In a conversation I had with a friend, I referred to the act that my note-taking system enables as autoethnographical unontologizing.
Autoethnographical unontologizing is autoethnography focused on the writer's own unontologizing.
This might seem like a term that is invalid:
Autoethnography is ethnography performed by the person or community who it relates to.
Unontologizing is unlearning ontology.
How can writing about one's own experience through a lens of logical study be for the purpose of unlearning that which was constructed through the framework of logical study?
I'd like to quote from the English translation of Ai ferri corti con l’esistente, i suoi difensori e i suoi falsi critici ("At Daggers Drawn with the Existent, its Defenders and its False Critics") an anonymous essay published in 1998.
In order to discuss freely one must snatch time and space from social obligations. After all, dialogue is inseparable from struggle. It is inseparable materially (in order to talk to each other it is necessary for us to take time and seize the necessary space) and psychologically (individuals like talking about what they do because that is how words transform reality).
The critique of direct democracy (to stick to the same example) must be concrete. Only then is it possible to go beyond and think that the social foundations of individual autonomy really exist. Only then is it possible for this going beyond to become a method of struggle, here and now. Subversives need to criticise other people’s ideas and define them more precisely than those who swear by them.
That is to say: I "must snatch time and space," because "dialogue is inseperable from struggle," and my "critique[s…] must be concrete."
But… why critique, at all?
I'll share the quote that is the epigraph to the last section of "Ai ferri":
"Don’t ask for the formula for opening up worlds to you in some syllable like a bent dry branch. Today, we can only tell you what we are not, what we don’t want." - Eugenio Montale