Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rewilding as Neologism and other issues
#1
To me, "rewilding" is a quintessentially anarcho-primitivist term in that it implies a return to an idealized prior state of existence. I understand the general impetus behind wanting to live a more "wild" and undomesticated life, but "rewilding" is simply not the term that I would use to describe that process. I find more creative potential in Deleuze's concept of becoming-animal which, while sharing certain commonalities with the idea of rewilding, doesn't hold the same connotation of a return to an idealized past.
Reply
#2
Zhachev:

Anyone who claims to have a "good" grasp of Deleuze & Guattari is probably lying, so I'm not to make that claim. I've read enough of their stuff that I probably have slightly more than just a basic understanding but I'm not going to pretend that there aren't times when the complexity of their concepts make my head hurt. Still, whenever I've read D & G, I've been struck by the precision of the writing despite the fact it is undeniably dense simply because the ideas  are well beyond the pale of what most people take the time to think about. I can understand why a lot of people find it off-putting but, personally, I feel a certain level of excitement whenever I read them.

A minimum prerequisite for even beginning to understand D & G's philosophy is a willingness to dispense with dualistic separations between Subject and Object, Self and Other, Mind and Body, etc. A major part of their project is undermining the very idea of a fully preconstituted "Self" that stands back from the world and perceives phenomena in an "objective" manner. It is from this vantage point that I would suggest one can begin to understand what they mean when they speak of "becoming." Rather than the Self as an ontological a priori, you have a process of becoming-Self through which a fully actualized individual is always already emerging from out of a pre-individual void.

And it is important to keep in mind that, for D & G, becoming is always multiple - not only because of the multiplicity of other people and things in the world around me, but because I myself am multiple and, thus, am always engaged in multiple "becomings." This is why, all through D & G's writings, you'll encounter terms like "becoming-animal," "becoming-woman," "becoming-minoritarian," "becoming-imperceptible," etc. This also implies that processes of becoming never occur in isolation. Because we live in a transsubjective world, "my" becomings are always inseparably interwoven with the becomings of other people, animals, and objects around me. Becoming is is thus a process of affecting and being affected through a sort of endless "feedback loop" (to borrow a term from cybernetics) between perceiver and perceived.

In short, the idea of "becoming" presents a radically different idea of what it even means to be "a Self" as it has been understood throughout the history of Western philosophy. It is a conception of the the individual Subject as what Deleuze refers to as a "decentered center." Anyway, as for the process of becoming-animal specifically, here's a really short article by him that discusses it in greater depth. It's only four paragraphs long but does require close attention:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~robert2600/fbacon.html


Hope this helps.
Reply
#3
Don't worry, you didn't kill the discussion. I've just been noticing that web traffic has been really sparse here lately and, rather than "become" one of only a couple largely similar voices shouting in the digital wilderness, I thought I'd ease back a bit in the hopes that others might chime in. Besides, the online world has a way of swallowing me up sometimes and, as a result, I need to shift more of my attention to the concerns of "real life." ;)

Anyway, I don't really have much else to add right now other than to say that, in Deleuzian terms, the idea of "becoming" has a far more precise meaning than it does in the common vernacular. It is not simply a means of arriving at a destination or transitioning from one fixed identity to another; of ceasing to be one thing and "becoming" something else. There is no particular "Thing" or particular type of person that you need to become. Deleuze is only presenting concepts that are to be used or discarded at will to whatever extent you find them useful or desirable.

The process of Becoming is itself the goal and not merely the means by which one arrives at a goal; or, to be a little more precise but perhaps muddy the waters a bit, Becoming is an endless process of self-creation through which "goals" themselves are forever being created, recycled, and recreated. Beyond that, you will have to create your own "lines of flight." No one can do it for you, which is "freedom" as it should be.
Reply
#4
(Mon, 21 Aug 2017 23:19:51 +0000, 11:19 PM)Matt Wrote: Don't worry, you didn't kill the discussion. I've just been noticing that web traffic has been really sparse here lately and, rather than "become" one of only a couple largely similar voices shouting in the digital wilderness, I thought I'd ease back a bit in the hopes that others might chime in.
Do you have any suggestions for increasing the traffic? I'm particularly interested in how we can get people who are perhaps unfamiliar with radical anti-civ writing, and who maybe even disagree with the basic position


By the way, this is an interesting discussion; thank you for your contributions.
Reply
#5
(Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:15:18 +0000, 11:15 AM)alexander Wrote: Do you have any suggestions for increasing the traffic?

I wish I did but, never having maintained or promoted a website of any kind, I'm probably not the person to talk to. :-/ It seems to me that there's a bit of a trade-off when it comes to discussing anarchist (or anarchist-inspired) theory over the internet: on the one hand, you can have extensive participation from a broad and diverse user base but inferior quality discussion; and, on the other hand, you can have top-notch but sporadic discussion among a small group of more or less like-minded people. Granted, minor divergences in theoretical orientation certainly exist among the people currently active on this forum (such as between primitivist and non-primitivist strains of anti-civ thought) but, for the most part, I think it's safe to say that the current user base is fairly homogenous in their thinking. While it would be nice to have some dissenting viewpoints being expressed around here just to keep everyone on their toes, I also wouldn't want to see this place turn into another @news where it's just a constant vitriolic flame war between disgruntled anarcho-leftists and those of a more post-left/anti-civ/post-anarchist bent going at each others throats in a rhetorical "war of all against all." I honestly have no clue how to strike that balance and don't really have anything to offer in the way of making it happen. I would just hope that any effort to expand the current demographics doesn't lose sight of the need to maintain such a balance.
Reply
#6
I'll make sure to name-drop this place in my reddit comments when I can shoehorn it in. ;)

I doubt it'll create much traffic though. There's something sort of off-putting about old-style forums to an outsider/new person, what with the need to register, there being an established community, people already know each other (I think less so for here, or maybe it's just me) and the fact that posts tend to be kind of long and theoretical, or news pieces that don't warrant too much discussion.

