Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rewilding as Neologism and other issues
#11
Arom:

I like where you're coming from in terms of the primacy that you place on your own enjoyment, but I should emphasize that "becoming" in the sense that I am using it here is oriented toward the immanent present rather than the abstract future. Furthermore, it's always occurring "under the radar" of individual consciousness regardless of the extent to which particular individuals may be aware of it, so a person can't not be engaged in processes of becoming even if they make a conscious effort not to. If we're using the word "becoming" in the colloquial sense of "I used to be a janitor but then I returned to college so that I could 'become' an accountant and make more money," then, yes, I would tend to agree that you should probably focus more own your own desires and less on what you feel you ought to "become." However, in the sense that I'm using it here, Being and Becoming are one and the same. Existence itself is a process of emergence through which I become who I am. Desire is the fuel that sets this process in motion - the capacity to create myself as I choose and fashion the life that I want - without guilt, without shame, and without duty to any authority other than myself.


Zhachev:

While I too often grapple with questions of how I can interact with "the World" in an anti-authoritarian way, the realization has slowly begun to dawn on me that "the World" as some unified totality simply does not exist. Everything is just a web of shifting connections between people and things, a diffuse and fluid network of relations through which both "subjects" and "objects" perpetually co-emerge

From this vantage point, it is not as a fully pre-constituted "Self" that I interact with my "external" environment, but as a multiplicity of "partial selves" that are in constant interaction with the myriad of partial objects that comprise "the World" perceived as a unified totality. This isn't to say that the partial objects that I perceive as external to myself (including the partial selves of other individuals) merely exist inside my mind, but that the unitary character of both myself and my environment are never pre-given. Rather, the "identities" of both myself-as-"Self" and the world-as-"World" are constantly emerging as differentiated identities through the interactions of their component parts with each other. This may help to clarify the dilemma (and, at the same time, its possible solution) that Odin alluded to when he posed the question, "what is it that you call the 'self'?"

So, how do you reconcile the preceding two paragraphs with that feeling of righteous anger that surges up inside of you whenever you are confronted with the "injustices" that you see going on around you? First of all, I will suggest the the whole idea of "justice" presupposes not only "the World" as a unified totality but an entire bureaucratic and legalistic framework though which "justice" can be administered. But is it really a lack of "justice" that you are reacting to or does it lie deeper than that? Could it be that you are seeing others being denied something that you desire not only for them but also for yourself? And is what you desire for yourself merely to be treated "justly" by the state apparatus or do you want something more?

I don't know about you, but what I want is nothing less than the capacity to act as I choose in all areas of my life to the extent that it does not restrict the capacity of others to do the same. This has nothing to do with a recognition that others possess inalienable "rights" that I ought not to violate, but of the fact that my capacity to act as I choose flourishes best in an environment where others can do likewise. And where does the capacity to act for oneself actually come from? Is it externally ordained, either by the laws of God, the laws of Nature, or the laws of Man? I think not. Even saying that I ordain it for myself doesn't get us far enough because, again, what is this thing that we call the 'self'?

Breaking free from liberal notions such as "justice," "rights," "equality," etc requires not only an ideological rejection of the various bureaucratic institutions that comprise techno-industrial civilization, but also a fundamental deconstruction/reconstruction of the individual human Subject as it is understood within the dominant political discourse of liberal democracy. Take, for example, the idea of "the Citizen" as a political identity assigned to specific individuals within the current social order. What is "the Citizen" if not the explicitly political iteration of the Cartesian Cogito - i.e. a prefabricated "Self" that one dons like a mask in order to be "represented" at the table of political power? The whole idea of "the Self" as an ontological a priori is a means through which all individuals are contained within the fishbowl of political "representation." The idea of the "the Self" as an open-ended process of becoming and co-emergence offers a radical break from this dead-end logic.

When it comes to questions involving race, gender, and so forth, I prefer to engage with them on an interpersonal rather than political level. Rather than begin from the premise that what makes a person who they are is the sum total of social categories to which they belong, I begin from the idea that each individual, including myself, is engaged in their own processes of becoming; and, as such, is a swarming multiplicity of disparate elements that can never be fully quantified or encapsulated. If they have experience with belonging to particular race or gender that I do not have, then I assume that these are just particular aspects of who they are that I can never fully comprehend. Precisely for this reason, I do not regard the various social categories to which a person might belong as collective political identities in need of "recognition" or a unified "voice." Nor do I conclude that, because I can never fully comprehend their lived experience, I need to just sit down, shut up, and not question the manner in which they interact with me.

