchismneeds tomakeacriticalrevisionoftheselfitself,insofarastheinherentdevelopmentofthe personalitymightentailtheacceptanceofunquestionedauthority,thebecomingprisoner ofdogmas,therepressionoftheself,etc.Ithasbeendemonstratedthat,notcoincidentally,spiritualwriterscompletelyunconnectedwiththeanarchistmovementoftenspeak “anarchistic”language—thedemandforself-liberationisageneralfeatureofauthenticspirituality.TakingupAnthonyFiscella’sobservationthatprevioustextsonspiritualanarchism havenotattemptedtodefinespirituality,adefinitionwasproposed:spiritualityisthe self-transcending,transpersonaltransformationoftheego’snarrowkey-hole,theego’slimitedness.Thismodifiestheexistingliteratureinsofarasitseesspiritualanarchismasmore thananinstitutionlesscounterparttoreligiousanarchism,butashavinganinneressenceto whichitcanadhere.Andinsofarasspiritualanarchismtranscendsnarrowperspectives,it alsohasaninherentlysocialsignificance—thatis,contrarytotheaccusations,inspirituality, individualandcommunityarenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.Itwasleftopenwhether thisinfinityreferstotheinnerdepth,eitherinasecularway,ortosometranscendent, externalbeing.AlongsideFiscella,Wilson’sandCritchley’sviewsonspiritualormystical anarchismwerebrieflyreviewed.Inadditiontodrawingattentiontothecautionrequired

indealingwiththepastofspiritualanarchism,Ihavealsomentionedthreeauthorswho mayberelevanttothishistory(Schmitt,Gross,Novatore).Adifferentinterpretationofthe pastcouldcertainlyopenupavenuesforthefuture.Finally,incounteringtheaccusation thatsomespiritualpracticescanonlybeindividualistic,itwasdemonstratedthatthey infacthaveanumberofcommunaldimensions,allofwhichraisespecificquestionsfor spiritualanarchism.Inthisspiritweremeditation,psychedelicexperienceandmystical experiencethematized.

Giventhatcertainspiritualpracticesareclearlyontherise(thepsychedelicrenaissance,theexplosionofmeditation/mindfulness,theproliferationofmysticalexperiences, thetransformationoftherelationshiptothelifecycles,etc.),itiscertainthatthesocialembeddedness,thehighintensityandtransformativepotentialofthesepracticeswilltrigger theneedforanon-authoritarianinterpretationofsomeoftheirdimensions(suchasthe guru–disciplerelationship).Thespiritualactivityofself-transcendence,self-liberationand themultiplicationofperspectivesasawholeisanextraordinaryopportunityforanarchism, notonlybecauseoftheanarchistethos(solidarity,mutuality,property-lessness,etc.)butprimarilybecauseofthe“mental-emotionalego”(DarrenAllen)asasourceofunquestioned authorityanddomination.Itisnotdifficulttopredictthatifthespiritualdimensionof anarchismisstrengthenedevenmore(astheproliferationoftheterm“spiritualanarchism” demonstrates),orifamovementthatdefinesitselfas,amongotherthings,spiritualanarchism,willbegivenaspecialplace,theecologicaldimension,theconcernfortheEarthand thewidercosmichorizonwillhaveaparticularrole.Inaddition,spiritualanarchismwould notbeboundbythedogmaticandinstitutionalconstraintsthatwouldhinderdialogue betweenthespiritualtraditionsoftheglobe.Furthermore,wheninternalpersonalchange isintertwinedwithexternalsocialchange,spiritualanarchismcancomeupwithanuanced critiqueofcivilization,withitsownparticularaspects,hardlynaivelynostalgicforthepast asanarcho-primitivismis,butratherwithaspecialattentiontothesubtlelayersofthepast thatcanstillbeintegratedintothepresent.Whatiscertain,however,isthatifspiritual anarchismisevertobecomeasignificantfactor,itsprimaryopponentwillbeconsumerist pseudo-spirituality,againstwhichitmustreclaimauthentic,genuinelyself-transcending spiritualitythatdefiesegofixation.AsKirstenBrydumputit,“muchworkisstilltobe done”[51].

Funding: ThisarticlewasrealisedwiththesupportoftheMinistryofEducation,Scienceand TechnologicalDevelopmentoftheRepublicofSerbia,accordingtotheAgreementontherealisation andfinancingofscientificresearch.

