I don’t think that i can ever become truly re-wilded, or feral, because i use language in a civilized way: that is, reading and writing. If i were to become nomadic in the traditional sense, i would give up both reading and writing. I confess that i love books, so this disqualifies me from being feral, and i wonder what other people in the community think about it.
According to the By-Laws of the Feralculture Pathways Accord of 2014, reading and writing are permissible during the rewilding process until the agreed upon date of January 2, 2032. Unless the tribunal reconvenes in their favor, use of reading or writing after that date will result in lethal shunning by atlatl firing squad.
If you’d like more on these proceedings, look for the smoke signals to indicate when the Sacred Google Hangouts are in session.
3 Likes
that is funny…
but in seriousness-- the definition of wildness /not being a member of civilization is, to be without the reading and writing of the culture. For example, when the american indians were being killed by the colonizers from europe during the Indian Wars, the leaders of the new Americans had remarked that it would be easier to educate the remaining tribes, rather than to continue killing them off----because battle and cost of weapons was so expensive. i think atleast the popular notion of wild peoples is this. i do not know the sociolgical definition cuurent in the academies or in journals… so i’m askin the question seriuosly. my background is in philosohphy…but i have only read some anthroplology or sociology. so i dont know where you’re exactly coming fom/aiming at with the idea of rewilding humans.
…the rucksack revolution of the beatnicks was about nomadism, in a sense-- and certainly rebelling against the mainstream societie’s cultural norms. i like that very much. i have been studying the culture of the nomadic horsepeople of the eurasian steppe- they were considered to be the barbarian tribes, they neither had the customs of the settled peoples, nor their literate culture. so. to clarify or maybe help my question, does rewilding mean a return to living in the woods, and being a counterculture more like the beatnicks , but keeepin a counterculture language; or- does this mean, giving up entirely the customs and language of the master sedentary culture? because, as much as i like the counterculture, i can recognize that it is a far cry from being wild, tribal or nomadic in the traditional way.
anyways, if this mvmnt is primarily about food sources, i am all about it- i have been interested in getting away from factory agriculture, and planting forest- gardening as i travel. this is also in my mind for drilling holes for leaving wild mushroom plugs behind! the reality of nomadism and travel is still going to be reliant on grocery store foods-- if you have advice to avoid this without having a lot of money as i travel, i a m all about doing it, and i want to build the strength of wild grown foods— its a very difficult tactical challenge in the lower 48, but im willing to invest in planting seeds. as for the anarchist reality of leaving civilization, it would need to be not just a counterculture, because that is still reliant upon and operating within civilization.
I’ve thought about this issue before, both from a biological and from a philosophical/spiritual perspective. Physically reading is an eye strain. The lack of myopia within existing hunter-gatherer populations and the universal myopia within civilised peoples has to do with the early assualt on children by making them squint for hours a day at written text - there is no need for written language within a hunter-gatherer society. Philosophically language forms part of the broader symbolic break that civilised peoples made with the ecology. Language is symbolic, both literally and in the content it creates. It allows for abstract discussions and notions and connects to things like mathematics, which is self-admitedly an abstraction. Some anarcho-primitivists have critiqued symbolic culture, such as time, maths, language, logic, measurement etc and I’m fairly sympathetic.
On the other hand I read voraciously and am steeped in the upbringing of a civilised person, it’s hard to be in this society and reject something as ubiquitous as written language. However, I think for part of the rewilding process it’s good to consider how much exposure and the effects it has. Try removing your watch, not looking at artificial time, measuring distance by days of walking, using the sun and moon, making reading a deliberate and conscious choice rather than spending hours on newspapers or the internet. Biologically humans adapted to hunting moving animals on the savannah, big wide horizons, as well as watching birds and trees. Today we live in towerblocks and stare at screens…
2 Likes
The effect of screens…getting into the computer for hours, even though I’m researching /trying to learn is very removed from ecology. It’s a good point you bring up: I just recently decided to limit my computer use. It’s changing how I exist. … in comparison, sitting in the quiet room reading a book is …much more in touch with my body and mind. Our tools…our technology. …is leading to immersion in technology.
1 Like
I suspect this will elicit groans, but I think non-violent communication has some insights into less domesticated language patterns.
This piece by Peter Michael Bauer and Willem Larsen sketches some groundwork with E-prime as a foundation, which is another reasonable starting place: E-primitive: Rewilding the English Language
3 Likes
ho- ho ! this is some amazing stuff- i need to read it over again and think about it before i give a response----
but one thing i thought of is so interesting and powerful- my grandma grew up in wisconsin speaking only polish, and didnt begin to learn english til she was around 5 yrs old. Now, she is in her 90s, and can hardly remember any polish. i almost becamefluent in spanish, and was thinking and dreaming in it- now, i can barely remember. ///when i train my thouhts in animistic ways, such as,“the sun is setting, the wind is moving—” my life is changed and FEELS that way. so, even using english can be much different in these ways. i was composing haiku (in english, it is all i know) — and my entire mind was different for the 2 years i walked around and did that. it can change FAST—that’s my point- for betteror for worse— very powerful! thanks for this !
