Wednesday, August 27, 2014

My Love.

Anarchy, by definition, implies 'anything goes' from an amoral point of view. Yet an ontological anarchy--a genuine anarchic existence--would be posterior to (and distinct from) the present conditions. However, what we mean here is merely different without conditions stretching everywhere. Conditions that eat into differences in order to return these modified bodies into The Same makes genuine difference impossible. What we wish for is a world in which difference is permitted to let be because everything has value. Importantly, the proposition that suggests not everything has value or, some morals are necessary is only permitted under this sign to be let be in its place. Folks should be free to dissociate if they wish to have no morals, or, more precisely, a morality of their own devising, just the same as they are free to dissociate from the rest to produce moral conditions they desire for themselves.

So imagine a series of circles that constitute the plane of reality. What we are saying for anarchy is that there wouldn't be an overriding circle that subsumes myriad circles; indeed, that there may be a circle that is so well defined (since anarchy is merely actualized possibility) that it could be imperialistic towards differences, in the sense that it wouldn't be surprising for it to so devolve. From within our present conditions, 'anything goes' only goes so far, and much of what is experienced precipitates the desire to produce inverted forced conditions. But we need not go so far, and we need not leave where we are. It is the belief that we should be permitted to go elsewhere and not experience different moralities that makes us imperialistic. Inverted conditions may indeed serve some purposes. But we want to invert the imperialistic process, not just the brand. We want to see folks find themselves, or even to find those that are comfortable with individuals being themselves.--And we feel nothing for those that do not wish to do the same. 

A pertinent issue here is the question concerning keeping to oneself. It is not that imperialism is bad because one thereby doesn't keep to oneself; it is not that imperialism is bad, more precisely; it is that there are only consequences. If one doesn't defend oneself against imperialists, perhaps one deserves their chains. Anarchy permits us to be concerned with defending ourselves from imperialism, and to lose hope in building a big happy world ruled by ideology, which functions according to imperialism and the making Same of wild amoral bodies. 

So we are once again advocating breaking away and building, so that we can defend ourselves when the time comes. To suppose that dissociation isn't our best trick is ultimately an effort to imperialize in a different register. We invert even the conditions of inversion until we can defend what we desire.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Natural As Fuck.

Nature is within and without us; for we are not fully domesticated, or so we should hope.
Yet, even though it makes little sense to distinguish nature and culture completely, given that what nature is is already overcoded by culture,  there is still that which is (and so could be) chaotic underneath the ontological crust that is domestication. We are technology to the degree that we depend on an apparatus that is civilization; so we must become our own tools; tools for being conduits of Being; tools for our own liberation, until we break free of ongoing domesticating culture.

Of course nature still exists. Those that are less affected by culture, at the limit, (and none can be completely "independent"--consider dioxin-everywhere) are those that we envision as moral exemplars; and for guidance we should choose those psuedo-domesticated animals that would take us away from the shitty; those that are clearly parasitic tools, but still with options. We could steal and live like parasites on a dying host; but can we, like raccoon, leave the shitty and find life? The raccoon, and the robin, the rabbit, and coyote, raven, crow and wolf; all of these are like ladders to climb towards Nature, the pure tool; completely in opposition (and prior) to technology. 

Nature is only like a perpetual motion machine, not just like, as if our imaginations were so boring; and there is nothing technological required. She is (perhaps) fully indifferent to our plight. She bats last and we shouldn't presume to know her batting record given that she has never had to step up to the plate. Nature has all sorts of processes that we might fruitfully refer to as technical processes, and letting her be, without interference, is to witness a production of beautiful perfection. How might we mimic this Art? Perhaps it starts from being with options, from being open to whatever becoming; to be in opposition to dependency; to become indifferent to expectancy.

We are suggesting that there is a world of difference between depending on X, as we technologies depend on civilization, and becoming independent of technology in becoming-tool. A mosquito, or a tree-persyn in a wild space is not dependent, but also not completely unaffected by humyn modification. If everything is connected, there is no purity--no Nature that isn't ontologically natureculture; but the ways that things are connected matters; and I'm insisting that there is a difference between dependence--technologies--and near complete indifference. Since nothing is unconnected to/unaffected by humyn scourge to some degree, we explain the intuitive difference between nature and culture by a difference about dependence and indifference. For us, dependent to a large degree, this is a matter of defection, in the sense that we ask: Does Civilization matter to us? Can we say that we do not need it? We are not yet fully indifferent because we are still dependent, and even if we could go without, we would still be affected.

Our ideal descent opposes civilege, and it isn't impractical. Our downgoing is a moral piggybacking on parasites with options. We wish to survive, by any and all means; and we are fully aware of the consequences of our choosing shitty life--for now. Could raccoon leave the shitty? Or has raccoon grown too fat off the host, thereby atrophying wild living? Perhaps some, but not all; like those that thirst for revolution and those that get paid to sell it out, we must eat the latter. Staying, defending, depending; all of this makes us restless, without genuine (qualitative) rest; leaving, traveling, opening to outpouring; all of this makes us thirsty for our own blood, that flows off us as we enliven our capacities without apparatus.