Revision as of 20:56, 27 March 2024

thank you so much, hysteria, for your beautiful art, I really don’t know how to thank you, you’re a fantastic artist

In Development
"I'll stop reading eventually." - Left Communism

This page is still in development due to ongoing reading by Someone, multiple things may change drastically.

Self Insert
"People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism

This page is meant to represent MEADOWSIN's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

(////)

Addendum 1.X

The Deer God is my lens to selfhood, my lens to becoming, something that is not ontological but instead bestowed upon me, a biomechanical hope and love for The Deer God, which we can clearly nonsee in the some unprivileged beyond. I commune but do not expect omnipotence or the sacred, or some higher signified beyond, I expect a comrade in my journey, and an understanding inner spirit that makes me an object of desiring-production in a system of interlocked and webbed desiring-production. This is the origin of my esoteric Marxism-Voluntaryism, a communal expression of individual desiring- some individual-community of interflowing beings, something that should be allowed to be expressed in a way of civil war. This is how I approach Democratic Confederalism- in that I believe in voluntary communities that are shaped like interconnected viruses, like a central community and outsider self-sufficient individuals utilizing biomechanisms to build themselves a life they find independent and sufficient. The inner community would decide things organically among themselves in things very very similar to the systems implemented in direct democracy or democratic confederalism. That’s all there is to say, thank you for reading.

Post-Thoreau: A Primer/The Woods' Call

In mockery, they might jest. The woods call for you, don’t they? Synesthetic plaything, damp wind rustling through the trees, searching for your pseudo-sensory emotional weight. The horns you hear are simply callings, simply asking you to join them back in the woods. The trees are alive, the bugs feed off the trees, the trees feed off the solar speeches, the long auditory droning of the sun; something I’m sure you know very well, long days spent as a child under the radiation of Sol which is above all a provider nothing else can assign itself to. What you find yourself doing is examining bugs, examining everything, searching for the beauty of the ultra-natural, the things you call pure since you hate humanity (the abstraction) and government (which is similar in this way.) I don’t know what you see yourself finding in these momentary lapses of bliss, in these pseudo-spiritual communications with the resonance of reality, the last tinges of “true nature,” the things you contend are being consumed by the industry and government piloted by humanity. You and Camatte alike search for the same thing, even if you don’t say it the same.

Within your heart are whispers, however, whispers of the bliss of community, of a home not in isolation, and so you swiftly return to the glee of your selfness and find yourself in sociality once again. “It’s not society- it's you, isn’t it,” would cry Osamu Dazai’s Yozo, but you fear no such thing in returning home. You simply enjoy the natural, the long days of sitting, going to war with weeds, and finding yourself knee-deep in lake-water muds again, something you can’t find anywhere but your cabin, near the lake that bears upon it the same name as your literature, your child, reared by the ants and the beanstalks.

And yet you return, you return home to parents, to people who cook your meals and care for you in a way that you would not have if self-sufficient in the way you claim. But is it the true beauty you think you deserve? Should you not simply seek an interplay of the solitary and the communitarian? Should you not seek some affinity with those you have some co-linked desires, and push away from those that seek to harden your will with saddening things and bitterness? Should you not be able to find not pure sociality, as it’s found itself lost impossibly? (If it even existed initially, that is.)

Should you not create something new, instead of sitting in utter silence and resentment of the battling-man, the man engaged in civil war, in dance, in interplay, in sociality? Aren’t you? Do you not find your returns home to be sufficient hypocrisy to any point of your individuality? And does that matter? While most would claim you are a green individualist, potentially an anarchist if spun rightly so, would you really feel the same if wrapped in the blankets of civil society? Would you become a recluse, would you fade into obscurity or infamy? While we can’t answer these, as you’re very much so dead, I’d like to answer one thing:

“What should a post-Thoreau mean to me?”

