Add new comment

Very interesting topics and conversations.

This article above was uploaded recently and so was this one: "Postanarchism and Space
Revolutionary Fantasies and Autonomous Zones" https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-postanarchism-and-space

I think both present interesting outlines (as in the header subdivisions of the topics to be covered, not being poetic here by referring to silhouettes, or borders XD) of topics to be pondered and debated. I felt excited at the start, expecting some things to be covered and clarified, but felt unsatisfied after reading both of them, since they took the topics in directions where I wasn't expected and where I was less curious about.

The think is thinking about these topics in those terms is hard work, so since I have not put in the work, I've have not clarified my thoughts. I foolishly and lazily hoped these readings or others would do it for me or bring me closer in that direction, with little effort on my part. Critiquing and discussing these text in details would also require effort (and knowledge) beyond me right now.

So in plain language, what's interesting that may come out the discussion of these two overlapping topics is questioning the presuppositions, (sub)cultural biases and blind spots of our orientations towards ourselves and towards what we may call "space around us" which already frames it in a certain way (like an inert empty container devoid of orientation or meaning, or like a cartesian plane, or the updated version of some matrix or mathematical field).

Embodying a lifeway towards anarchy implies a particular inwards/outwards orientation. These orientations are not the default in our westernized modern (patriarchal cis-het) capitalist civ world-culture.

In nihilist anti-civ circles we're so chill and removed from and opposed to any centralized planning mindsets that this topic and way of approaching "space" (or outwards orientation to a living world) is less often discussed in those terms of city planners, communes, revolutions, and utopias. But that doesn't mean we're not steeped in these concepts and it harms our thinking a living, because we're not congruent in our orientation and our behavior. There's a lot of second-guessing, cognitive dissonance, self-criticism, backpedaling etc.

Isolating the inward and outward orientation as a topics makes them easier and simpler to discuss (for us, with this world view and academic bias from the battering of schooling) analysis meaning for us to divide into parts. But this division is also a cultural bias, and does not serve us to preserve this division and would be better discussed always together so as not to promote delusions (something something subject/object something ontology something epistemology, fuggin philosophy is hard why they even make it?).