Comments for The Anvil http://theanvilreview.org Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:19:04 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Saying Goodbye by Mindy Block http://theanvilreview.org/random/saying_goodbye/#comment-1880 Mindy Block Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:19:04 +0000 #comment-1880 Thank you for this quote: "Taking leave of the dead, before the rise of capitalism’s scientific worldview, was equal to welcoming them to a new world; afterwards, it is a final surrender to total loneliness." And will return to read more, in depth later. Thank you for this quote:

“Taking leave of the dead, before the rise of capitalism’s scientific worldview, was equal to welcoming them to a new world; afterwards, it is a final surrender to total loneliness.”

And will return to read more, in depth later.

]]> Comment on Has the insurrection come yet? My arm is getting tired… by Slumberjack http://theanvilreview.org/print/has_the_insurrection_come_yet_my_arm_is_getting_tired___/#comment-1855 Slumberjack Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:28:20 +0000 #comment-1855 I think anyone who plants her or his own carrots for example could be a potential insurgent. Perhaps a role model for a type of insurgency whereby if enough people are convinced on the merits of growing their own carrots or whatever, an ordinance of some sort will be found to render the entire enterprise illegal, so that the supermarket carrots which are grown by a corporate farm might continue to enjoy popular consumption. And if the carrot growing collective insists on the right to continue thumbing their nose at the enforcers of such an ordinance, then they would ultimately have to voluntarily submit to an escalation demanding compliance, or not. And if the answer is to be an 'or not,' no one can be expected to make the point clear to the produce authorities except for the people who wish to continue growing their own carrots, with the exception perhaps of assistance from the renegade turnip growers, or whatever. It takes a certain flavour of complicity to to arrive at a determined 'or not' conclusion. But then carrots can be grown just about anywhere with the proper expertise. I think anyone who plants her or his own carrots for example could be a potential insurgent. Perhaps a role model for a type of insurgency whereby if enough people are convinced on the merits of growing their own carrots or whatever, an ordinance of some sort will be found to render the entire enterprise illegal, so that the supermarket carrots which are grown by a corporate farm might continue to enjoy popular consumption. And if the carrot growing collective insists on the right to continue thumbing their nose at the enforcers of such an ordinance, then they would ultimately have to voluntarily submit to an escalation demanding compliance, or not. And if the answer is to be an ‘or not,’ no one can be expected to make the point clear to the produce authorities except for the people who wish to continue growing their own carrots, with the exception perhaps of assistance from the renegade turnip growers, or whatever. It takes a certain flavour of complicity to to arrive at a determined ‘or not’ conclusion. But then carrots can be grown just about anywhere with the proper expertise.

]]> Comment on Ways In and Ways Out of the Situationist Labyrinth by Steve Shilling II http://theanvilreview.org/print/ways-in-and-ways-out-of-the-situationist-labyrinth/#comment-1747 Steve Shilling II Sat, 03 Dec 2011 04:36:00 +0000 http://theanvilreview.org/?p=1000#comment-1747 This is an extremely interesting and quite engaging format to present a book review. I would enjoy seeing more articles written in this sort of scripted play/interview style. It gives a very good sense of the reader as a third party disembodied viewer constantly floating amidst the two characters like a spectre. We engage the text and therefore the "situation" presented to us with a more personally driven opinion. I find that I was able to participate (in the realm of thoughts) with the two characters as though I was there, constantly forming opinions and then having them altered as I continued listening to the two speak, but all the while I felt secure to stray from the path of their thoughts and even mine own. I felt protected by the fact that even if I were to physically speak my thoughts, my ideas aloud such trivial attempts to contribute would fall 'silently' on my laptop's monitor. Truly, for me, this is a better way to present ideas, reviews, responses, etc. This is an extremely interesting and quite engaging format to present a book review. I would enjoy seeing more articles written in this sort of scripted play/interview style. It gives a very good sense of the reader as a third party disembodied viewer constantly floating amidst the two characters like a spectre. We engage the text and therefore the “situation” presented to us with a more personally driven opinion. I find that I was able to participate (in the realm of thoughts) with the two characters as though I was there, constantly forming opinions and then having them altered as I continued listening to the two speak, but all the while I felt secure to stray from the path of their thoughts and even mine own. I felt protected by the fact that even if I were to physically speak my thoughts, my ideas aloud such trivial attempts to contribute would fall ‘silently’ on my laptop’s monitor. Truly, for me, this is a better way to present ideas, reviews, responses, etc.

