Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hunger wrote

I think this is always a revolving door situation, where we come in, we engage, maybe we burn out or maybe we find some answers, but either way we leave and want something new. So I'll first say that we would probably do best to build up our canon of knowledge and situate things in relation to each other, fully accepting of disagreement within our ideas and the works we stan, while not using that as a reason to say one is really anarchist and the other not. At any point in time, hopefully, we're learning and re-building our ideas and asking new questions and making new hypotheses. So I think it's totally fine to move in and out of this or that milleu/space/community, as suits everyone's needs, while still maintaining that thread of coherency throughout all works and groups which inspire us, that being a radical position and being against the current society in some way. So all this is to say that while we outgrow some conversations, others are just coming into them, and there's a time and place for all things.

Tired: critique of science in favor of irrationality/occult bullshit/whatever stupid alt/scene woo nonsense (which grows out of what I think to be a very important critique of Science or scientism) Vital: talking and sharing ways of embracing and enacting science/understanding as a process, without glorifying either "expert" testimony or personal/highly-subjective testimony

Tired: nihilism versus moralism Vital: critique of nihilism not from the perspective of a living being which has to make decisions, and trying to understand values that we hold (or which have a hold over us) rather than the comparatively simple denial/rejection of value (which at best is a starting point, at worst blinds us to reality which is that the values are still there haunting us)

Vital: What do we (or you, and I) want as anarchists, and how do we get it, keeping in mind that all current tactics have not yet proven themselves, and neither have most past ones. (the only reliable death of civilizations seems to be disease and ruining their local climate/soil/ecosystems - but maybe this is a partial history, and people's efforts were also very necessary?) - and then from "how do we get it" as strategy, to "how do we get it" as science/tactics-informed-by-experience

0