How does anarchy relate to or challenge consensus reality?

Question

Many anarchists see the state and capitalism as related with consensus reality and so are interested in somehow challenging or overthrowing that (part of) consensus reality. Many also see anarchism as about achieving a different consensus reality without the state and capitalism.

My question is what do you think about exploring an anarchy that is not about that, but is instead about challenging consensus reality itself and exploring outside of the limits of what people agree the world (society, politics, economics, physics, etc etc etc) is and how it works? Any examples of this in historical practice or in writing or your experience etc?

How would this kind of anarchy have different theories and practices than the anarchist movement generally?

Answer 1

I am not sure if i understand you right.  But I wonder about consenses also as the rule by majority which in itself denies the minority of their choice.  

Some thoughts:

Consensus may not really be needed very often because those matters are usually a matter of personal preference or personal conviction; and as an either this or that approach.  So has very limited options and input, so maybe not even the best option is offered.

Decision should be made by the group that is directly affected and maybe a more creative way could be developed by which more choices are met.   In a censensus everyones vote counts equally.

Consensus can also be of a decision of convenience or preference fof the ones asking the question.  

A consensus offers limited choices resulting in limited effectience or satsfaction of the voters.  For ex: to eat at home with the choice of left overs or peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches.   Why not go to a restaurant where everyone can have a better choice.

Comments

My question is not about consensus decision-making in organizations but about consensus reality.

"Consensus reality is an approach to answering the philosophical question "What is real?" It gives a practical answer: reality is either what exists, or what we can agree seems to exist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

---

Sorry anok, I am a quite out of my league here, but I am having a good time and trying to learn more.  Thanks for clarifying.

Answer 2

What is real remains real whatever is beleived.  

Agreement or disagreement neither confirms or dismisses reality.  

What we consider as knowledge often blinds us to what is true.

Consensus is not a way to approach truth / reality.  Creative thought working with forward moving criticism is better.  It is a scary thing to be in a group where everyone agrees.  The more diversity of thought the closer to reality we will find ourselves.  We should always  challenge what is accepted.  Not in a distructive or obstinate manner but to press beyond those ideas.  We should approach reality as a path to knowledge and enlightment and not as authors write books.  Once we think we know something, curiousity and the thinking process bog down.

Debates are also a poor way to find reality.  The ability to listen and challenge our own thinking will take us further than whatever a group of people decide on what is reality or those who constantly debate their positions.  We shoould rather work together to find the answers.