Basic to our philosophy is the idea that an authentic human history has to be measured by its achievements or failures as a process benefiting the human race in its totality. Because of this we have to affirm that what has been considered until now as the historical process is in fact an anti-human one and that the idea of human progress is only barely perceptible. This anti-history is a separating and segregating process, resisting all movements towards real human development. In the same way very much of what we consider to be “human nature” is in fact a kind of anti-human nature which, rather than defining the authentically human experience, drives us away from enjoying that authenticity. Of course this turning away from humanity needs to be further examined and will need special tools in order to carry out the deconstruction that our revaluation needs. One of those tools may be found in what we will call the line, or the hypotenuse, of erroneous judgement.
Kant complained in his Critique of Pure Reason that “the subjective grounds of a judgement blend and are confounded with the objective and cause them to deviate from their proper determination,” and proposed that “it is necessary to consider the erroneous judgement as the diagonal between two forces.” Pouncing on this anecdotal idea we have begun a new creative investigation based on the drawing of triangles. To find this erroneous judgement diagonal we must first of all create the right-angle of fantasies of which this diagonal will be the hypotenuse. The ninety degree angle we want will be the meeting point of two converse, but also juxtaposing, fantasies, themselves running out of a centre which is a hypothetical idea of authentic humanity. These lines, which are escaping from the core of humanity, are in fact our same fantasies about the human condition. In order to draw our lines therefore we need to look for concepts which are erroneously considered the pillars of what all human cultures are: erroneously considered because, rather than unite us, they actually cut through the human and divide us. Once we have a concept we need to find a partner for it in order to create our right-angle. These are to be discovered in converse juxtapositions, contradictions and paradoxes.
In diagram 1 you will see described the relationship of one of our greatest human-culture fantasies. In the core of the triangle is the 360º circle of authentic humanity. Within this circle lies both the essence and the fulfillment of humanity as a real possibility. It is the hypothetical space in which the universality of humanity is seen as a single concept. Ironically, for almost everyone, this authentic space is considered the most unreal and fantastic space, where the errors of all Utopias lie. And yet, the truth is quite the opposite.
Now let us draw a line upward from this centre that represents one of our authentic human-culture fantasies. In the case of diagram 1 we have chosen the concept of “power”. This line, according to its own nature, must cut out of the circumference of humanity. It has to thrust upward, breaking away from the circle: power cannot be enclosed and it won’t be restrained. “Power” cannot bare humanity: it must reduce it to the dialectics of leader and follower, or master and slave. It is the driving force of all individual ambitions and the destroyer of all collectivisms. Its purest political manifestation is in autocracy, and its antithesis is anarchy. In the same way that autocracy is power, anarchy is related to “freedom”. “Freedom” will therefore be our juxtaposing contra to “power” and it will be our second line that runs away from power on the horizontal plane.
“Freedom” also finds humanity restrictive and must push away from it. But freedom really finds everything restrictive and is essentially doomed to a constant condition of wandering and fighting against everyone and everything that oppresses it. It separates human existence between the free-spirits and the oppressors, and inevitably realises that its only way to come to terms with “power” is to be powerful itself. Thus “freedom” and “power”, whilst seeming to be antithesis, very often become entwined. But how is that possible in a political sense? And so our next question is: what links freedom with power? What can bridge the tension caused by these two humanity-fleeing concepts and their dismembering effects on humanity? What will the hypotenuse of this right-angle triangle be?
The answer is “democracy”. And here we see what democracy really is:
a) a limit to the extremisms of power and freedom. By drawing the hypotenuse we have put a limit to the extent of the antagonistic factions.
b) a conduit between freedom and power. The hypotenuse permits a running between the two concepts and a facilitating of the realisation of both fantasies at the same time.
Of course this hypotenuse has a very positive function, but our point is that it must also be clearly recognised for what it is: as a braking tool and conduit between two internecine human fantasies. Because of this, what it actually does is perpetuate the fantasies, and erroneously perpetuates the idea that the fantasies are real aspirations for humanity when in actual fact they are anti-human drives that can go nowhere. Democracy therefore mitigates the destructive intentions of the power-freedom drives by bonding them, but it does nothing to transcend them or reign them back in to the circle of humanity.
In the political-geometrical sense, the circle is an autarchy. This can be better understood through the image of the Uroboros and the human Uroboric drive which we dealt with in early essays, especially ECOLOGY AS IDEOLOGY AND THE UROBORIC DRIVE. To make positive sense, our geometry would have to be able to draw the triangle within the circle, with the opposing concepts feeding the core, which is always autarchy.
In this conceptualisation “democracy” becomes a positive force, holding “power” and “freedom” in and keeping the political model within the confines of the autarchy of authentic humanity. To do this the concepts of “power” and “freedom” must both be reduced, or, perhaps more feasibly, the idea of “humanity” expanded. Once within the circle of humanity the hypotenuse is no longer an erroneous judgement, it is an authentic one, and we can talk about “real democracy” again.
 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Everyman’s Library Edition, Trans. by J.M.D. Meiklejohn, 1991 edition, Transcendental Logic Second Division – Transcendental Dialectic – Introduction, I