***

A post-Thoreau is often pushed away simply as an idea that would spring into hatred-based anti-humanistic ideology, most often with people comparing him to a certain terrorist that used environmentalism and individualist anti-humanism as justification for his actions. I find this to be a jumping to the “logical” conclusion simply out of recency, out of how easy it is to go “Thoreau is sort of like the Unabomber,” rather that deeply explore and deconstruct the concepts that make a Thoreau into a Thoreau. The most nourishing binaries to digest here are seen by me to be as follows:

Individuality/Community, in his preaching of a sort of isolation-as-God and apparent contradiction by still reveling in community

Natural/Technological, seeing elements like nature and animals above the desires of humanity to advance technology (the advance of industrial elements in his case)

and Freedom/Sociality, in the form of his resistance of social norms and the dependence his ideas have on self-sufficiency, despite his reliance on sociality

What I see from these concepts are simple dualities, where Thoreau has created a simple central mythos, a mythos of the “Free, Naturalistic, Individual,” something echoed by people such as Rousseau, (who was a communitarian and spoke in different terms, but nonetheless) someone already discussed by the thinker I’m essentially echoing by engaging in this form of discourse over literary and philosophical topics. I intend to go about this in a different way, however, partly because of Derrida’s focus on certain elements of Rousseau, and partly because I wish to deconstruct the very ideas that a past-Thoreau would like to make you adept in. I’d also like to call attention to one last binary- the Thoreau/Thoreau binary, the binary between Thoreau the philosopher-literary and Thoreau the person.

To deconstruct this binary, we must first show the traits that make Thoreau-W (what I will be calling the author of Walden and his jail memoir) directly in opposition to Thoreau-P (the person who really lived, founded abstractions, and found himself.) To begin, let’s look at Thoreau-W's unwavering individuality, the man who was “not designed to be forced.” In most analyses, this is seen as his expression of rote individuality, him declaring “Let us see who is the strongest.” I contend however, that you could just as easily take these “individualist” notions that he declares and use the lens of the realities of Walden, his relationship with true individual self-sufficiency, and find him to be declaring a sort of survival-in-community, not a true isolation of the individual, but a human not designed to be acted upon by an outside force, to be opposed.

We find here Thoreau something new, a sort of Egoist in the line of Stirner, declaring himself sovereign in ways we similarly see him declare himself during his imprisonment for tax evasion. His opposition of the war is ultimately futile- but it’s an action he takes in jest of the governmental structures he finds himself stuck within, feeling an anti-humanism not out of resentment for the communitarian aspects of humanity, but out of resentment for the structures and constructs of conquest and subjugation justified by sociality and community- out of will for opposition to the “greater good.”

What we find ourselves seeing is not a hapless worshipper of isolation, as he is described, but a hatred of the “societal” willpower, the justifications of Leviathan to do “what the people wish and need.” We find ourselves with a Thoreau that is stuck in the dance of two interposing ideas, the community-authority and the individual-unique, utterly starstruck by both concepts being half-appealing, being incompatible, being anti-him. Through this we get our first peak at Thoreau, not W or P, but simply Thoreau, we get a better glimpse at what makes him tick, what makes his existence have more sensical meaning and purpose in a modern day, but we’re nowhere near done yet.

Interconnected to his sense of individuality is a love of the natural. He sequesters himself into a cabin in the woods, away from humanity- but not really, as there was a roadway not too far off, a veritable artery of industrial gained power, nearly as bad as the post office or factories he curses, the aspects of modern societal structures that damn themselves as unnatural tapestries of the new-modernity swiftly approaching. “Do we find him a hypocrite for this, or simply brush it off,” the general question is, but instead I pose a different one, one separate from Thoreau, grander than him, or than anything else presented here. That question being- “isn’t technology natural?”

Before coming to that, let’s look at the reasons for Thoreau-W's love of the natural world. He loves it out of a transcendentalist-romantic glee, at least to some extent, reveling in warring ants, in bean sprouts, in the simple bliss of the sunrise. The natural, to Thoreau-W, is very similar to my assessment of the natural, he fosters a sort of spiritual love for the aesthetic of nature, and an opposition to that which he sees as threatening the simple beauty that he sees in it, and the glee he finds in it.

These technological and industrial-social advancements benefit Thoreau-P, however, who finds himself secretly enjoying the fact that if he broke his leg his cries would be heard. He enjoys the creature comforts of the stove, and the industrial processes that manufacture certain material products he interacts with, and I have no doubt that he would enjoy the wonders of modern society, if totally resenting the sociological aspects of the society of control. He would most likely go on long wilderness trips, but with ample resources to facilitate rescue if needed, allowing for technology to benefit him. To Thoreau-P, the natural is no more than beauty, the technological no more than comfort.