DataAvailabilityStatement: Nonewdatawerecreated. ConflictsofInterest: Theauthordeclaresnoconflictofinterest.

References

1. Szabolcski,M.“ AkkorInkábbBakunint ésKropotkinkát ”—EgyEpizódJózsefAttila Életéb˝ol.In Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények;AkadémiaiKiadó:Budapest,Hungary,1973;Volume74,pp.646–652.

2. McKay,I.;Neal,D.;Boraas,E.;Elkin,G.AnarchistFAQ,Version15.4.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full (accessedon12April2023).

3. Anonymous.ThereIsNoAuthorityButYourself:ReclaimingKrishnamurtiforAnarchy.Availableonline: https: //theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-there-is-no-authority-but-yourself-reclaiming-krishnamurti-for-anarchy (accessedon12April2023).

4.Krishnamurti,J. FreedomfromtheKnown;Harper:SanFrancisco,CA,USA,1969.

5. Iandê,R.SpiritualAnarchism:BreakingtheChainsThatEnslaveYourMind.Availableonline: https://ideapod.com/spiritualanarchism/ (accessedon12April2023).

6.Tolle,E. ThePowerofNow;YogiImpressionsBooksPvtLtd.:Mumbai,India,2006.

7. Gourevitch,A. FromSlaverytotheCooperativeCommonwealth;CambridgeUniversityPress,BrownUniversity:RhodeIsland,NE, USA,2014.

8.Kinna,R.;Prichard,A.Anarchismandnon-domination. J.PoliticalIdeol. 2019, 24,221–240.[CrossRef]

9.Shulman,A.K.(Ed.) RedEmmaSpeaks:AnEmmaGoldmanReader;Humanity:Amherst,NY,USA,1996.

10.Ouspensky,P.D. InSearchoftheMiraculous;Harcourt,BraceandCo.:NewYork,NY,USA,1949.

2023, 8,65

11.Gurdjieff,G.I. ViewsfromtheRealWorlds;PenguinBooks:NewYork,NY,USA,1973.

12. AwakentheWorldFilm.Samadhi.Availableonline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9zSMsKcwk&list=PL8qL2YhfbRu-xu5-mdHa-F-4l-yb0vQ- (accessedon12April2023).

13.Cheetham,T. TheWorldInsideOut:HenryCorbinandIslamicMysticism;SpringPublications:Thompson,CT,USA,2003.

14.Geoffroy,E. IntroductiontoSufism:TheInnerPathofIslam;WorldWisdom:Bloomington,IN,USA,2010.

15.Corbin,H. CreativeImaginationintheSufismofIbn‘Arabi;Routledge:London,UK,2013.

16. Allen,D.AnarchismattheEndoftheWorld.Availableonline: https://expressiveegg.org/2018/12/10/anarchism-at-the-end-ofthe-world/ (accessedon12April2023).

17. Oman,D.DefiningReligionandSpirituality.In HandbookofthePsychologyofReligionandSpirituality,2nded.;Paloutzian,R.F., Park,C.L.,Eds.;Guilford:NewYork,NY,USA,2013;pp.23–47.

18.Ingersoll,R.E.;Zeitler,D.M. IntegralPsychotherapy:InsideOut/OutsideIn;SUNYPress:Albany,NY,USA,2010.

19. Albahari,M.TheMysticandMetaphysician:ClarifyingtheRoleofMeditationintheSearchforUltimateTruth. J.Conscious.Stud. 2019, 29,12–36.

20.Proudhon,P.-J. SystemofEconomicalContradictions;Arno:NewYork,NY,USA,1972.

21.Critchley,S.MysticalAnarchism. Crit.Horiz. 2009, 10,272–306.[CrossRef]

22. Critchley,S.MysticalAnarchism.In TheFaithoftheFaithless:ExperimentsinPoliticalTheology;Verson:London,UK;NewYork,NY, USA,2012;pp.103–155.

23.Lukes,S.PerspectivesonAuthority.In Authority;Raz,J.,Ed.;BasilBlackwell:Oxford,UK,1990;pp.203–218.

24. Wollstonecraft,M.AVindicationoftheRightsofWoman.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/marywollstonecraft-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-woman (accessedon12April2023).

