Seek Power

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance Rewilding Mind & Heart
#1

I am adressing this mostly to the Guys that post here. I really get nothing out of internet pissing contests, but I am contrarian by nature. That mean that whenever I see a point of view being expressed I tend to automatically take the opposite view. Among Democrats, I am Republican, among vegans a carnivore; when in the company of Hawks, I take the pacifist perspective.

So think of this as a challenge to your thinking, nothing more.

In my personal journey of rewilding, I eventually came to wrestle with questions of the proper use of power. I feel like that is a topic not only related to the question of what it means to be human, but also more specifically, what it means to be a man.

In my opinion, most people seem to come into primitivism from the far left, as if primitivism is the logical conclusion of left wing thinking.

Its almost as if primitive tribal people are held up as the exemplars of the human race because they seem to embody things liberals hold up as ideals. Equality, egalitarianism, freedom, ecology, even eating organic!

Could this be a case of bias? Could you be seeing what you want to see among primitive people? Like as Robert Anton Wilson said “What the thinker thinks, the prover proves!”

Could it be possible that primitive people also embody what is seen as the dark side of human nature? Like violence and greed?

Jason Godesky has written about pirates, painting them as primitivists. It would be really hard to argue that pirates weren’t violent and greedy.

I guess in a way it can be excued, since pirates are “on our side” for being rebels against the establishment.

O.K. fair enough. So what happened to the pirates? They became the rich establishment families of the United States. The Boston bramins, the rich Old money WASPS of New York, families on the “Social Register” these are all descendants of Pirates.

Primitive people make war with each other. Its their nature. Some people win these wars, others lose. The winners write the history books and become the rulers and create the new order, then over time they become the Status quo. they get a bunch of more domesticated herd like humans to serve them and take shelter under them.

The Indian tribes, were mostly all war like. Less warlike than Aristocrats and pirates perhaps, but more warlike than people descended from generations and generations of docile peasants.

They lacked the intensive agriculture and mastery of symbolic culture, that the European settlers had and lost the war with them. Germs weren’t the only factor.

The most successful tribe in competing with the Europeans were the Cherokee. They did it by mastering written language, creating a cherokee alphabet, printing a newspaper and buying black slaves to farm for them.

But still, they were defeated.

If you really want to rewild and strip back the layers of domestication, you will be faced with this question of power. Every body wants it and not everyone can have it. You have to fight for it. This is what people were doing before the advent of agriculture and the alphabet. They were fighting. Agriculture and the alphabet just happen to be superior weapons that create this huge positive feedback loop that europeans were able to perfect through warring with each other and ride to the top of world domination.

But take away agriculture and the alphabet and you still have tribes of people fighting for power. Its in your heart. Its in your DNA.

#2

And as Dr. Phil says, how does that work for ya?

Though I have no problem (normally) with diverging points of view (I rather enjoy the diversity), I never enjoy “devil’s advocates”, as it doesn’t represent a true point of view, but a hypothetical or reactionary one, as you describe.

As one of ‘the Guys that post here’, I’d enjoy your contributions a lot more if you sourced them in perspectives that you have that persist regardless of the crowd you find yourself in.

Especially since you characterize this crowd according to your own labels, ‘far left’, etc. Perhaps asking more questions and seeking more understanding first would help out the dialogue you want to create? E-primitively speaking, a label has less than no value - it actually inhibits thinking.

I certainly don’t see ‘primitivism’ as the ‘logical conclusion of left wing thinking’. And civilized peoples ‘ate organic’ a mere 75 years ago.

Use your noodle, my friend. :slight_smile:

#3

Maybe you could read past the first paragraph and then present analysis.

As far as being contrarian, it works great for me, because it allows me to not get stuck inside idealogies, unable to see their weaknesses.

#4

I didn’t present analysis ‘past the first paragraph’ because I disputed the contents of the first paragraph: the idea that a useful conversation could come out of the kind of devil’s advocacy that you describe.

