Add new comment

About positionality.

Why construct an identity that is relative to a position you are antagonistic to? Isn't that a way of legitimizing what you want to destroy?

Must ones needs, wants and desires be couched in terms of identity? Or is the current hypnotism centered on identity some kind of psychological comfort blanket?

Lots of question marks. Moving on.

I've been thinking about the unknowability and otherness of the future of the planet and thus society, but also about the implications of that mode of thinking and how that informs the here and now.

Alejandro de Acosta writes in Green Nihilism or Cosmic Pessimism (emphasis and links in the original text not carried over to the quote):

"[...] if our rejection of society and state is as complete as we like to say it is, our project is not to create alternative micro-societies (scenes, milieus) that people can belong to, but something along the lines of becoming monsters. It is probable that anarchy has always had something to do with becoming monstrous. The monster, writes [Eugene] Thacker in another of his books, is unlawful life, or what cannot be controlled. It seems to me the only way to do this, as opposed to saying one is doing it and being satisfied with that, would be to unflinchingly contemplate the thing we are without trying to be, the thing we can never try to be or claim we are: the nameless thing, or unthinkable life. Which is also the solitary thing, or the lonely one."

The Monster can be many things.

In the current state of the great clusterfuck, the Monster can be said to be this unnamed being, lacking identity.

I'm considering this as a possible path to get rid of positionality and indeed identity altogether. Some kind of un-identity.