25. Bookchin,M.MysticalandIrrationalistAnarchism.In SocialAnarchismorLifestyleAnarchism;AKPress:Chico,CA,USA, 1995.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-social-anarchism-or-lifestyle-anarchism-anunbridgeable-chasm#toc7 (accessedon12April2023).

26. Landauer,G.ThroughSeparationtoCommunity.In RevolutionandOtherWritings:APoliticalReader;Kuhn,G.,Ed.;PMPress: Oakland,CA,USA,2010;pp.94–110.27.

27. VanHoppen,F.AReflectiononMysticalAnarchismintheWorksofGustavLandauerandEricVoegelin.In EssaysinAnarchism andReligion:Volume1;Christoyannopoulos,A.,Adams,M.S.,Eds.;StockholmUniversityPress:Stockholm,Sweden,2017; pp.198–238.

28. Baker,Z.AnarchismandLove.Availableonline: https://anarchopac.com/2017/07/08/anarchism-and-love/ (accessedon 12April2023).

29. Christoyannopoulos,A.;Apps,L.AnarchismandReligion.In ThePalgraveHandbookofAnarchism;Levy,C.,Adams,M.S.,Eds.; PalgraveMacmillan:London,UK;SpringerInternationalPublishing:NewYork,NY,USA,2019.

30. Underwood,S.;Vallier,K.ChristianAnarchism.In TheRoutledgeHandbookofAnarchyandAnarchistThought;Chartier,G., VanSchoelandt,C.,Eds.;Routledge:London,UK;NewYork,NY,USA„2021.

31.Wilson,M.;Kinna,R.KeyTerms.In TheContinuumCompaniontoAnarchism;Kinna,R.,Ed.;Continuum:NewYork,NY,USA,2012.

32. Wilson,P.L.SpiritualAnarchism:TopicsforResearch.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-lambornwilson-spiritual-anarchism-topics-for-research (accessedon12April2023).

33.Wilson,P.L. SpiritualDestinationsofanAnarchist;Ardent/Autonomedia:NewYork,NY,USA,2014.

34. Versluis,A.SpiritualAnarchy,Tantra,andIslamicHeterodoxy.In AmericanGurus:FromAmericanTranscendentalismtoNewAge Religion;OxfordUniversityPress:NewYork,NY,USA,2014;pp.139–146.

35. Fiscella,A.FromBenignAnarchytoDivineAnarchy:ACriticalReviewof“SpiritualAnarchism”.In EssaysinAnarchism andReligion:VolumeIII;Christoyannopoulos,A.,Adams,M.S.,Eds.;StockholmUniversityPress:Stockholm,Sweden,2020; pp.255–326.

36. Schmitt,J.H.Avilágnézet ésajöv˝otársadalma.In MagyarAnarchizmus;András,B.,Miklós,S.,Eds.;BalassiKiadó:Budapest, Hungary,1998;pp.130–134.

37. Schmitt,J.H.Aszellemvallása—Aszocializmusvilágnézete.In MagyarAnarchizmus;András,B.,Miklós,S.,Eds.;BalassiKiadó: Budapest,Hungary,1998;pp.44–50.

38. Novatore,R.TowardtheCreativeNothing.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-towardthe-creative-nothing (accessedon12April2023).

39.Camatte,J. ThisWorldWeMustLeaveandOtherEssays;NewAutonomySeries;Autonomedia:NewYork,NY,USA,1995.

40. Gelderloos,P.HowNonviolenceProtectstheState.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderlooshow-nonviolence-protects-the-state (accessedon12April2023).

41. OtherworldsReview#7:SpiritualAnarchism.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-otherworlds-reviewotherworlds-review-7-spiritual-anarchism (accessedon12April2023).

42.Gotby,A. TheyCallItLove:ThePoliticsofEmotionalLife;Verson:London,UK,2023.

43.Caplan,M. EyesWideOpen:CultivatingDiscernmentontheSpiritualPath;SoundsTrue:Boulder,CO,USA,2009.

44.Wilber,K. Sex,Ecology,Spirituality:TheSpiritofEvolution;Shambhala:Boulder,CO,USA,1995.

45. Emerson,S.ConsciousnessisAnarchy:WhatFormofGovernmentIsYourBrain?Availableonline: https://subtlesalmon. substack.com/p/consciousness-is-anarchy (accessedon12April2023).

46.Malabou,C. AuVoleur!AnarchismeetPhilosophie;PUF:Paris,France,2022.