Since I wrote that I’ve remembered scenarios where a ‘devil’s advocate’ had inspired some useful discussion, but they always had a solid and real understanding of where people stood, in fact they often had a very similar viewpoint, and saw the need to challenge possible groupthink. I don’t sense that from you at this point, neither the understanding, nor the evidence of groupthink.

As far as being contrarian, it works great for me, because it allows me to not get stuck inside idealogies, unable to see their weaknesses.

What about the ideology of contrarianism? Have you seen its weaknesses? :slight_smile:

In my question of ‘how it worked for you’, I inquired also after the quality and kind of social relationships it generates, rather than just raw data. Raw data doesn’t impress me much anymore, and the medium always seems to outweigh the message (a sad but unavoidable limit, especially in internet communication). In my experience, only the contrarian seems to enjoy the context of a contrarian conversation. In past times I’ve had conversations, when I’d finally made the crucial point clear, the contrarians have always said, “Well, I didn’t really believe that POV anyway, I just wanted to test you.” Gosh, thanks. And the whole conversation disappears in a puff of smoke. :slight_smile: Do you see the possible source of frustration there?

#5

Willem, nice points on contrarianism, never really thought of it that way, but then never thought about it that much. Though it is good to look at things from an opposing viewpoint so you can try to understand, or to find flaws or ways of strengthening your own viewpoint. Or maybe finding a different viewpoint. But there are times when it does become rather annoying and a waste of time especially when the opposing viewpoints seem to be being made up and really have no point or meaning.

#6

Well Willem,

I don’t really have the desire to jump through the neccessary hoops, to prove to you that I am very well aquainted with primitivism, but I will say I am highly read on the subject, having read all the writings of john Zerzan, he unimbomber, several of Jensen’s heavy tommes, several books by Daniel Quinn. I also have read several issues from cover to cover of “Green Anarchy”

I was really into it for a while. The thing with me though is that I play the Devil’s advocate with myself. I challenge my own thinking on things.

Through my own journey of rewilding, I came to wrestling with issues of the proper use of power and the darkside of human nature, and found no satisfactory answers from anyone within the anarcho-primitivist genre.

The idea seems to be that violence, greed, etc. springs from “civilization” and not the human heart. I find that answer unsatisfactory.

Maybe you have the impression, I am simply “trolling” but really I am looking for intelligent conversation.

So what say you?

Are people naturally good? So that if everyone were to go back to nature everyone would be then good?

No more wars, fighting murder, lust greed, etc?

Or is violence and struggle part of nature?

#7

[quote=“Free_Range_Organic_Human, post:6, topic:298”]Are people naturally good? So that if everyone were to go back to nature everyone would be then good?

No more wars, fighting murder, lust greed, etc?

Or is violence and struggle part of nature?[/quote]

People are naturally good (pre-trauma).

Violence and struggle are part of nature.

#8

Or you could say

People were naturally good before Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and were driven from the garden of Eden.

Than after man fell into sin, the earth was filled with violence.

I think basically you are saying the same thing.

But the question is where does the “trauma” as you call it come from?

#9

[quote=“Free_Range_Organic_Human, post:8, topic:298”]Or you could say

People were naturally good before Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and were driven from the garden of Eden.

Than after man fell into sin, the earth was filled with violence.[/quote]

You could, but I wouldn’t. My story is a bit different.

Good question. I hope you don’t take offense that I don’t intend to provide an answer. It’s not out of spite or anger or anthing like that. I just think you’ll understand it better if you answer it for yourself.

#10

All you could give me is your answer, Jhereg.

You don’t presume to have THE answer do you?

#11

[quote=“Free_Range_Organic_Human, post:10, topic:298”]All you could give me is your answer, Jhereg.

You don’t presume to have THE answer do you?[/quote]

Very rarely, but there is precedent.

More importantly tho’, this comment confirms my suspicion that you’re best off finding your own answer.

