art
Junior Member
Posts: 77 
|
Post by art on Apr 13, 2015 18:38:07 GMT -5
I think that sort of ties into the Four Legged Human essay in B&GR regarding the commodification of wildness. There is almost an inevitable tendency for "rewilding" community building and "reskilling" to become commodified, and for people to still be reliant on the "system" (i.e. capital) in fundamental ways. RS seems to avoid this by advocating going full Uncle Ted and still attacking civilization. There doesn't seem much of a chance of running away; one can run but one will inevitably clash with the "system" if you are doing it right. (As in the essay I translated for this forum regarding criminality.) Again, for RS, there is not much of a future, and there is not much of a "plan". The only difference between them and U.S. nihilist/egoist tendencies is that illegality doesn't seem to be an option for the former: it's sort of at the core of it. Otherwise, it just becomes the whiny navel-gazing quest for autonomy and self-fulfillment (which can never really escape commodification / consumerism) that we all love in egoists, no matter how much they want to play Bodhisattva encompassing all things in themselves and whatnot.
Then again, maybe this is my own interpretation of things. This is sort of where I stand, however, with the inevitable hypocrisy that I don't walk the walk. Maybe I'm just the old fashioned "fellow traveler".
|
|
|
|
Post by KT on Apr 15, 2015 23:36:11 GMT -5
Art, I think everyone else is kind of stuck on RS having not read your essay. A lot of that stuff is definitely out there, but I think your translations and take really open it up more cohesively. Nothing personal against the other mag, but I really hope they don't run it so I can run it in BAGR!
|
|
|
|
Post by KT on Apr 15, 2015 23:44:45 GMT -5
Hmm. My language for my views on spirituality and perception need not be mereological nihilism I suppose. It is words to describe something that I typically have no words to describe as I typically don't share my spiritual views. However, I do feel Kevin and I are on the same wavelength from a prior face-to-face discussion. I do have to admit that I have not read a great deal on the subject and I find it more of a superficial agreement. I considered defending this view, but it would not be defending my actual views, just the language I have for the views, which is not very heavily influenced by merelogical nihilist thinkers, but rather through experience. For now I'm dropping my points on mereological nihilism. That's the glory about a spiritual perspective, it supersedes Reason. This isn't a cop out, but there are barriers here. It's something I've never tried putting into words because that's a necessary reification of the sacred. It's not something I feel like having some urban anarchist try and confuse as magical ideologies. There's no reason to reify it, it's something felt and acknowledged, not tangible. In terms of reading about it, I've really only noticed a commonality of terms, the Mbuti call it "the spirit moves through the air" and Jon Young's take is the "spirit of all things" (or something along those lines). You can see in the language where the gap is, but it implies an interconnectedness that defies godly properties: this isn't a conscientious, omnipresent being, it's a relation. Wildness (for a lack of a better word) isn't a fill in for intelligent design, it's a functioning ecosystem that isn't bound solely to physical form. If you pick up the vibe of a forest, that's what your reading, that's that point of integration. It exudes history, conflict, turmoil, perseverance, and struggle. Talking about it is merely dealing in abstraction, which is why I really avoid it. It defies language, or, at the very least, it defies our language. |
|