47.Malabou,C. WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain? FordhamUniversityPress:Fordham,NY,USA,2008.

48. Swain,D.;Urban,P.(Eds.) UnchainingSolidarity:OnMutualAidandAnarchismwithCatherineMalabou;Rowman&Littlefield Publishers:London,UK,2021.

49. Kettner,H.;Rosas,F.E.;Timmermann,C.;Kärtner,L.;Carhart-Harris,R.L.;Roseman,L.PsychedelicCommunitas:Intersubjective ExperienceduringPsychedelicGroupSessionsPredictsEnduringChangesinPsychologicalWellbeingandSocialConnectedness. Availableonline: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.623985/full (accessedon12April2023).

50.Davis,E.;Pascali-Bonaro,D. OrgasmicBirth;Harmony/RodalePress:NewYork,NY,USA,2010.

51. Atwater,P.M.H. Near-DeathExperiences(WhatTheyTeachUsaboutLiving,Dying,andOurTruePurpose);RainbowRidgeBooks: VirginiaBeach,VA,USA,2011.

52.Illouz,E. TheEndofLove:ASociologyofNegativeRelations;OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford,UK,2019.

53.Maté,G.;Neufeld,G. HoldontoYourKids:WhyParentsNeedtoMatterMorethanPeers;Vermilion:London,UK,2019.

54. Maliszewski,M.;Vaughan,B.;Krippner,S.;Holler,G.;Fracasso,C.AlteringConsciousnessthroughSexualActivity.In Altering ConsciousnessMultidisciplinaryPerspectivesVolume1:History,Culture,andtheHumanities;Cardeña,E.,Winkelman,M.,Eds.; Praeger:Westport,CT,USA,2011;pp.189–211.

55.Sheer,J.(Ed.) TheExperienceofMeditation;InfinityFoundation:Princeton,NJ,USA,2006.

56. Repetti,R.Introduction:Ismediationphilosophy?In RoutledgeHandbookofthePhilosophyofMeditation;Repetti,R.,Ed.;Routledge: London,UK;NewYork,NY,USA„2022.

57.Thompson,E. WhyIAmNotaBuddhist;YaleUniversityPress:NewHaven,CT,USA,2020.

58.Singleton,M. YogaBody:TheOriginsofModernPosturePractice;OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford,UK,2010.

59. Horowizh,M.Preface.In TransformationsofConsciousness;Wilber,K.,Engler,J.,Brown,D.,Eds.;NewScienceLibraryShambhala: Boston,MA,USA;London,UK,1986.

60. Engler,J.;Brown,D.TheStagesofMindfulnessMeditation:AValidationStudy,PartI–II,StudyandResults/Discussion.In TransformationsofConsciousness;Wilber,K.,Engler,J.,Brown,D.,Eds.;NewScienceLibraryShambhala:Boston,MA,USA; London,UK,1986;pp.161–219.

61. Repetti,R. MeditationMatters:RepliestotheAnti-McMindfulnessBandwagon!InHandbookofMindfulness:MindfulnessinBehavioral Health;Purser,R.,Forbes,D.,Burke,A.,Eds.;Springer:Cham,Switzerland,2016;pp.473–493.

62.Analayo,B.TheMythofMcMindfulness. Mindfulness 2020, 11,472–479.[CrossRef]

63. Walsh,Z.AMeta-CritiqueofMindfulnessCritiques:FromMcMindfulnesstoCriticalMindfulness.In HandbookofMindfulness: MindfulnessinBehavioralHealth;Purser,R.,Forbes,D.,Burke,A.,Eds.;Springer:Cham,Switzerland,2016;pp.153–166.

64. Taft,M.W.TheAnarchist’sGuidetoMindfulness.Availableonline: https://deconstructingyourself.com/anarchists-mindfulness. html?fbclid=IwAR0EW_73k-a74AE7KIsEdF-WCghOHOQ8u5jCZLcO5FcWArDPT_9djBjhcKQ (accessedon12April2023).

65.Kramer,J.;Diana,A. TheGuruPapers:MasksofAuthoritarianPower;FrogBooks:SanAntonio,FL,USA,1993.

66. Welwood,J.OnSpiritualAuthority.Availableonline: https://www.lionsroar.com/on-spiritual-authority/ (accessedon12April2023).

67.Sengupta,S. AdvaitaholicsAnonymous:SoberingInsightsforSpiritualAddicts;NewSarumPress:Salisbury,UK,2020.