But I kind of like a chill space for people that are... well, not acting totally delusional, and have somewhat of a handle on their lives, desires, and relationship to the earth. I guess this isn't everyone here, but there's a contentedness here and a feeling of being grounded in reality, rather than the strange world of ideas and semantics. I don't expect it to last, considering people seem to want more discussion and more dissent, but it's nice nonetheless. Also, as long as alexander keeps posting his stuff, this place will never die (just sleeping).
succ
Reply
#7
(Sat, 26 Aug 2017 00:42:26 +0000, 12:42 AM)Zhachev Wrote: Here's a doozy: how to we unbecome? Specifically how would we unbecome racist, or capitalist, or patriarchal?

Your guess is as good as mine. But I do know one thing: guilt is never a good motivator. That's something the professional activist crowd won't teach you in Anti-Oppression 101. ;)
Reply
#8
(Sat, 26 Aug 2017 00:42:26 +0000, 12:42 AM)Zhachev Wrote: how to we unbecome? Specifically how would we unbecome racist, or capitalist, or patriarchal?

I don't really like trying to become (or any variant) anything that posits me as different than I should be. If I wanted to be different and could, then I already would be. Why not simply do what I do in the moment, and see how it turns out? That very well may turn me into an unracist, uncapitalist, unpatriarch, etc. I guess it sort of has this effect anyways, since capitalism, racism, and patriarchy all rely on shoulds, and this method is by its implementation a negation of morality. But the point is, we don't need to unbecome anything, we need to stop trying to be anything. And at some level, I don't care if I'm "at my core" inundated with capitalist, racist, and patriarchal values. If that's the case, if I really am unconsciously impacted by these things, then I guess I'll just stay a shitty person, so long as it means not repressing what gives me pleasure.

Also, I believe Krishnamurti wrote something about self-improvement. I bet alexander has something to say on this.
succ
Reply
#9
(Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:42:35 +0000, 05:42 AM)Arom Wrote:
(Sat, 26 Aug 2017 00:42:26 +0000, 12:42 AM)Zhachev Wrote: how to we unbecome? Specifically how would we unbecome racist, or capitalist, or patriarchal?

I don't really like trying to become (or any variant) anything that posits me as different than I should be. If I wanted to be different and could, then I already would be. Why not simply do what I do in the moment, and see how it turns out? That very well may turn me into an unracist, uncapitalist, unpatriarch, etc. I guess it sort of has this effect anyways, since capitalism, racism, and patriarchy all rely on shoulds, and this method is by its implementation a negation of morality. But the point is, we don't need to unbecome anything, we need to stop trying to be anything. And at some level, I don't care if I'm "at my core" inundated with capitalist, racist, and patriarchal values. If that's the case, if I really am unconsciously impacted by these things, then I guess I'll just stay a shitty person, so long as it means not repressing what gives me pleasure.

Also, I believe Krishnamurti wrote something about self-improvement. I bet alexander has something to say on this.


I think K would ask, what it it about yourself you're trying to improve? Then he would ask what is it that you call the 'self'?
Reply
#10
(Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:41:56 +0000, 12:41 AM)Zhachev Wrote: But Arom, aren't you the one who gets to determine how you would like to be in the end? What if you yourself want to change something about yourself?

This is a good question. I agree that I'm the one who determines how I will be in the future (in part, at least). But my rejection of the future is based on something more... practical. As opposed to theoretical, that is. I can't know if my actions towards the future will affect it to my (future) satisfaction, or if it will turn out contrary to how I want it. Unless I purely enjoy the act of altering my future (Like gardening, for example. It's fun to do), it isn't worth it to bother with those things. If I'm always contented in the present, then I'll also be happy in some future. And it is a choice to live like this. I have no theoretical problems with being the creator of my own life. I just think it's a better strategy to no worry about (un)becoming.

And to answer the other question, I do change things about myself all the time. I change myself because I like the change, though. For example, I work out because I need to; my body eventually feels so uncomfortable to me that I have to exercise. This act of improvement isn't done for the future, though. It's done for me (the existing me).

Anyways, back to rewilding.

I prefer to live closer to nature. I prefer growing my own food (Although there are definitely certain counterexamples here. For example, I like taco bell burritos. In these cases, I the "wild" is secondary to my "egoism", specifically what I want to eat.). I prefer to not be governed. I prefer to not worry about abstractions. Etc. My point is, rewilding stems from existing desire. That's why I'm anti-civ. I am critical of a lot of primitivism and rewilding, but as long as it flows out of my wants and needs, I can get behind it. I think most of the time this is the case (that it flows from egoism and I find it agreeable).
succ
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)