#12

what the hell does “good” mean? non-violent? not greedy? if that stands as the definition, then no, people are not naturally good.

i like that you want to mix things up a bit, Ted. and i like that you’re challenging ideas that probably don’t get challenged enough. but i don’t want to argue with you over things you may or may not believe in. if you want to ask questions that jar the community’s thoughts, then that provides a useful way of saying “i don’t know about this, what does everyone else think?” (which the discussion already seems to be doing, so my presentation of that point may be redundant. a lot has already happened since I started typing this response.)

if you do believe something, then by all means, argue what you believe. or if you’re throwing out a half-baked idea to get responses on it, let us know that it’s half-baked. i like the conversations on this forum not only for the ideas but also for the people, and i want to have the chance to get to know you and your real thoughts while we hammer around different things together.

i think violence and greed exist as part of any life. my 1 year old son exhibits plenty of both–some of it he learned and the rest he brought to the table himself. are violence and greed “bad”? to the people on the receiving end, probably. to the ones that dish them out, they probably seem important and necessary.

i remember reading in Jason’s 5th World rulebook about the lack of violence in the new feral life and thinking “Really? Are you sure? What about the Erratic Retaliator that Quinn described so well?”

I think that violence and greed are expressions of need. I don’t think they’re limited to a corrupt (by civilization or by the original sin) lifestyle. but i also think that without the life-sucking burden of civilization, that violence and greed don’t have to be the norm that they are for us now. I think symbiosis has much more potential to work if no one is out to win it all–because real winning would allow everyone to win not just one entity.

#13

Quinn’s “Erratic Retaliator” idea was really a very clumsy attempt to deal with the subject of primitive violence. What he was noting was the warfare in horticultural societies and trying to reconcile it with the lack of warfare among foragers, since by his definition, they were all “Leavers.”

Take a look at “The Savages Are Truly Noble,” second section, “The Gentle People,” which deals with this in a much deeper manner.

Basically, it’s food production that really creates the situation where warfare is desirable or even viable. Only with food production do you get anything that can be gained from warfare, or the population it takes to wage war.

Then there are foragers in extremely difficult conditions, like the Inuit, or foragers at war with food producers. But as a system, foraging precludes the incentive or the ability to really wage war.

So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that there’s no evidence of warfare until the Agricultural Revolution, and then, suddenly, it explodes–it’s all there, all at once.

Horticulturalists fight, but even there, the term “war” is a stretch, at least as we know war. One or two casualties is an especially lethal war for them. Among horticulturalists, you do see something like Quinn’s “Erratic Retaliator” somewhat commonly. Cu Chulainn’s cattle raid would be a good example, for instance.

But among foragers, there’s no evidence of warfare ethnographically or archaeologically. There are homicides, and even blood feuds, but that’s a different thing from war. As I wrote at the end of the article section I linked to:

No society can ever be fully devoid of violence, but those that aspire to such a goal only become more violent by denying its place in the world. Primitive societies did engage in violence, and without a permanent class of professional killers, it fell to primitive peoples themselves to execute what violence became necessary. Perhaps that is in part why such societies also did so much to limit violence. Contemporary charges against primitive warriors rely on observations of a "post-apocalyptic" society decimated by European contact, ignoring the evidence that violence in these societies has been increased significantly because of the overwhelming impact of European contact. What we do see, however, is ample evidence of means to limit violence—emphasis placed on bravery and intimidation to avoid violence from breaking out, ritual approaches aimed at reconciling enemies, and alternative forms of contesting differences, such as song duels or counting coup. To properly compare the effectiveness of such approaches to our own, we need to take an honest accounting of violence in our own society—wars, murder, violent crime, incarceration, police brutality, and the full impact of our professional violence class. We need to look also to the ubiquitous violence inherent in our social system: the threat of violence that lies behind paying your rent, obtaining your food, and every other aspect of civilized existence. Primitive societies were not devoid of violence, but they did limit it, and it was a much rarer thing. Among them, violence was something that happened. For us, it's a way of life.
#14

Rix,

Does asking questions make you uncomfortable? Not sure i understand the first half of your post.

As for the second half, I think its possible that all humans have a disire to dominate nature and to dominate other people around them.

I think some societies are better at these two things than others. I think though, that, there is a lot of distruction that comes in the wake of serious efforts at those ends.

Seriously though, would you be fine with having lots of parasites living inside you? Having no real understanding( and thus no control over ) disease?

