Drinking to Civilization's Collapse

Ahem.

2009-07-31T20:00:00.000-07:00

I don't write here anymore (this, this here, being an exception, which isn't to say it'll never happen again, either). Sometimes words are laid down elsewhere, be it one of the notebooks or scraps of paper in my possession (not to be found online), and some to be found online. The topics there are more varied, but such is sure to be the case when one buds and leafs out, flowers, cross-pollinates, fruits -- stuff there's been written with passion (not to mention other altered states) at times, can't ever claim that was the case here. It was born before, and lives on yet.

I'm less informed by primitivism and anti-civ now -- the critiques of the problem --, and moreso informed by possible (love that word) solutions to it (and not just those limited to rewilding [nothing against that, I drink down some of that fermented beverage now and again]); although anti-civ and primitivist thought provide an articulation of how deep the problem goes, more radical (of course) than any other I've encountered, they nonetheless remain inexhaustive regarding the formulations of the problem(s) [there is always more?]. Additionally, I've found them to be quite limiting regarding possibilities and varieties of action, but likewise, this perception of mine is by no means exhaustive of what anti-civ and primitivism themselves are capable of (there are undoubtedly gaps in my understanding of them, especially seeing as these have lives of their own, and are growing, discarding, adapting, transforming).

At one point I was paralyzed into (or by?) inaction (maybe that was just an excuse for not motivating myself), but now, seeing the resilience of that which self-destructs (is there irony there?) & (not to mention a paucity of viable methods for the forced dissolution of such [would not such opposition be a submission to a part of the problem anyway...?]), leads me towards: to oppose not by attacking what is destructive, which is to play its game (a suicide mission?), but by affirming life in its myriad forms regardless -- all the while learning through ecological insight how that which is dominating can be held at bay, to minimize its proliferation to the detriment of diversity (to worry not about invasive species, but moreso to learn the tactics of how to reject what are opportunists), to break up stagnating flows of hyper-accumulation (delayed returns?) and redistribute the good(s), to ferret out what is life-denying/binary/homogenizing/monotonizing/fatalistic, down to the smallest, in ourselves too, that which skims the cream off the top to feed itself, removing vital nutrients parasitically. To do away with determinism, to grow determination, to multiply potentialities and possibilities into present and future (tempo)realities.

Ha! To have not dismissed but, claimed to be unrepresented entirely by the names anti-civ and primitivism, rewilding, for example, but then to not label what now informs me. Perhaps this goes back to a desire not to be labeled (much like in highschool, I neither drank nor smoked, so people would call me straight edge. No I said, that's not who I am, just not today). To identify as unidentified? Maybe to not need a title, only a name...

Moving on, this is a statement of the end of the monotony of the previous tone here, perhaps of writing altogether here (I'm coming back, after the end, to write of the end? Bringing back the dead to kill it?). Why oh why was this written?

Why I am so optimistic.

2006-12-19T20:56:00.000-08:00

Because I noticed Ted has linked to me, here's something for those that stumble upon.

The best news source I know of in regards to where the world is being headed.

"The Earth is not dying, it is being murdered, and the people murdering it have names and addresses."
-- Utah Phillips

technological savior

2006-12-19T18:43:00.000-08:00

I've heard it said that humans are no longer evolving (and also heard the contrary). Do they willingly defer their powers of evolution into technology, the savior that takes the place of some supernatural power of the sky? So many conversations I've had people talk about salvation existing out in space or in our turning more machine like, very rarely (and often begrudgingly if so) do they admit that if our current attitudes are not solved before then they will be carried along with us. I don't hate the thought of technology as savior so much (though it's a hard one to care for), but rather that people who claim to be scientific put so much faith in this. Here's a back and forth on such between a friend and mine on another journal.

Cultural appropriation, body suspension.

2006-12-19T14:24:00.000-08:00

This past weekend some friends, some acquaintences, and myself took to Chicago, all to attend a party wherein body suspension was to happen. I didn't partake in the suspending, but my girlfriend is a huge fan, and wanted me to see more than pictures or video for once. If you're not familiar with body suspension, I'll tell you what I know. A person will get some hooks put in them, most often in their upper back (just between, yet below, the shoulders), that's what they call a suicide. Then there's in the knees and the back, depending on how one hangs, it's some chair'ish name or a cannonball, one can also hang from the back of their thighs and back, this is the superman, then there's also the one where you've got about two hooks per arm and some in your back, and you'll hang crucifix style. The most painful one I've seen would be the knee hang (well, actually the chest one, but I ain't seen that in person yet), in which one hangs just by the knees, upside down.

Each hook is capable of holding 90 or so pounds depending on weight distribution, and people will hang for seconds or minutes, sometimes hours. The video Modify (delving into tons of forms of body modification) goes into the motivations of some of these people, one of the more astounding phrases in it is "there is no such thing as pain, there is only intense physical sensation." Anybody that's ever spoken to me of the origins of suspension tells of how it originated as a rite of passage for males in some Native American group, though nobody says who they were by name. Supposedly the one engaging in such would hang until the hooks tore through their flesh.

Now, I've numerous friends that engage in suspension, and living in this haven of PC'ness they call Madison, sometimes one wonders (wrongly or not) how "correct" something is. I'm white as can be, mostly Norske, Germanic, and Pollock in stock, though numerous other bloods flow through me in lesser degrees. I've got a mohawk, not so much by choice, but I was wasted and let some punk shave the sides of my head. Do you think this cultural appropriation? If it matters, it's not often worn up.

