I don’t know if the following will make any sense to anybody. I’ve begun to put some pieces together for myself, but I might not yet articulate it well enough for others. On the off chance that it clicks for someone, I’ll go ahead and take the risk.
I want to underscore a point I made in the last article concerning disgust at civilization. To articulate an argument against something insane, means that you can encompass it in your logical system. That means that you dignify it as one of the reasoned choices available to a member of your culture, however much you argue against it. By arguing against it, you say a reasonable person may choose it – because, you want to change this person’s mind by using a reasoned argument. You see?
Even now, culturally, we have things that you “just don’t do”, no explanation needed, and we have things that we haven’t made our minds up about.
Furthermore, a sane and life-affirming choice needs no logical support – you can feel the evidence with your body’s senses. Only abstractions need logical support. The more removed the abstraction, the more support needed.
Once you’ve exposed a life-denying choice for all to see, to argue further in the face of someone choosing it means you consider their choice reasonable. Which means that you leave the door open for you to choose it, someday, as a reasonable thing.
To reject something, without explanation or articulation, marks a step into a world where you can move directly into remedy, if you yourself end up choosing it. At that point, everyone in your micro-culture knows you “just don’t do that”. And in rewilding, everyone knows that punishment doesn’t address the actual issues at stake. So everyone moves directly into remedy.
The more of your rewilding culture that, once accepted on the basis of life-affirming evidence, you no longer articulate in a reasoned argument, the stronger it becomes. It, in fact, exits the vulnerable arena of american secular puritanism, a mental battlezone where your values and choices lay open to constant debate on whether they qualify as a “one right way”, amidst personal accusations of hypocrisy and so on.
As long as you engage in debate about the “personhood” of a tree, for example, you leave open the notion that a sane person could see the “itness” of a tree.
If you live a good life, people in search of a good life will flock to it. If you argue for a good life, people in search of an argument about what makes a good life will flock to it.