For example, if a person who just so happens to be black feels the need to cling to their "blackness" as though it is a collective identity into which their individual uniqueness essentially disappears, then I am not morally obligated to remain silent on this point simply because I happen to be white. Granted, I may assess the time, place, and general context of our interaction and decide that the topic is better left alone. However, if it turns out that a reciprocal exchange of ideas might have transformative potential for us both and we're each receptive to what the other person has to say, then it is absolutely a discussion worth having. By virtue of even occupying a shared space in which our differences are clearly on display, one can't help but acknowledge the potential for us both to leave the interaction as different people than we were before we entered it.

Again, becoming-Self, as a transsubjective process, never occurs in isolation. Only through the encounter between I and not-I can a "Self" be said to emerge. Assuming that I must cower and bite my tongue in the face of another because this Other has been ascribed a political identity deemed "more oppressed" than my own is an insult to us both. Not only does it cast both sides in the role of "victim" and thereby strip us of our power, it approaches the whole idea of "identity" in an essentialist manner, reducing both "the Individual" and "the Collective" to hollow abstractions. A well-intentioned but misguided attempt to give a "voice to the voiceless" has, in effect, turned tokenism into a virtue and mutual weakness into strength.
Reply
#12
Just to reply to the original message, I'm totally fascinated and captivated by the Rewilding movement and ideas at the moment. I think rewilding lands and people and what has already happened in that area represents the most hopeful direction I can see. I'm planning on becoming more involved with different rewilding projects and I'm glad to watch it becoming more mainstream, there's been several best selling books on human rewilding and similar themes in the last year or so.
Reply
#13
(Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:15:18 +0000, 11:15 AM)alexander Wrote:
(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.

Once a critical mass of users has been achieved the board tends to grow itself. In the case of a forum I was moderating it took off on it's own after hitting 5k subscribers and membership doubled in 6 months after that. Getting to that initial critical mass of users is the tough part. It can seem very daunting given that this forum is nowhere near that but I think it will be easier on here than with Reddit. The key difference here is that members seem to be interested in participating in quality discussion rather than "lurking".

This leads into my advice: Continue contributing quality, thought provoking content to this forum whenever possible and inviting members to partake in the discussion. For better or worse humans are heavily influenced by social proof and by novelty. If members login and see that there aren't any new posts that's not good for retention or for new member acquisition.

Besides that I'd suggest linking threads to places like Reddit, Hacker News, and other forums to attract members. If you know any other forums with similar but non conflicting goals you can offer to make posts on eachothers forums to gain new members. E.g. A forum for homesteading, sustainable living, bitcoin users interested in decentralization of power..etc..
Reply
#14
I posted the forum around to some subreddits, and tweeted it some, but I'm not on any social media any longer. If anyone is, please do take up strider1's advice! I think that linking to *threads*, as you mention, is likely better than generic links to the website. If you're linking to the website alone, you should probably contextualise it a bit. Maybe link to http://against-leviathan.com/ instead, as it links to this site.
Reply
#15
(Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:58:48 +0000, 10:58 PM)alexander Wrote: I posted the forum around to some subreddits, and tweeted it some, but I'm not on any social media any longer. If anyone is, please do take up strider1's advice! I think that linking to *threads*, as you mention, is likely better than generic links to the website. If you're linking to the website alone, you should probably contextualise it a bit. Maybe link to http://against-leviathan.com/ instead, as it links to this site.

One thing you could do is set up a Twitter account and link it to an RSS feed which tweets every time a new thread is posted here. You can just let it run in the background and would require no checking on your part. I'm not a 100% sure how to implement this -- someone actually mentioned it to me when I was seeking to grow my own forum. I can look into it and get back to you.

The other thing I've noticed is that the traffic here has declined a lot since the board went down temporarily (Measured by page views on my last thread vs. my first thread). I think a lot of members might've skimmed over the email as happens a lot with todays' email inboxes. It might be a good idea to send another email or two to confirm that no one missed out. Almost nothing to lose and potentially a lot more members to regain. I really don't think a lot of members spontaneously decided to leave the forum.
Reply
#16
With regards to the Twitter+RSS stuff: I'm really tech-phobic these days, and would rather keep away from that stuff. But if anyone wants to do it: please just do it! I will help anyway I can, short of actually dealing with Twitter, having an account, &c.

And you're absolutely right with regards to the temporary closing (of which there have been quite a few, actually, but the last one was pretty big since it involved a DNS change and so on).

I can send out another email per your suggestion—you're right, nowt to lose.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)