GA and the NAP

I don't know what "NAP" refers to, but regarding liberalism more generally, here is how I would distinguish GA: liberalism is a model of order out of disorder (individual, disconnected "units"), while GA is always a model of transition from one order to another. The originary scene is a transition from the animal order governed by the Alpha to a human order governed by the center. There is a kind of breakdown of the animal order, which could be described in quasi-liberal terms as a complete breakdown of hierarchy, but there's no need to do so--one just has to assume that the one-on-one confrontation that allows the Alpha to assert dominance over a single Beta has broken down, so the Alpha would now face overwhelming force from the group. This doesn't say anything about how that overwhelming force might be shaped--in fact, it seems to me less plausible to imagine all the animals rushing at "equal" speed and intensity toward the center. Similarly, one could represent the moment of "equipoise" before the central object mediated by the sign as a scene upon which all are "equal," but using the word "equal" here is unnecessary and anachronistic. All are *included*, which makes it a *community*, but some will stand nearer to the center and represent the "will" or "sign" returned by the center better than others; and one will be nearer than anyone. Meanwhile, even before a human comes to occupy the center (the Big Man and then sacred king) the center is always occupied by divine beings, who stand above and command the human community. This divine-human hierarchy is itself reproduced within the human community, even if in unsystematized ways. Even the most minimal forms of cooperation among peers have a hierarchical structure, even if it's a rotating one. So, there's never a moment when "equals," with "rights," stand across from each other and agree on a "contract."

You'll have to remember that this is my reading of the oriignary scene--if someone looks at Gans's accounts, it will be much easier to make the case for GA as a form of liberalism. Gans himself sees it that way.

---

Thanks. Well, hopefully I addressed that as well. There's fealty to the center, not some principle that can be stated in declarative terms between horizontally organized individuals. Anyway, the point is not "aggression" in general but specifically the violence caused by mimetic crisis. No "principle" could be stated outside of that context. "Principles" in general can only be formalizations of established modes of deferral.

---

Yes, even deciding how to respond to a declarative statement--which "part" of it to focus on, for example--relies on non-declarative modes. At the very least, if you respond to a declarative, you're deriving from that declarative the imperative to do so.