However, we have most recently slipped into an age of easy interplay of these concepts- creating fields like biotechnology, ideals like transhumanism, and books upon books about the machinic nature of humanity itself- attributing all nature to advanced machine-like structures just barely beyond our understanding, right within our grasp. Humanity, undoubtedly, is natural. Humanity came from the same origin as ants, beans, and beavers. When ants build colonies, beans burrow through dirt, and beavers build dams, these processes are invariably natural, in the same way the animals themselves are. I argue that it’s purely due to human exceptionalism and impact that we don’t process our own actions, tools, and technologies the same. To explore biotechnology is no different than what parasites do to hosts, signals being changed and altered to benefit a purpose, whether that be an extension of life or, as I’m sure we’ll see within mere years, a rapid, morbid death.

Very simply, our advanced tools are no different from our animalia compatriots’ tools, we simply designate them differently. Therefore, there is no fundamental power structure that should be applied to either over the other, and nature should be allowed to mesh with technology, to find itself as a solution. It should find itself not oil-and-water, but saltwater swirling and mixing, until they become inextricably linked in biotechnological interface, usage of an old unalienated “natural” in fusion with a decentralized desire-centric approach to biotechnological expansion, with both the unchanged natural and technological finding their key components meshed into biomechanical bliss without technological or natural bounds.

Not to mention, this ideal of natural technology also very much so allows for the freedom of technology, much in the same way that nature is granted freedom in Thoreau’s perspective. The fusion and play of these concepts can simply be the thing that turns Thoreau to technology, a technology that finds itself free and uncomfortable-comfortable, and a nature that feels the same.

Thoreau once again peeks his head. He would potentially still disagree with the sentiments of biomechanicalism, but would find himself agreed with some fusion of the natural he loves and the technology he depends on. He would find comfort in technological systems that are symbiotic with the natural world, and encourage it to flourish, and in biomechanical cybernetic systems I find exactly that. This is another key portion of the post-Thoreau, a Thoreau that would see that simply there is no perversion of nature, as there is nothing unnatural about the nature of animals like he observes, but that in the same way human action and technology apply to this standard as well.

Finally, to dispose ourselves of the juxtaposition of the P and W Thoreau-split, we must look to his arguments of freedom vs sociality, the impositions of society upon the person, and how they limit the person to some societal standard. Within modern society, this is unarguably the standard, a control mechanism through which taboos, mores, and various other moral structures are made. Thoreau-W is most definitely in opposition to such, calling it out through his action and his words, pushing back against the ill acts of societal pressuring into such things as taxes that go toward a war effort he opposes, and prison itself, by deconstructing its concept into comfort found only in sparse moments.

We find Thoreau-P to have friends and family he abides to, however, attending events he’s scheduled with his friends as a simply obligatory task while brushing over such, visiting and attending to family to gain sympathies and material sustenance; this Thoreau finds himself very entrenched in sociality. This sociality, however, is restrained by a notion previously mentioned- his declaration that he cannot be pushed to do anything by anyone, and this he has not. He finds himself quickstepping between the nature of these two concepts, not binding himself to sociality (disliking social norms to some extent, declaring that isolation is to be free, to find himself free like nature,) while also not binding himself to isolation (his visits to parents, parties with friends, experiences of joy and social community-building through networks of people.)

What we find after all this digging is a deconstructed, singular Thoreau, one that is dissatisfied with his selfness, someone who has passion with alternative, flowing function that is invariably desire-based, imperfect, and multifaceted. This play of linguistics, desires, and practicality makes Thoreau-P/W able to be separated out so easily, so easily called a hypocrite and mocked for his falsity. A post-Thoreau, however, rises above this speculation and name-calling, finding himself stuck between modernity and the past, technology and the natural, isolation and community. He finds himself an actor, a dancer, and a man impossibly trapped between concepts that are told to him to be opposites, such clear, radical opposites.

