Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
To influence something or someone you just need to exist, conscious and biological evolution are always present either pre or post civ, because of this i believe like you say that we need to accept our awareness of things and its influence and just work constantly on ourselves to be better humans trying to live with our environment instead of living against it like civilization does.
To me personally i like to interfere as little as possible with the surrounding environment, i see myself like Uatu.
When talking about Nature and wildness, we find ourselves running against the boundaries of language. We cannot possibly understand e.g. what we stand to lose in the loss of a species, or a forest. Thus we get concessions on the form of "oh, well, species have always died out—several species die out every day!", or, "too bad about that forest fire… oh well, it will grow back eventually, in some thousand years". Imagine if we spoke that way about the holocaust! It would be altogether unthinkable. The language-game of preservation is rigged against us. Campagna and Guavara write about this in their essay Conservation in No-Man's Land.

Wildness defies definition. It is poetic—romantic. It is what Thoreau wrote about. We can't articulate it. Yet we know what we mean when we say it. Wildness is merely a proxy «for what you feel when, for example, you see an ancient forest razed by corporate lumber barons, a feeling that does not go away when someone points out that you, or those you love, enjoy the modern conveniences made from those trees.» The word Nature is not Nature. Nature is «the carcasses of albatrosses with stomachs full of plastic; the fins of sharks in the market and their bodies agonizing underwater; the head of the gorilla on a plate; the rotting elephant without a tusk». (Campagna & Guevara, 2014, pg. 57–58). As Krisnhamurti would say, "the word Wildness is not Wildness".

Rousseau wrote about "the state of nature" in his Discourse on Inequality. In it, he describes man, the noble savage. Crucially, we were wildness and Nature. Some of us still are. And the rest of us can be wild once more. Thoreau wrote that «[l]ife consists with wildness.» So we must be wild once more, for «[t]he most alive is the wildest».

So I say no more language-games. There are other ways of communicating wildness. Arne Næss said that you can't stop anything in an industrialised nation state with a working police force. What you can do is communicate, both to the state and to its citizens. And Næss wasn't talking about language-games, he was talking about lifestyle—how you live your life. We can communicate with monkey wrenches.

For being "wild" is not synonymous with being free. Perlman observed that «it is another public secret that the tame, the domesticated, occasionally become wild but are never free so long as they remain in their pens.» Striking out, in rage, is not freedom—sorry, professional activists. Freedom starts inside you, and it touches the entire biotic community. Yearly black blocs are just ritualistic wildness—is it even wildness?—freedom is living, organic, dynamic.

I am writing more extensively about this subject at the moment. I hope to have an essay ready sometime this month
Makes sense, kinda communicate thru action.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)