]]> Comment on Ways In and Ways Out of the Situationist Labyrinth by McKenzie Wark http://theanvilreview.org/print/ways-in-and-ways-out-of-the-situationist-labyrinth/#comment-1746 McKenzie Wark Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:05:59 +0000 http://theanvilreview.org/?p=1000#comment-1746 Reading reviews of one's own books is like a case of tinnitus. Like have some weird buzzing sound you can't get out of your head. So while the standards for experiencing a review of one's book are low, nevertheless by those standards this was a pleasure to read. The review even clarifies for me what my own intentions were on certain points. So my thanks for the gift. For my taste there's enough in the book on Chtcheglov relative to his small but marvelous body of work. I would be curious to know what is confused in my account of Jorn's writings. But otherwise my thanks indeed. Reading reviews of one’s own books is like a case of tinnitus. Like have some weird buzzing sound you can’t get out of your head. So while the standards for experiencing a review of one’s book are low, nevertheless by those standards this was a pleasure to read. The review even clarifies for me what my own intentions were on certain points. So my thanks for the gift. For my taste there’s enough in the book on Chtcheglov relative to his small but marvelous body of work. I would be curious to know what is confused in my account of Jorn’s writings. But otherwise my thanks indeed.

]]> Comment on Anonymous: That Most Prolific of Anarchist Writers by ann o nymus http://theanvilreview.org/print/anonymous_that_most_prolific_of_anarchist_writers/#comment-1689 ann o nymus Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:13:31 +0000 #comment-1689 The ability to erase "characteristic styles of writing" might be a matter worthy of some investigation. I seem to recall a hacker noting that his ransom notes might be run through foreign language translators (esp. very dissimilar ones like english -> chinese) and then translated back again. This should effectively remove any semblance of characteristic style. Unfortunately it might also remove any characteristic meaning :-) This topic reminds me of Orwells' Politics and the English Language only "in reverse". The ability to erase “characteristic styles of writing” might be a matter worthy of some investigation.

I seem to recall a hacker noting that his ransom notes might be run through foreign language translators (esp. very dissimilar ones like english -> chinese) and then translated back again.

This should effectively remove any semblance of characteristic style.

Unfortunately it might also remove any characteristic meaning :-)

This topic reminds me of Orwells’ Politics and the English Language only “in reverse”.

]]> Comment on More Green Now! by Doodoof face http://theanvilreview.org/print/more-green-now/#comment-1682 Doodoof face Tue, 08 Nov 2011 05:40:38 +0000 http://theanvilreview.org/?p=987#comment-1682 Here is a link with a bunch of articles and reports: http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Search/?q=Members%20of%20the%20Emancipation%20of%20the%20Niger%20Delta There was an episode on one of the Al Jazeera programs, I think Power and People, that covers the cease fire and disarmament of Members of the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. On a side note, it looks like the group since their resumption of attacks have begun to utilize terrorist tactics in the genuine sense of the word. (As distinguished from the loose use of the word by governments applying the word to anything they don't like.) Here is a link with a bunch of articles and reports:
http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Search/?q=Members%20of%20the%20Emancipation%20of%20the%20Niger%20Delta
There was an episode on one of the Al Jazeera programs, I think Power and People, that covers the cease fire and disarmament of Members of the Emancipation of the Niger Delta.
On a side note, it looks like the group since their resumption of attacks have begun to utilize terrorist tactics in the genuine sense of the word. (As distinguished from the loose use of the word by governments applying the word to anything they don’t like.)