p.s. on #5 the calendar days— this is so true>> by declaring, “today is the 13th of april” my entire mind is frameworked and owned in a sense— by that statement. it is about releasing ourselves from the subtle shackles of this kind of declaration. so much of the experience of the immediate world is blocked, as soon as such a thing is said. Very good point. I bet that many people wouldn’t even see what that meant because it runs very deep. ///good reason to have a community- keep reminding each other. it is so easy to forget
I like that notion of ‘E- Primitive’, that’s some fantastic work gone into that, with I’m sure lots of rewards for anyone who actually tries to implement it! It’s interesting to consider what abolishing ‘to be’ would look like… I mean there are multiple languages without that verb - Arabic for one, and they are as civilised as the rest of them. But attacking the idea of ‘I’m a farmer’, no, what you mean is ’ I farm’. Getting rid of essences altogether. Familial relations would certainly look different, and I can imagine a radically different approach if one was to take that to its conclusion.
I’m not a father, fathering is what I do. Likewise for brother, sister, mother etc. Which means that people are free to behave as they want to - to be a father to someone, or a brother to someone, without all the nonsense of ‘but who’s his REAL father’. Seems much more human and spontaneous and local. I like it a lot.
I wonder if anyone has linked that thought into patriachy, I mean that the family as an authoritarian structure is defined by the father as in control. That would be totally undermined if being a father was an activity and not an essence!
I think giving up written language would be…unwise. And the proposed gains seem minimal at best.
Inspired to see other language adventurers! The most satisfying goal is just holding the question, every day - how do I create my world with language, and how could I change that for the better? Whatever comes of that is a blessing.
Language is, after all, one of humanity’s oldest folk arts. It belongs to the people.
1 Like
Language is the culture that you take with you when you go somewhere. The European Immigrants to America thought they were escaping from theOld World, where everything was owned for a thousand years by private people, They thought this new land was different because of no ownership (disregarding the natives as actual human beings… so, that there is " no one there") - whether the natives were there or not, they certainly botched the idea of the liberation of the new world- it’s now exactly like what they escaped from. /So, that is why i am wondering, what is necessary to change in one’s self, so as not to merely transfer Old Europe to yet another land?
i think this is a pressing question because, 3 things come to mind: 1. the horror of communist “re-education” where they tried to kill the intellectuals or brainwash them. And also, tried to kill many sectors of the population who didn’t conform with the peasant ideal. 2. Anarchy itself: anarchy to me, is the idel way of life. The problem is that it can only exist if all of the persons are pretty much ideal themselves. (they are non-exploiting, cool people,all on the same mental agreement of non ownership, non warlike, etc) So, this is very unlikely when anyone outside this way of thought comes on the scene. 3. MY idea to change myself for the better (gettin rewild /away from european culture) would be to have some kind of daily exercizes or meditative practice as my own culture. /but, once again, then other people would come and destroy the land/culture /community. If i wanted to be non-european, i would need to stop reading philosophy books by german and french authors…or any books by this culture. Otherwise, it’s really not “re-wilding”; it’s European descendants being different,as in ecologically non-exploitive… and trying to have an anarchic existence in the woods for as long as it lasts. But actual rewilding would mean to leave the dominator culture behind. And hopefullynot with the methods usedby the communists!// i guess it’s relative in the term “wild”, living in the cracks/gaps!of society. Its the answer for me, anyway, but i still retain society’s consciuosness, though i disagree with it- so i don;t want to fool myself. i don’t think cultural “cleansing” is really possible!!
i recommend this book i’m reading,by a german philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk:" In the World Interior of Capital" … it is explaining the European conquest in a very interesting way; And the book’s title is based off the theme of The Crystal Palace, where every person is under a rational enlightenment behavior/mindset. So there is no unruliness/passion. This book traces globalization… i mostly read the philosophy of europe which critiques europe. 
anyway, i think wildness is a space we create for ourselves. freedom in the gaps. the gaps are freedom. if you keep yourself alive, all dimensions of your self — that is, you will never be conquered.
i’m reading the egyptian book of the dead, where they are trying to figure out what the sun must be… the eye of horus, The Eye of Ra, or as some others say, It is the flame which followeth after Osiris to burn up the souls of his enemies…
this is what i’m talking about- how poetry from another mind-reality can change me entirely into another being. or atleast so it seems.///this is my task- to throw off the ooze of biopolitics. i no longer have the govt or state mediating what i am, or what the earth seems to be. to me , this is freedom.
James Scott, an athropologist from Yale, has a lot of good videos up on YouTube.
In one of them (and this may or may not be the one) he talks about a tribe that at one time had written language and had voluntarily given it up.
Here’s a good video of his that you may like.
2 Likes
cool; thank you
i aam listening to this now! it’s really on point; That all states without exception were based on slavery
I didnt realize that
and also , the definition of state or barbarian was whether one paid taxes or was under control of the ruling state //i like that part of the world very much- southeast asia, etc