I find Bellamy's views can span from agreeable to overly defensive, but this is a good listen. Ultimately I think there's a chasm between how Bellamy reads egosim (which I think Wombat might agree with) and how everyone else from staunch egoists to APs read it. But finding it useful doesn't change the fact that is an analytical framework that in an anti-civilization discourse is extremely divisive. For those of us opposed to it, it's really a yes/no situation, for those that believe in it, everything is the ego and anyone who isn't an egoist is just dishonest or not recognizing their own bias.
This essay is 10 years old now, but this topic is circular and whenever it comes up I feel like this sums up most of what I have to say on the matter: Egocide.
"There is no light at the end of the Carpal Tunnel." - Bob Black
Bellamy has some great points that dig at the heart of a lot of my points. In many ways, I feel to of been put in a shadow of Bellamy as he voices many things I've also thought, but also voices them in a more articulate way than I can. However, as of late, I've looked back on the years of discussion and I feel as if I've moved. I still identify with nihilist anarchy, yet I am excited by rewilding and how my experimentations in this area are going. Lately, I just have been losing this feeling that I'm not an anarchist primitivist. This latest round of arguments of primitivism without the anarcho made me consider more that I am a primitivist of the anarchist variety. Probably more so than just anti-civ. It has been bouncing around for a little while and with these land projects I feel great enthusiasm, not just on a theoretic level, but also on the level of how I want to live my life, which corresponds strongly in agreement with how these land projects and their proponents frame them.
Eh, may of spoke too quickly. Bellamy likes Stirner a great deal and while I may of borrowed concepts from Stirner and other egoists, I have more in common with Rydra in avoiding heavy influences beyond my self in how I define my views on the unique.
On a related note, I just got my B&GR I noticed a desire to examine egoism and nihilism and offer a nuanced perspective on flaws in the theories.
John gets it right, though Bellamy is also right to protest. Those influenced by egoism and may even identify as egoists can go in many varied directions. Though breaking down false values should probably have an end result closer to anarchist primitivism, many egoists spiral off before arriving at a strong perspective, finding alliance with any variety of values. In FRR's latest episode, Bellamy points out that transhumanism is a reification of self, yet I've met egoist identifying people with similar views to transhumanism and I've even considered transhumanism at one point.
Egoism without alliances does sound great in theory. But unless they are a writer or performer, their stories will often be left unsung. Without a story to tell, there is nothing learned. In some ways, I can romanticize this position, but then other egoist concepts, like living projectual and conflictual lives, concepts Wolfi has outlined a great deal on why one may want to share their relationships with others and build alliances.
On interacting with the wild or the bioregion or some other point on how the self and the other are divided, there is this desire to be real with the world as one is real with one's self. But there isn't a strong connection from most egoist authors because they don't live a subjectivity aiming towards the wild. At one point, it was hard to see Feral Faun as anything but a poet primitivist. The move to translations and being taken seriously by relevant people seemed to disconnect this strong language that sounds like both wild as free and wild as wilderness uncontrolled.
For Jason McQuinn, I'm less familiar with his writing. What I have read has helped with post left critique, but here also the same point. Little talk of the wild in any form. More about individuals taking on systems of thought or analyzing groups, institutions or other systems. I wish I read more, perhaps I missed something? Same with Lawrence Jarach. Great criticism of essentialism and examination of the Spanish Civil War. Very smart author, like the others, but still, no real references.
Over and over this is seen. To me, this points out that a pro-wild egoism of some sort has space, but it may also pay to differ the identity from egoism proper as to say "I am this kind of egoist" rather than just assume egoism implies anything agreeable and nothing disagreeable. This is why perhaps I am an anarchist primitivist. I could remake a new identity, but the history of anarchist identity has commonly lumped anarchists together vaguely. Kropotkin's anarchist communism is nothing like the Platformist variety, as an example. At one time, socialism and communism meant about the same thing as anarchism, but as positioning occurred, the identities broke down, then further brown down into sub-categories.
I don't know. I guess I'm interested in feedback on this, but I'd also like to help in examining egoist authors to build a case that well known anarchist authors who also happen to be egoists fail to develop a connection with the world around them. I think this hypothesis can find strong correlations that due to the absence of substance, claims that the ego breaks down the self/other dichotomy are false or not a strong priority, except when responding to criticism. Or something like that.