]]> Comment on More Green Now! by Alex Gorrion http://theanvilreview.org/print/more-green-now/#comment-1680 Alex Gorrion Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:54:57 +0000 http://theanvilreview.org/?p=987#comment-1680 Where can one find current information on MEND? Where can one find current information on MEND?

]]> Comment on Wandering off from Willful Disobedience (three remarks and an imaginary title) by Alex Gorrion http://theanvilreview.org/print/wandering-off-from-willful-disobedience-three-remarks-and-an-imaginary-title/#comment-1679 Alex Gorrion Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:47:12 +0000 http://theanvilreview.org/?p=937#comment-1679 I disagree that there is a connection, a shared habit of thought, between the experience of having a will, and seeing society as a totality. I experience my own will as a motivation behind a conversation behind the diverse and conflicting inclinations of my manyness, not at all as a negation or blinding of this manyness. Reading of your experience of yourself as a field for possible emergent behaviors arising from tipping points in the changing balances of these inclinations reminds me of friends who have a very alienated relation with themselves, whose primary motivation to participate in that conversation is merely to listen, not believing themselves to have the right to a voice in that conversation, because they have long since involuntarily wandered off from the wager. Seeing the individual as a field for the realization of tipping points is consistent with the new science, which has been the first to strip chaos of its mystical component, causing, among other things, destruction to no longer be a fundamentally creative act. Yet at the same time, your words bring me the image of 19th century Russian revolutionaries going to the people to educate them, as Pascalian anarchists in a way, only to be met by a willful incompetence, the same form of resistance with which the peasants chronically and successfully denied the aristocracy their due. Yet these revolutionaries, turning back to the city in frustration, eventually crafted the system that would finally succeed in eliminating the peasants, thus if we impose on them, like an anthropologist, a strategic terrain in which to evaluate their behaviors, they failed (to use Wolfi's term). If, on another hand (in this case there are more than two), we simply imagine, and wonder what would have happened had they resisted by killing those evangelizing revolutionaries (particularly members of the Chaikovsky circle who included those who would form the People's Will, of all names for a group, a certain totality having coalesced in a phenomenon Landstreicher analyzes as the experience of an individual, as well as Kropotkin, who understood them as inheritors of the medieval communes) or if on the other hand they had responded more aggressively, more competently, to the travails they faced, not wandering off but attacking. As for Landstreicher's view of the society as a totality, my only reaction is to experience this as a silly phrase, because I cannot fathom an understanding of society that sees it as a totality that could be destroyed. What is the dividing line between the institutional relations of the apparatuses that govern society, the social relations between the individuals who people it, and the material relations with the other species that surround and sustain it (or for that matter, the institutional relations with the other species, the social relations of the apparatuses, and so forth)? How could the totality of society be destroyed without blowing up the entire planet? I suspect Landstreicher and I inhabit different societies. In your writing, though, you at the least suggest the possibility of not entertaining a relation with the world (underlining Landstreicher's asking of how to relate with in, in that encounter, and not whether to). I appreciate the idea of walking away from the wager, but I don't understand the idea of walking away from the world, and what that would even mean, beyond a departure into an increasingly abstract and disconnected image that takes sophistic advantage of the metaphorical separateness, in most strands of Western thought, between individual and world, such that there is an individual grammatically capable of walking away from this other thing called world. In any case, I was enthralled by your review, and your practice of the review in general. I disagree that there is a connection, a shared habit of thought, between the experience of having a will, and seeing society as a totality. I experience my own will as a motivation behind a conversation behind the diverse and conflicting inclinations of my manyness, not at all as a negation or blinding of this manyness.

Reading of your experience of yourself as a field for possible emergent behaviors arising from tipping points in the changing balances of these inclinations reminds me of friends who have a very alienated relation with themselves, whose primary motivation to participate in that conversation is merely to listen, not believing themselves to have the right to a voice in that conversation, because they have long since involuntarily wandered off from the wager.

Seeing the individual as a field for the realization of tipping points is consistent with the new science, which has been the first to strip chaos of its mystical component, causing, among other things, destruction to no longer be a fundamentally creative act.