68. Huxley,A.TheDoorsofPerception.1953.Availableonline: https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20200328/html.php (accessed on12April2023).

69.Smith,H.Dodrugshavereligiousimport? J.Philos. 1964, 61,517–530.[CrossRef] 70.Leary,T. StartYourOwnReligion;RoninPublishing:Berkeley,CA,USA,2005.

71. Bey,H.LambornWilson,PeterakaHakimBey.AyahuascaReading.Availableonline: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ peter-lamborn-wilson-ayahuasca-reading (accessedon12April2023).

72. MichaelTaussigInterviewedbyPeterLambornWilson.AyahuascaandShamanism.Availableonline: https://archive.org/ stream/ayahuascaandshamanismmichaeltaussiginterviewedbypeterlambornwilson/Ayahuasca%20and%20Shamanism%20-% 20Michael%20Taussig%20Interviewed%20by%20Peter%20Lamborn%20Wilson_djvu.txt (accessedon12April2023).

73. Levente,M.;József,R.Onlinedruguser-ledharmreductioninHungary:Areviewof“Daath”. HarmReduct.J. 2013, 10,18. Availableonline: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852026/ (accessedon12April2023).

74. CaiubyLabate,B.;Cavnar,C.;Williams,M. PsychedelicJustice:TowardaDiverseandEquitablePsychedelicCulture;SynergeticPress: SantaFe,NM,USA,2021.

75. Timmerman,C.;Kettner,H.;Letheby,C.;Roseman,L.;Rosas,F.E.;Carhart-Harris,R.L.PsychedelicsAlterMetaphysicalBeliefs. Sci.Rep. 2021, 11,22166.[CrossRef][PubMed]

76. Moen,O.M.ArePsychedelicDrugsDistorting?In PhilosophyandPsychedelics;Hauskeller,C.,Sjösttedt-Hughes,P.,Eds.; BloomsburyAcademic:London,UK,2022.

77.Letheby,C. PhilosophyofPsychedelics;OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford,UK,2021.

78. Piper,A. StrangeDrugsMakeforStrangeBedfellows:ErnstJünger,AlbertHofmannandthePoliticsofPsychedelics;CreateSpace IndependentPublishingPlatform:ScottsValley,CA,USA,2015.

79. DeusExMcKenna—TerenceMcKennaArchive.TerenceMcKenna~AnarchyIstheIdeal~December,1989.Availableonline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpdvAfSpdsM (accessedon12April2023).

80. WePlantsAreHappyPlants.TerenceMcKenna—GreenAnarchy.Availableonline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Po0 KU5_nU (accessedon12April2023).

81. WePlantsAreHappyPlants.TerenceMcKenna—AnarchyandSocialResponsibility.Availableonline: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=EpZzkNBqOJQ (accessedon12April2023).

82. Quan,H.L.T.EmancipatorySocialInquiry:DemocraticAnarchismandtheRobinsonianMethod. Afr.Identities 2013, 11,117–132. [CrossRef]

83.Jones,R.H. PhilosophyofMysticism:RaidsontheIneffable;StateUniversityofNewYorkPress:Albany,NY,USA,2016.

84.Soelle,D. TheSilentCryMysticismandResistance;FortressPress:Minneapolis,MN,USA,2001.

85. Fox,M.MeisterEckhartandKarlMarx:TheMysticasPoliticalTheologian.In UnderstandingMysticism;Woods,R.,Ed.;Athlone Press:London,UK,1981;pp.541–563.

86.Wexler,P. MysticalSociety:AnEmergingSocialVision;Routledge:London,UK;NewYork,NY,USA,2000.

87. Forman,R.K.(Ed.) TheInnateCapacity.Mysticism,Pyschology,andPhilosophy;OxfordUniversityPress:NewYork,NY,USA,1998.

88. PewForum;PewResearchCenter.ManyAmericansMixMultipleFaiths.Availableonline: https://www.pewresearch.org/ religion/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/ (accessedon12April2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’sNote: Thestatements,opinionsanddatacontainedinallpublicationsaresolelythoseoftheindividual author(s)andcontributor(s)andnotofMDPIand/ortheeditor(s).MDPIand/ortheeditor(s)disclaimresponsibilityforanyinjuryto peopleorpropertyresultingfromanyideas,methods,instructionsorproductsreferredtointhecontent.