I wonder, after how long must it be before something is no longer considered being appropriated? By this I mean, mohawks are something punks've been sporting for decades, so much so that it's now a part of punk culture, and not something being stolen again and again (so far as I can tell) from this or that Native American nation, but it in part belongs to punks now. The same with dreadlocks and hippies, or whomever cares to wear either of these hair styles. I wear a mohawk and am not punk, but it was given to me by one, is this wrong, and why? If it were passed to the punk by a mohawk indian and then to me does that make it better? Cultural practices do not always develop in a vacuum, they can come from a confluence of sources; if someone takes a portion of a style or a story or both from two origins and stirs them together to create something new, is it now solely that person's possession and the possession of those they share it with?

To me this isn't about defending cultural appropriation, I just don't see it as horrible as some people, I guess. It can be demeaning to take somebody's (or some bodies) identity away. If somebody were to start dressing like me, use my mannerisms and calling themselves by my name, that'd be annoying as hell if not hurtful, but is it wrong for them to do? Can't claim at all to being a fan of Microsoft, but here's something that evades my comprehension, Mapuche indians sue Microsoft because Microsoft uses their language.

Some such, and a cheese eating dichotomouse

2006-12-18T19:04:00.000-08:00

It truly is great to see a person that wants something, yet can also admit and confront (or embrace) the darker sides of what is desired. There are primitivists that believe tribal life is utopian if not merely ideal, but, that there can be frightening aspects to such a life is not too often admitted. Ted is the only one I can think of whom, again and again, says that though things in primitive societies may be preferable in a number of ways, there exist unappealing qualities, too. This is important to note; one does not remember something from hearing it once. Another reason I like what he's doing is he's not constantly rehashing the same old themes and arguments of others, he expands and diverges. It's fine to focus on something, to dig deep, yet it is often beneficial to come up for a breath of fresh air, to stretch one's legs and walk around. Delve into the particular, then generalize, but not too much. Repeat, or whatnot. Hell, do as thou wilt...

Where's the point in emulating a tribe that is not your own? What of defending a particular tribal structure that one does not belong to? Cannot see the point. I have seen some primitivists look to a particular tribe at a particular point in time and say "that, thar right there, that is what is to be desired" (no, not verbatim, but you get the point). Such an attitude fails to look at the tribe as a process (or series of processes), and instead perceives it as a stable thing. Life is (or rather, is'ing) processes of flux, whether perceptible or not (my body's molecular recomposition, for example). This does not mean that complexity and stability are illusions, not by any means, just that focusing on a static snapshot (or even a short history) will likely do injustice to the processes that a thing is, and exists within. One cannot teleport through space and travel through time in an attempt to duplicate the relations of others; take what works for you, do your best to leave behind what doesn't, but whatever you do, do it your way.

Another problem I have with some primitivists (though not primitivism) is that there exist many out there that see the primitive as separated from civilization by a great divide, as entirely dichotomous. They've read Diamond or Zerzan or whomever, when they said "the question isn't how civilization came about, but rather, why it came about", and think that this is the point separating the civilized from the primitive. It's like the mind-body problem, how do they interact if they are entirely different substances? How does absolutely dead matter engender awareness and mind (or rather, something non-hierarchical bring about hierarchy)? Not only does looking at things as either primitive or civilized create giant steps where there are flows and interpenetrations and nuances, it neglects taking into account pastoralists and nomads and any other structural identities that might exist. Some exclaim that they mean instead that there's a divide between sedentary and ambulatory peoples. I like what Robert Kelly said, "no society is sedentary, not even our own industrial one--people simply move in different ways." Who doesn't set up camp for a night, who is permanently moving on their feet?

Unrelated

Here's the funny part, today, after just getting off the city bus and beginning the walk home, a car at a stop sign opens its door, and this bearded man yells out "Chiggles!", then something about "it's me, [...]", a name I couldn't quite make out, thought it was Ken or some such. This man drives across the street, I run to greet, not precisely sure who I might meet. Turns out it's Ted (you know, the one spoken of earlier in this post, Free Range Organic Human?). Him and I live in the same city, we've tossed back and forth two or three emails, but had never met in person up to this point. We's getting coffee some time this week.

A peeve or two of mine

2006-12-17T17:55:00.000-08:00

First let it be known that I'm not seeing myself as an anarcho-primitivist, but moreso as one that is anti-civilization. How this difference is perceived varies by the perceiver, but to me the differences are these: AP idealizes hunter-gatherer lifestyles, anti-civ moreso just wants for the downfall of civilization. Yeah yeah, the prims will say "but if agriculture is practiced you will get hierarchy!!". I think this is one of my primary contentions regarding AP, this same old fucking determinism. Not every AP harbors such thoughts, and it's understandable to feel, with much real evidence, that if A occurs B is likely to follow. This does not mean, however, if A then B, absolutely; culture is more fluid than this.

One thing I despise is when anarchists complain about how anarcho-primitivists utilize technology despite their claiming to be against such. The funny thing is, anarchists (well, minus the anarcho-capitalists [pffft!]) are against capitalism, yet they've got jobs (and jobs've got them), therefore they're supporting capitalism. Sure, the more Marxist of them can claim they're radicalizing the workers, but seriously. Then these same anarchists defending jobs turn around and look to those that've dropped out from the work-force, calling them lifestylists. This is not at all saying "can't we all get along", no, not at all. Let us disagree, but at least be honest in doing so.

What is this?

2006-11-25T11:04:00.000-08:00

Herein this page will be attempts at furthering my understandings of issues, particularly in regards to anarcho-primitivism and anti-civilization thought. Fleshing out my ideas here on these topics (and others) is the primary purpose seen at present. It is dubious that another has stumbled upon here as of yet; however, if you happened to, and have yet to be familiarized with anarcho-primitivism and the sort, here's a few pages containing expounding information:

The Thirty Theses by Jason at The Anthropik Network
Future Primitive by John Zerzan

Testing

2006-09-20T08:50:00.000-07:00

Czech Czech.