Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I've been enjoying these lately.

3

selver wrote

I found this one to be a much more clear explanation of egoism, and maybe should have been the first of the series, as an introduction (although I guess most listeners are familiar with it already).

I liked the way a! was pushing back on some of the theory in this one.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Yeah I think since a! sees Daniel regularly at the reading group meetings he felt more safe challenging views. What was interesting for me was how a! noted that Daniel had been basically the only person at their reading group who had remained an egoist over time. In part because I think of the bay area anarchists to be pretty much the centre of egoist anarchism. What are they all then? Nihilists? Pure Black? plain ol' Green?

More and more though, listening to these people speak, it makes me want to try to articulate my politics for myself. I feel like I wouldn't be able to have the kind of flowing, readily-had conversations that these people do. It's in part because I have a different focus and don't really like to define myself in terms of preexisting anarchisms (and especially those from the US and Europe).

4

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

There is no center of egoist theory as egoism presents an actually very open interpretation of our shared reality. I'm a part of a few occulsit inspired egoist groups and we come from a wide background. Christians, atheists, Buddhists, communists, and many other broad labels.

We have a little saying: your phantasms end where another's begin. We try to avoid the edgy-egoism you see on FB and pretty much everywhere else.

3

selver wrote

I think they are more nihilist? Which would make sense to me given the way this conversation went, ie. reaching a dead end with the "what is to done" question.

I would have trouble expressing my own politics as well, especially in a conversation. Something I want to work on. I usually need to write to really coherently express my politics at all.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Annoyingly, sharing a detailed politics here would amount to doxxing myself, since my politics is entirely situated.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Separately, this actually confused my sense of what Egoism is - it seemed to present to me a pretty weak form of what I thought it might be (since I've never read Stirner).

I don't really get what 'individualism' means, to egoists.

4

amongstclouds wrote

Individualism in the modern sense is very spooky and based on hierarchical notions of who is and is not deemed to be their own individual.

I prefer to use the term radical monism and make the comparison of 'the creative nothing/the Unique' to the ideas of Sunyata (emptiness) and the Tao (the name that which can be named is not the eternal name.)

It's is the nameless and totally beyond description.

3

selver wrote

I'm not sure how other people use the word "individualism" when it comes to egoism, but I take it as radical solipsism / phenomenalism.

But I think early american egoists were using the word differently than others. Tucker and the other American individualists were much more concerned with theories of individual political rights than any sort of metaphysical philosophy.