Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kore wrote (edited )

These pieces are getting truly repetitive. There's so little actual substance. What does it look like to become "ungoverned by gender?" How do these ideas of "negativity" and "queer attack" manifest in your daily life?

I also want to point out that the author is pretty clearly supporting the notion of a "wild-domesticated" binary. no critical analysis of these categories (created by capitalism and patriarchy, the very things this author is trying to destroy) is presented by the author.

I for one do not see what is normally called "wild" or "the wilderness" as such. I see it as all there is, as normal. Even with all that capitalism and patriarchy has done to me, to how I see myself, that sense of the primacy of my connection with the Earth and every (non)living thing on it cannot be removed, and it is still what defines me. I am only because the Earth is.

A word like "ferocious" doesn't sit right with me because it's clearly referring to something like a wolf or lion, something that kills or is "violent." Wolves are not ferocious. They're animals that have evolved to kill other animals for food. That's the way it is. They're not fighting against anything, they're just being wolves. Capitalism, patriarchy, domestication (again, things that the author is trying to get rid of) are what (ahem) engendered "ferocity" and the "wild" in the first place.

even "the wilderness", being "wild", and "fierce" are being turned into positive identities under capitalism/neoliberalism! How can anyone who thinks about this for even a moment, let alone write several pieces about it not think about this?

This sort of thing becomes immediately clear when you're in a situation where non-human animals can take your life. Bears can easily kill a human. There's no violence in a survival situation for any animal, prey or predator, human or otherwise.

mortality should not be abstracted

3

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

You've made me want to read this piece :) It sounds interesting to me because I'm quite a fan of baedan so that pretty much automatically makes me excited to see what is better than it.

That said, I don't do the pure nihilism thing because I think non-normative practices overcome the problems of creating positive projects (at least for now, since I suppose that capitalism can coopt everything).

2

kore wrote

I think the main problem I have with pieces like baedan is the implicit assumption that "society" is some monolithic entity. There are societies. Capitalism is trying to coopt them all, but there are still societies. This is the inescapable reality of our humanity, we have no choice but to as-soci-ate with each other.

In addition, these sorts of essays play into the definition of "criminality" and "decadence" created by capitalism. I could say that picking a berry off land that belongs to no-one and everyone and eating it is pretty "violent" against capitalism's insistence that people cannot provide for each other and must rely on corporations/the state. Giving it to someone else to eat is even more so. Spending an afternoon watching the world go by in the company of other animals feels particularly "decadent" in terms of capitalism, but I doubt that is what these essays are talking about.

It is only when these actions are framed as being something "violent" or "non-violent" (or any other set of terms) that they can be coopted by capitalism. When I called the things I mentioned by certain names, it was only to prove my point. Things like taking an afternoon for oneself, to do so-called "nothing" (again, a phrase defined by capitalism), are being coopted under capitalism under the umbrella of things like "self care." But I do not (or try not) to see these things as such. I see them as me doing what I'm doing and nothing more.

to me, everything that is being said in these sorts of pieces was simplified and articulated as well as symbolic thought allows by the Daoists. For example:

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together. Difficult and easy complement each other. Long and short contrast each other: High and low rest upon each other; Voice and sound harmonize each other; Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking. The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease, Creating, yet not possessing. Working, yet not taking credit. Work is done, then forgotten. Therefore it lasts forever.

I just had this thought enter my mind: the daodejing is one of the ultimate "queer" texts.

The discussion of the "death drive" and also "jouissance" in baedan is similar to the idea of the "Dao" or the "Way" being unnameable and ungraspable.

I should probably write an essay about this instead of just spouting off in scattered raddle comments, so I will hold my tongue for now ;)

3

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote (edited )

Yeah I'd read an essay you put together, hopefully you do. I'd like to see some of these things more fleshed out.

2