in the spirit of this site i read the introduction, part 1 & part 2 of this essay, in an attempt at useful criticism.
early on KT writes -
The basis of egoism is the idea that the Self is, or should be, the basis of all validation and perspective. In short, you can only truly know what you experience. Self-interest is the only true guiding principle in life. Sound familiar? It should, it's the articulation of the individualism that Modernity upholds. It has become the sales pitch for civilization; used by productionists to get workers into factories, used by capitalists to equate freedom with the freedom to consume, and practiced by programmers through distilling the principles of immediate gratification through social networks and personalized technology.
the first two sentences seem like a fair assessment of egoism, though i am unclear on what is meant by 'validation'. anyway, the idea that we only 'truly know' what we know from our senses and experiences seems valid for most meanings of 'truly'.
how KT then makes the leap to 'Self-interest' is unclear. he does not flesh out this leap so it reads as merely an assertion that the Self of egoism is the same as the Self-interest of (all the bad things).
now, i don't disagree that cis hetero white supremacist capitalist patriarchy has used the formulation "rugged Individualism" to very bad ends. i do not agree, though, that the self of egoism (as egoists use it) is the same as that formulation.
so, right away, this slippage of terminology has me skeptical of good faith.
moving on to wildness.
KT writes -
To sum it up, all terms are imperfect. "Wildness" as a term is, like all terms, a representation, in this case of what I call a community of wildness. To borrow, as I often do, from the Mbuti, it is "the breath that moves through all life." It is not God. It is not a god. It is not a conscious, sentient force. It is not the lion lying with the lamb. It is a term for a state of existence accessible to all and best expressed through embodiment rather than philosophy. As such, it exists far beyond words. Attempts to treat it philosophically are, at best, demanding a whole other level of reification of thesentient concept. It makes it easy to personify it into religious dogma because that's the beast most of us were raised with.
to say that wildness is a representation of a community of wildness is sloppy. it leaves wildness still undefined but KT seems to think that his explanation is clear and he gets angry that others don't understand. okay, then, he quotes the Mbuti as saying wildness is the "breath that moves through all life". (no citation given). but KT insists this in no way means anything like "god" or even "consciousness" or "sentience".
and here i dwell in deep perplexity. i do not at all know what an Mbuti thinks they mean when they use this phrase. this phrase and the things KT insists it isn't (consciousness, sentience) seem related or could be related, i would have to ask. and it feels weird that for KT, it seems, people asking about meaning by way of analogy only angers him. because KT goes on to say wildness is beyond words, that using words to describe it or to try to come to terms with it misses the point. to me, the only avenue available for discussing the ineffable is analogy (or poetry) so i don't understand why this upsets Kevin so much.
nothing is exactly another thing, it is true. but we have to try to bridge the gap in understanding somehow, don't we? is that not what writing and critique and engagement are for?
an attempt at engagement
in the spirit of this site i read the introduction, part 1 & part 2 of this essay, in an attempt at useful criticism.
early on KT writes -
the first two sentences seem like a fair assessment of egoism, though i am unclear on what is meant by 'validation'. anyway, the idea that we only 'truly know' what we know from our senses and experiences seems valid for most meanings of 'truly'.
how KT then makes the leap to 'Self-interest' is unclear. he does not flesh out this leap so it reads as merely an assertion that the Self of egoism is the same as the Self-interest of (all the bad things).
now, i don't disagree that cis hetero white supremacist capitalist patriarchy has used the formulation "rugged Individualism" to very bad ends. i do not agree, though, that the self of egoism (as egoists use it) is the same as that formulation.
so, right away, this slippage of terminology has me skeptical of good faith.
moving on to wildness.
KT writes -
To sum it up, all terms are imperfect. "Wildness" as a term is, like all terms, a representation, in this case of what I call a community of wildness. To borrow, as I often do, from the Mbuti, it is "the breath that moves through all life." It is not God. It is not a god. It is not a conscious, sentient force. It is not the lion lying with the lamb. It is a term for a state of existence accessible to all and best expressed through embodiment rather than philosophy. As such, it exists far beyond words. Attempts to treat it philosophically are, at best, demanding a whole other level of reification of thesentient concept. It makes it easy to personify it into religious dogma because that's the beast most of us were raised with.
to say that wildness is a representation of a community of wildness is sloppy. it leaves wildness still undefined but KT seems to think that his explanation is clear and he gets angry that others don't understand. okay, then, he quotes the Mbuti as saying wildness is the "breath that moves through all life". (no citation given). but KT insists this in no way means anything like "god" or even "consciousness" or "sentience".
and here i dwell in deep perplexity. i do not at all know what an Mbuti thinks they mean when they use this phrase. this phrase and the things KT insists it isn't (consciousness, sentience) seem related or could be related, i would have to ask. and it feels weird that for KT, it seems, people asking about meaning by way of analogy only angers him. because KT goes on to say wildness is beyond words, that using words to describe it or to try to come to terms with it misses the point. to me, the only avenue available for discussing the ineffable is analogy (or poetry) so i don't understand why this upsets Kevin so much.
nothing is exactly another thing, it is true. but we have to try to bridge the gap in understanding somehow, don't we? is that not what writing and critique and engagement are for?