These are realities primitive people live with. They do try to control these things, but do it in inneffectual ways, like sacrificing to spirits, doing dances. They do have other folk remedies, that actually work. But not always.

I think people have a desire to dominate and control. This creates conflict and violence.

I think to diagnose the problems within civilization, you need asophisticated scientific understanding of the world. You need a sense of the whole. This knowledge only came through the desire to dominate. To go back to being primitive is to let go of the control and plunge into ignorance, sure you may become more harmless to the ecology then, but does that justify it?

These are questions I wrestle with.

I guess, I could hang out here for a while, share niceties, small talk, be agreeable. But I like to cut to the chase. [url=http://[/url]

I have a blog http://freerangeorganichuman2.blogspot.com]

I have a blog http://freerangeorganichuman2.blogspot.com

maybe I could stick to posting there.

I sense people aren’t really grasping what I am getting at. But there is a ral dillema here with primitivism. a conundrum.

I guess its in trying to save the world while trying to regain lost innocence, without plunging into ignorance and letting go of all control.

I mean its like, if you were truly wild, living wild and free, would you worry about global warming? Would you even know what it was?

#15

Jason. Thanks for the explanation. I guess I never got around to reading “The Savages Are Truly Noble”. I probably saw the “19631 words, estimated 78:31 mins reading time” on the main blog page and just kept putting it off until I had 78:31 mins worth of time to sit down and read it–which never came along.

The way you presented it in the last comment makes perfect sense. Violence existed but not to anywhere near the extent we see it in civilization, and there were other ways of dealing with escalations that provided a way out before things came to physical blows.

Now I just still need to find that 78:31 mins worth of time. :slight_smile:

#16
I mean its like, if you were truly wild, living wild and free, would you worry about global warming? Would you even know what it was?

I think you view primitivism differently than I do. It seems to me you are at ends with primitivism because instead of solving the worlds problems, by intervening, dominating, and controlling, primitivism takes a step back, and doesn’t want anything to do with the worlds problems. It wants to go back to before the worlds problems, and views the worlds problems are a spiraling problem in themselves caused by our ‘non-primitive’ ways.

To me primitivism isn’t about trying to be superman and fix all the worlds problems, instead, to me it is like regrowth. A renewal, much like life coming from death.

If the people of the world were in a primitive state, would there be such a thing of global warming? Maybe, but would it be caused by humans? Would it not just be a natural process seen in the earth previously (the ice age). So then would it matter if global warming was happening? And if it didn’t really matter, would you then be worrying?

#17

I’ll say, firmly, and for the record, I don’t. You can, of course, make of that what you will.

[quote=“Free_Range_Organic_Human, post:14, topic:298”]Seriously though, would you be fine with having lots of parasites living inside you? Having no real understanding( and thus no control over ) disease?

These are realities primitive people live with. They do try to control these things, but do it in inneffectual ways, like sacrificing to spirits, doing dances. They do have other folk remedies, that actually work. But not always.[/quote]

The evidence I’ve seen (a pretty fair bit) doesn’t support this. And there are rarely any guarantees.

I’ll reiterate, I have little desire to dominate or control others, and what does exist is limited to being able to protect myself and my family.

I don’t think so at all. I think you need a perspective balanced between reduction and integration. This does not necessarily represent scientific understanding.

[quote=“Free_Range_Organic_Human, post:14, topic:298”]I sense people aren’t really grasping what I am getting at. But there is a ral dillema here with primitivism. a conundrum.

I guess its in trying to save the world while trying to regain lost innocence, without plunging into ignorance and letting go of all control.[/quote]

Make no mistake, I do understand what you’re getting at. I think if there’s a misunderstanding here, it’s on your end.

I (and I don’t think I’m alone) have no illusions about regaining “innocence”.

Having said that, I may as well admit that I’ve had a lot of concerns about you. I watch you trying to walk some very narrow cliffs, and I’m afraid you’re going to fall and be swallowed whole by the abyss. I’m not trying to be condescending or patronising (tho’ I’m painfully aware that I’m probably coming off that way). Ask questions, by all means, just keep in mind that our answers may not be the ones you seek. Or the ones you need to find.