Yet at the same time, your words bring me the image of 19th century Russian revolutionaries going to the people to educate them, as Pascalian anarchists in a way, only to be met by a willful incompetence, the same form of resistance with which the peasants chronically and successfully denied the aristocracy their due. Yet these revolutionaries, turning back to the city in frustration, eventually crafted the system that would finally succeed in eliminating the peasants, thus if we impose on them, like an anthropologist, a strategic terrain in which to evaluate their behaviors, they failed (to use Wolfi’s term). If, on another hand (in this case there are more than two), we simply imagine, and wonder what would have happened had they resisted by killing those evangelizing revolutionaries (particularly members of the Chaikovsky circle who included those who would form the People’s Will, of all names for a group, a certain totality having coalesced in a phenomenon Landstreicher analyzes as the experience of an individual, as well as Kropotkin, who understood them as inheritors of the medieval communes) or if on the other hand they had responded more aggressively, more competently, to the travails they faced, not wandering off but attacking.

As for Landstreicher’s view of the society as a totality, my only reaction is to experience this as a silly phrase, because I cannot fathom an understanding of society that sees it as a totality that could be destroyed. What is the dividing line between the institutional relations of the apparatuses that govern society, the social relations between the individuals who people it, and the material relations with the other species that surround and sustain it (or for that matter, the institutional relations with the other species, the social relations of the apparatuses, and so forth)? How could the totality of society be destroyed without blowing up the entire planet? I suspect Landstreicher and I inhabit different societies.

In your writing, though, you at the least suggest the possibility of not entertaining a relation with the world (underlining Landstreicher’s asking of how to relate with in, in that encounter, and not whether to). I appreciate the idea of walking away from the wager, but I don’t understand the idea of walking away from the world, and what that would even mean, beyond a departure into an increasingly abstract and disconnected image that takes sophistic advantage of the metaphorical separateness, in most strands of Western thought, between individual and world, such that there is an individual grammatically capable of walking away from this other thing called world.

In any case, I was enthralled by your review, and your practice of the review in general.

]]> Comment on PM: Bolo Bolo by What is new with Little Black Cart – Fall 2011 « Little Black Cart http://theanvilreview.org/print/pm_bolo_bolo/#comment-1656 What is new with Little Black Cart – Fall 2011 « Little Black Cart Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:54:15 +0000 #comment-1656 [...] bolo’bolo @ LBC A Related Link: Anvil Review [...] [...] bolo’bolo @ LBC A Related Link: Anvil Review [...]

]]> Comment on More Green Now! by Killgore http://theanvilreview.org/print/more-green-now/#comment-1655 Killgore Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:27:09 +0000 http://theanvilreview.org/?p=987#comment-1655 I like this review. One thing I would have to say is that the beginning of the book was so hard to get through. If it wasnt for aric mcbay, I would have stopped reading it. The beginning was the normal lecture of derrick jensen which was fine, but what keith had to say was exactly what Jensen had already said, only she just used different words. I found the chapters she wrote in the beginning to be very disorganized, weak, and following Jensens style of writing and not creating her own style. She made some very good points but did not tie it back to what she was talking about, or the point behind it. It was very very frustrating to read and I even wondered if they had anyone brief it because it read like she just wrote it without reading over it when she was done. The book does get better and more enjoyable, and i am impressed with the topcis that were addressed and published. I think alot of people with benefit from this book on all levels. I like this review. One thing I would have to say is that the beginning of the book was so hard to get through. If it wasnt for aric mcbay, I would have stopped reading it. The beginning was the normal lecture of derrick jensen which was fine, but what keith had to say was exactly what Jensen had already said, only she just used different words. I found the chapters she wrote in the beginning to be very disorganized, weak, and following Jensens style of writing and not creating her own style. She made some very good points but did not tie it back to what she was talking about, or the point behind it. It was very very frustrating to read and I even wondered if they had anyone brief it because it read like she just wrote it without reading over it when she was done.
The book does get better and more enjoyable, and i am impressed with the topcis that were addressed and published.
I think alot of people with benefit from this book on all levels.

]]>