He finds himself trapped, between the woods’ call and the call that survived, the technological siren’s song.

thinking out loud

My ideals personally align with the individual-proletarian, even if I call for proletarian suicide-of-class. I call for economic anarchy, yes, a system of mutualism being the happy medium between the cap-com divide, and what I can only assume will take precedence above the two other systems if possible. What I mean by left counter-econ is first embracing multiplicity and allowing for capitalism and communism to co-exist, with techno-self-sufficiency as an outside (Voluntaryism-ish,) while also undermining and destroying whatever declares itself an economic "power," killing or stealing from the rich in capitalist communities, and destabilizing economies that are entirely centralized, any community that attempts to give one person the power that should be the individuals' or the communities' should be dismantled- effectively active counter-economics, as the current unified economic systems depend desperately on some form of centralization. The effort would be to forcibly decentralize economies through illegal action, allowing for capital to fall into barter or market or mutualism- and central communism to fall into decentralized autonomous groups and barter as well. My system is capitalist in the same way China is "communist" currently- basically in name only. I also enjoy the goals of Democratic Confederalism, and biomechanicalism. This is just a basic overview, but I hope that this is easily understood.

Influences

Primary

The Deer God
Novalis
Derrida
Deleuze
Bataille
Guattari
Ghost Mountain
Thoreau
Kaczynski
4lung
Rosa Luxemburg
Marx
Flower Bomb
Camus
Fumiko Kaneko
Hunter S. Thompson
Discordianism

Secondary

Fisher
Locke
Land
Meta-Nomad
Vonnegut
H.P. Lovecraft
Meadowsin's Basilisk

Relations

good

Venatrixism - I like your ideology, even if we're growing apart a bit. I'm moving toward mixing postmodern ideas with more contemporary or workers-movement ideas, mixing the old and the new,, stewing up something perfect for myself.
Rocksism - While you may not intend to do this, I feel like you take an approach that effectively understands my post-postmodern position. You incorporate some non-philosophical classic political resistance methods that are effective, while still building up an effective idea that allows for some play-room for ideas.
Romantic Egoism - I can't say I exactly align with your ideas, but we do have similar inspiration, and genuinely see ourselves as advocating for liberation of the self, whether that be through your methods or mine. I understand where you could potentially critique me, and I really do like your advocacy for the individual, despite the false hold of "individualism" and "being you" entailed by the modernity we find ourselves in. I also love your romantic and esoteric aspects, as I'm highly spiritual and a pseudo-transcendentalist (referring to the ideas of my Post-Thoreau,) a movement that owes a lot to romanticism. Overall, unique, beautiful, and delightful in many ways. I also like your economic theory, and I find myself being a lot of the same as far as economy goes. I like economic anarchy, and I may look into mutualism. I hope you understand I'm not just eating garbage as far as I'm calling myself a "post-postmodernist," I'm just trying to indicate a distaste for most postmodernist ideals, especially as they start to approach the singularity that is accelerationism. Thank you.

eh

HelloThere314 - I like the ideal of Rojava, moreso the ideas of DemConfed themselves rather than Rojava, its closest interpretation, a miming of DemCon in the most puppet-esque sense. I do have a lot of contradictions, but I'm not a nationalist, and a lot of the contentions are intentional. I ask people to let these ideas play in their head like they play in mine. I don't really like control, frankly, and I don't really see communities expanding if they see themselves as one cohesive community regardless. The point is moreso to let ideas play, and I understand you see myself as some form of false communization, but having phantom fixtures is more functionally operational than to allow for contemporary fixtures or to simply delete them and allow for a fascist to rally himself into whispering into the ears of those that demand a more fleshy-feeling overlord. I simply think that the structure I provide can very easily dissolve modernity and meld modernity into tapestries of something beyond that. Otherwise you're interesting, and I want you to know I completely understand your critique of me.
Imperial Socialism - I don't like imperialism or socialism but you aren't trash and I wouldn't hate living under your system (I would just stir up copious amounts of civil unrest and cause violent protests in order to attempt a cessation to imperialist practice.)
Schumacherianism (////) - You would probably be a segmented part of my system, although I would never particularly enjoy interacting with you, if that makes sense. Carry on, though, and I do like your book.