yes, that is probably what af meant. and i understand the perspective.i guess i don't see connectedness and interdependence as synonymous with being "part of everything around them". [edit: "connected to" and "part of" are very much not the same, to me.] while detachment is surely not how i would articulate what it means to be an individual, autonomy is (a big part of it). i have no need to declare my autonomy from the bacteria living in my stomach, or the groundwater and rainwater that sustains me (as if i could). but i do need to declare my autonomy from my neighbor, who may share my groundwater (and in some cases, even my bacteria).(for sure a discussion on autonomy would help here, as well).
[edit: maybe i need to distinguish between biological autonomy and behavioral autonomy?]so perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to an "individual human"? i cannot see myself referring to my own being (my "self") as a localized relational community. that just seems like a slippery slope. it starts to sound like biological correctness (ala political correctness).ultimately, spoken/written language sucks at some things. this must be one.
yes, I agree a definition and/or discussion of autonomy would help.
regarding your statement:
"i guess i don't see connectedness and interdependence as synonymous with being "part of everything around them".
what difference(s) do you see between the two?
funky@, i do think a discussion on autonomy may be significant at this point. perhaps as a question?here, however, i only wish to point out the context of origin as a concept as we tend to discuss it ('western' civilization) and how we tend to use it (causality within linear thinking).
o dear god, i am sounding and writing like emile . ;-) this does deserve a lengthy response though, all kidding aside.
anyway, you wrote two lines which may be helpful to understand where i'm coming from within an intra-human context:
'but i do need to declare my autonomy from my neighbor,'
' i cannot see myself referring to my own being (my "self") as a localized relational community. that just seems like a slippery slope. it starts to sound like biological correctness (ala political correctness).'
that you have a neighbor means you aren't free of the relationship, but very much entwined in it. also, i think it's difficult to deny that other facets of our 'self' are at play despite our desires and intentions.
for instance, our race most definitely plays a huge part for our 'self' within these particular social relations. race, as i think we're aware, has no real basis 'in biology,' yet it's most definitely at play in every one of our social relations. this makes it no less powerful. where we move through, how we move through these places, with whom we interact, how we speak and think. here we who lean toward individualist anarchy must be careful, because one of the constant excuses for continued segregation and white supremacy is: "i only see individuals, not race.' which is a load of horseshit and easy to say for white folks who've never really lived around/among people of color and continue to benefit from racial disparity (like, as in our greater freedom of movement; less harassment by the pigs).
this has little, if anything, to do with 'political correctness' as an ideology, but everything to do with the nuts and bolts of our social relationships in the US and Europe...and our sense of 'self.' these meanings and relations are historical and ongoing despite what we think of them, how we value them, and so on, these relations are the water through which we fish swim, particularly if we are white. black folks weren't strung up from trees due to their individuality, nor was land taken from natives due to it, nor can we believe we are perceived, interacted with, solely as 'individuals.' each one of us is conditioned and contextualized whether we like it or not. if we seek to live a life as free from the domination of others while not dominating others, we simply have to look at these patterns. i think this is a great place to use Stirnerian critique, particularly since most antiracists don't go far enough, imo, in refusing to critique the civilizing process.
as one who tends toward individualist/egoist anarchy (but also green and primitivist strains) i have to look at both the condition within which i live and the context these inclinations arose historically through others: where, who, why, when, how? i simply have no reason to believe that the dichotomy, the antagonism between, individual/society is a universal condition, but is predicated upon certain and particular preconditions in order to arise; preconditions i'd like to challenge on a daily basis. i choose to do this by using individualist/egoist critiques/methods because i find nearly all socially-oriented critiques/methods to be rather ham-handed ways toward (yet, more) domination, vain and rather myopic.