#18

Jerheg,

Well if you say,you have no desire to dominate or control others, would you admit that there are Primitivist writers whose blogs you enjoy, who do?

Would it be a safe bet to say that people with a desire to dominate and control others generally don’t get aong with each other, but often are good at attracting, oh, let’s say “fans” “followers” “readers” that are more passive types?

Do see any possibility for any kind of a dynamic like that?

#19
Does asking questions make you uncomfortable? Not sure i understand the first half of your post.

You must not have understood. My point was that I like questions–even the ones that do make me uncomfortable–better than devil’s advocacy for the sake of just mixing things up. Tell me what you really think–not just the opposite of what everyone else is thinking. But I sense the more I read your posts that these things really do sum up what you think.

I think its possible that all humans have a disire to dominate nature and to dominate other people around them.

I don’t. I think the desire to dominate surfaces as an anomaly that surged off the charts because the planet had never had to deal with that kind of anomaly before. And the planet is already reacting to the anomaly and will eventually find its equilibrium again.

Seriously though, would you be fine with having lots of parasites living inside you? Having no real understanding( and thus no control over ) disease?

These are realities primitive people live with. They do try to control these things, but do it in inneffectual ways, like sacrificing to spirits, doing dances. They do have other folk remedies, that actually work. But not always.

Why would you think that primitives (I assume you’re talking about pre- or -non-civilized people here) have no understanding of disease? Because they did things you don’t see the value in, like talking to spirits? I think the ones who came before civilization–and the ones who still live outside of it have a far better understanding of disease and how to deal with it than we do or ever will within civilization. And a lot of the dis-ease we know arises because of civilization. Our diet is our number one killer.

I think people have a desire to dominate and control. This creates conflict and violence.

I think people have a desire to live. Sometimes that may present itself in a way that steps on someone else’s desire to live and creates conflict that may lead to violence. But I don’t see dominance as a defining trait of humanity.

I think to diagnose the problems within civilization, you need asophisticated scientific understanding of the world. You need a sense of the whole. This knowledge only came through the desire to dominate. To go back to being primitive is to let go of the control and plunge into ignorance, sure you may become more harmless to the ecology then, but does that justify it?

I’m not sure about your definition of a sophisticated scientific understanding of the world. I’m guessing by the way you write off the efficacy of primitive spiritual practices that you might not see the native American view of the encroaching European civilization as sophisticated or scientific. but they seemed to understand pretty well that whitey had no respect for the land or anything that lived there. what more do you need?

i don’t think going back to the primitive means letting go of control. i don’t think we really have control of anything right now. it might be scary because it means letting go of the known and plunging into the unknown. but that’s why we’re all here–to explore the unknown world of primitive life and try to get to know it before we have to live it. that’s why i’m here on this forum, at least.

I guess, I could hang out here for a while, share niceties, small talk, be agreeable. But I like to cut to the chase.

I have never asked anyone to be agreeable. I have stated quite clearly that I highly value argument. And I don’t think much of what goes on here qualifies as small talk. Maybe it’s not “big” enough talk for what you would like. In which case, you might feel more comfortable back in your own blog, on your own turf, as you suggested.

I sense people aren't really grasping what I am getting at.

It seems to me like people actually are grasping what you’re getting at, and they’re arguing the other side of it too you. They may not be buying what you’re selling, but that doesn’t mean they’re not getting it. But then maybe I’m one of the ones who doesn’t get it either, so by thinking others get it, I’m proving that I don’t. :slight_smile:

I guess its in trying to save the world while trying to regain lost innocence, without plunging into ignorance and letting go of all control.

I’m not sure I’ve seen anything in your arguments that looks the least bit like trying to regain lost innocence.

I mean its like, if you were truly wild, living wild and free, would you worry about global warming? Would you even know what it was?

You probably wouldn’t see it the same way, but you would definitely know something was wrong. You would know your own bioregion, its phenology, how the animals behave, how the season come and go. And I think you would definitely notice if any of those things started behaving differently

#20
As for the second half, I think its possible that all humans have a disire to dominate nature and to dominate other people around them.

