Majrelende

Majrelende wrote (edited )

One thing that helped me as a nonbinary person with family is persistence, though I am not sure how well this would translate, since there was not much perception of an existential threat for my family in the realm of gender.

5

Reply to comment by Majrelende in Friday Free Talk! by Tequila_Wolf

Majrelende wrote (edited )

If this is true, perhaps it would not be too bold to add ‘revolution’. Any revolution will be horrible, but perhaps there might be a chance of making some space and learning from anarchists’ past mistakes.

3

Majrelende wrote

The scarlet runner bean seems perplexed by the lack of surfaces to climb on, but the nights are still too cold to put them outside. I would guess this should change soon.

5

Majrelende OP wrote (edited )

When we exchange seeds, we rarely ‘approximat[e] [their] exchange value’; we consider our needs and seed supplies and give each other what would make sense to give. In fact, I think it is much easier to give and expect nothing in return than to be given something and want to express gratitude. Rationalising and ritualising interactions favours the other way: If I gave them something, I deserve [an abstract cultural concept] something back.

6

Majrelende wrote

There a few thoughts I have on various things:

Where is my subjectivity? Why did natural selection even fucking produce consciousness when a 'zombie' could seem serve to propigate genes just as well?

(Here, I consider subjectivity to be equivalent to consciousness.)

You are what you see or hear or feel or taste or smell or otherwise sense; your subjectivity is not somewhere; such a question is based on the assumption that it is, and since every’thing’ is within consciousness, to assume that would be to ask: “Where in consciousness can I find consciousness?” The answer, of course, would be everywhere. Consciousness is made of sight and sound and taste and smell and touch and other senses, and even the flickering of qualia that make up thought— it is the last which is the focus of my next response.

Considering the principle we call ‘natural selection’, nature gave us intuitive reason to interpret things, which are themselves abstract concepts, albeit far less abstract for practical purposes than something like ‘nation’. For practical purposes is almost a slogan in our minds; this is exactly the problem. We think of things in terms of this and that and me and you and in general tend to analyse every ‘thing’ as a part of physical reality. This does not work with consciousness. Consciousness is all-encompassing, and nothing is ‘real’ outside of it. It is not a thing within itself. It is immaterial, because the material is necessarily abstract and ‘objective’ and consciousness is concrete. Natural selection is a thought, an idea, an abstraction. One analogy, though not perfect, is the idea that the plot of a first-person story creates the reader.

A universe without conscious beings, a universe of zombies, is physically impossible. Consciousness is reality, and a world of zombies has no consciousness and therefore no reality.

there's research on how some of our ancestors might have communicated this way. But it is controversial.

I have never heard of this— perhaps I will look into it.

I apologise if this was a bit of a confrontational format, but when posts start to lengthen like this, it feels like an appropriate organisational method.

2

Majrelende wrote

Sawing down trees and burning the stumps, then the shrubs and herbaceous plants and tearing apart the earth with great machines in search of copper

making use of our natural resources

Neither of these is perfect, but one of them— namely the first— is, at least to me, a better representation of what is actually happening. In fact, none of us can accurately portray the experiences of others in our imaginations— the only experience we have access to is our own— so perhaps it is essential to use some degree of abstraction in most forms of communication. Still, we can strive to be more accurate and less abstract, to show, not tell.

It seems as if one must use abstraction to speak of abstraction. What an interesting dilemma.

Actually showing someone something is probably one of the best methods of communication in some cases. If you are teaching someone how to crochet, doing it over a messaging programme is far inferior to actually being with them.

4

Majrelende wrote

I have been thinking about this a little as well, and about what anarchist language would actually look like. Abstract concepts like wealth and democracy and legality and property, for the most part, constitute a system of mental algebra that has concrete effects but is in truth nothing but doublethink and self-deception.

Perhaps if this vocabulary were discarded, replaced with the most concrete terms possible, it would be necessary to accept that the cultures we experience are violent and totalitarian hells. Perhaps we would begin to speak more of things that truly exist, to think about and see clearly the world around us.

Part of the reason I was considering language invention, aside from as a creative project, was to experiment and think about and hear what an anarchist language would sound like and what such a thing might reveal.

3

Majrelende wrote

I feel as if “survival” has a bit of an offputting connotation, and it does not even describe very well the act of doing things with natural materials. Is weaving a basket “surviving”? Of course, you presumably need to be alive to do such a thing, and it might help with some activities related to maintaining life... but I personally would be more inclined towards something like “lowtech”, and it feels more descriptive as well. Whereas high tech denotes massive supply lines and precision equipment and complex mechanisms, doing things with nature is the exact opposite— small supply lines, generally simple mechanisms, and such— it would seem natural that it might be called “low tech”.

Of course, this is just a name, and while the different names might attract different people, they essentially have a relatively similar meaning.

2

Majrelende wrote (edited )

No longer relevant

There is one thing I would like to mention:

A primal anarchist or anarcho-primitivist critique lands squarely on systems, eco-fascism lurks in a shallower reply and saying that population itself is the issue. If you think that’s all it is, then reducing or controlling the population is a freakishly clear answer.

Why is it that he blows off an entire RESULT of the SYSTEMS he is against? Rather than use the RESULT to add to the criticism of the SYSTEM, he entirely blows off the result and labels anyone concerned by it a potential "eco-fascist".

I do not believe this was what was said; rather, Tucker seems to have been saying that “eco”fascists shallowly believe that population is the root issue and not a symptom. There is a great difference between this and concern about a symptom. I myself am concerned about population, specifically about how a high population density can be sustained or slowly shrunken through the following decades. It might be improbable, but perhaps there are answers hidden in many places. For one, I think Masanobu Fukuoka was thinking at least somewhat in the right direction. But I do not believe that population is the root problem of the world’s woes; this is analogous to the rather ridiculous (and ridiculously popular) belief that the climate emergency is due to a shortage of solar panels and windmills rather than a toxic and exploitative (and fifty million other adjectives) society and culture.

I am a little confused by the last paragraph— I have no idea what you mean by “it” nor what the example you mentioned relates to. Would you mind elaborating?

4

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Why would I not, aside from not having any material to make a mask of?

Edit: To put it simply: everyone is made of either faeces or salt mined with petroleum from beneath the earth or a mix of the two, and I would rather be of the former. So no, not wearing a mask will not make you shit. Eating food not fertilised with mined minerals will.

3

Majrelende wrote

The runner bean has grown quickly. They are taller now than the simple trellis I made, and I fear that the pot may soon be too small. It snowed heavily last week.

I had imagined that collapse would be hidden, gradually creeping up, then here, like climate change and caused directly by climate change, but I was quite wrong. And those right-wing fanatics are probably right: the god Civilisation demands human sacrifice as a test of faith.

6