Sure, it’s possible. Lots of things are possible–but is it true? That’s a different question. Where’s the evidence?

Seriously though, would you be fine with having lots of parasites living inside you? Having no real understanding( and thus no control over ) disease?

Ted–you have lots of parasites living inside you. I know because you aren’t dead. In fact, 90% of the cells in your body aren’t human. They’re microbes. You’re a walking ecology, and without them, you couldn’t digest your food, breathe, or live.

Being able to cure disease is not a matter of domination. In fact, that approach is precisely what gets Western biomedicine caught in an escalation of diminishing marginal returns.

These are realities primitive people live with. They do try to control these things, but do it in inneffectual ways, like sacrificing to spirits, doing dances. They do have other folk remedies, that actually work. But not always.

Anthropologists of medicine have yet to find any ethnomedical system that’s objectively better than any other. Each culture believes its own to be the only effective one, but this is simple ethnocentrism. The medical system of every primitive society is just as effective as Western biomedicine.

I think people have a desire to dominate and control. This creates conflict and violence.

Yes it does. Like every other domesticated human, including myself, your whole world has been defined in terms of domination and control. It’s hard to ever see past that. Now, you’re a lot more honest with yourself than most in recognizing this, but you still need to recognize that this isn’t the only way things can be, and that other ways have existed.

To go back to being primitive is to let go of the control and plunge into ignorance, sure you may become more harmless to the ecology then, but does that justify it?

The domination is empty, though. I know how much you love Conan (I was once a big Conan fan, too), but how does his story end? “…destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow…” This is the hero of your story, and he’s already warned you wear it ends: when you dominate everything, you end up alone. You have the crown, but you wear it on a troubled brow. The domination is empty.

Primitivism isn’t about ecology for its own sake, though that may ultimately force us into it. It’s about re-establishing our relationship with the living world. Domestication turned a world of mutual relationships into simple domination, and then that pattern extended to us, as well, and we became domesticated, too. Rewilding is about abandoning domination and restoring the mutual relationships that defined life before domestication. We’re rewilding precisely because wearing the jeweled crown upon a troubled brow holds no appeal. We don’t want power, we want relationship. We want our families and our lands made whole again. We don’t want to rule anything; we want to be a part of a living world again.

I sense people aren't really grasping what I am getting at. But there is a ral dillema here with primitivism. a conundrum.

I understand exactly what you’re getting at, but it’s not a dilemma or a conundrum. The dilemma is that primitivist ideas don’t square with popular myths about primitive society. That’s not a dilemma, because they’re not true; they’re myths about primitive society. You haven’t been willing to see the evidence for that yet, and it’s pretty obvious that has to do with some deep-seated emotional need you have about this. But there is no dilemma, not really.

I mean its like, if you were truly wild, living wild and free, would you worry about global warming? Would you even know what it was?

You might, or might not. That’s not what would make you wild. The better question is, if you were wild, would there be global warming?

Jason. Thanks for the explanation. I guess I never got around to reading "The Savages Are Truly Noble". I probably saw the "19631 words, estimated 78:31 mins reading time" on the main blog page and just kept putting it off until I had 78:31 mins worth of time to sit down and read it--which never came along.

Understandable. I generally choose being thorough over being presentable, I’ve generally come to the conclusion that I’m mostly providing ammunition for primitivism, rather than actually writing anything people would want to read.

The way you presented it in the last comment makes perfect sense. Violence existed but not to anywhere near the extent we see it in civilization, and there were other ways of dealing with escalations that provided a way out before things came to physical blows.

There’s also a very strong observer effect; the ways in which we observe primitive societies are well known to make them much more violent. And we’re observing “post-apocalyptic” societies ravaged by European contact; we’ve confirmed this archaeologically.

I don't think so at all. I think you need a perspective balanced between reduction and integration. This does not necessarily represent scientific understanding.

This reminded me, that all of our criticisms of civilization have been echoed by primitive peoples lacking “science” as we know it. Our scientific understanding has simply given us new levels on which those same criticisms still apply.