I was watching some video clips of Bill Hicks performances a couple days ago to pass the time. I first learned of Bill Hicks from the_bone via the interests in his profile, but I hadn't seen any of his performances until now. I came across one that was pretty cool (in a serious way more than in a funny way). So I want to share it here. You can go watch Bill Hicks say it himself if you want to. But here is my transcription of the monologue:
expand to read full post
Saturday, April 29
Friday, April 28
The problem
Several weeks ago, I went to a presentation by the beehive collective, in which they told the story of the dark and sordid relationship between the US and Colombia - the "war on drugs," which is an excuse to go in and control the country economically and politically, greatly harming many innocent subsistence farmers when the US accidentally destroys the wrong fields (because it's hard to get the address right from 500 feet up in the air). They went into incredible detail about all of the bad shit that happens there because of "us". The basic message is globalization = bad; local community sufficiency = good.
I watched a documentary last night that I picked up from the library called The end of suburbia. It introduces the coming (or present, if you've been to the pump lately) crisis of peak oil. The rate of production of oil for the world will peak within the next decade, if it hasn't already. This means that the age of cheap energy is over. The lifestyle we developed during that age of cheap energy will no longer be able to be fueled or otherwise sustained. There is no scalable, cheap, fast solution. But we will continue attempting to expand our economy as we always have, an economy completely based on oil and its byproducts. And our economy (our global economy) will crash. The movie says this will end suburbia. I say this will end urbia as well (a.k.a. cities::civis::civilization). I'm looking forward to the possibilities such an involuntary powerdown will open up.
expand to read full post
I watched another documentary earlier tonight, outside, projected on a screen on the side of a building, at New Roots urban farm, called The future of food. The issue here is genetically modified foods, and how they're fucking with the lives of family farmers (because of the patenting of life, and its uncontrollable reproduction and spread to land where the farmer hasn't paid the patent fee. Monsanto is evil.) and with the ecosystems they are introduced to. The scariest part to me, besides what GMOs could be doing to me allergenically, was the idea that terminator seeds (seeds genetically modified to commit suicide - to produce infertile seeds in the next generation, tieing the farmers to the company that makes the seed forever) could cross-breed with wild plants and spread the suicide gene throughout an ecosystem. I cheered when they talked about superweeds overcoming the Roundup herbicide (that the industrial farmers then kill with something similar to agent orange that is known to cause cancer (*cheering dies down*). Everyone outside of North America is scared shitless of GMOs (the governments and the peoples). They are watching Americans to see when they start dropping dead. The documentary goes on to highlight the organic "counterrevolution." The film barely touched on the environmental impact of monocultural farming methods. That's left for another movie, I guess.
Or a book! I recently read Garden Planet, by William H. Kötke. This book is very readable (not quite as intense and detailed as Final Empire). It covers how civilized humans are killing life on earth and how to create a new human culture that will allow humans to gain "biological legitimacy" in basically being worthy of continuing to exist as a species on this planet. I'll just list all of the ways in which we are raping the earth: global warming, the dying oceans, the vanishing soils, desertification, deforestation, water exhaustion/polluting, species extinction, and the human population disaster. More devastating (from my perspective at least) than the economic collapse is the environmental collapse. Humans can live quite well (thrive, actually) without functioning monetary economies, but they can't very well thrive if the earth is too sick to continue to provide food for them. We are omnivores, so there would have to be nothing edible left alive in order for us to starve to death, but such is a possibility with how badly we are screwing up everything we touch (and we, as a global culture, can't keep our grubby little hands off anything). The solution Kötke provides in building a new human culture is based on, guess what!, ecovillages. And the use of permaculture. I was ready for this book. It fit exactly into the path I was already planning to go down. Sometimes people recommend books for me to read because they fit very well into the path they are going down (not me). So while I thought this book was great and think that everyone should be aware of what it has to say about the future of the human species, I will not recommend it to everyone to read. You will not appreciate it until you are good and ready to appreciate it. You will not change until you are ready to change. (And I know the same can be said of me from your perspective, re: things like God, growing up, getting a job).
But the problem is deeper than even the impending collapse of the environment. It is much more personal. Civilization has made us all sick through the core - soul sick. Even if the economy or the environment never fell apart, it would still be imperative to start to heal. The crises ahead are a great opportunity for such healing to take place, but they are not a prerequisite. We learn as children, as babies, from the very beginning, that we are isolated in this culture, alienated, alone. Our needs are not met at all, and so we learn that to survive we must fend for ourselves independently and not trust anyone else. Instead of loving each other, we distrust (a.k.a. fear, lack faith), and that distrust, that inability to understand each other in our uniqueness, leads to hate. We hate those different from us, but in a myriad of ways, we also end up hating ourselves. We become isolated from ourselves. We split within ourselves and become unendingly conflicted. As my self-taught psychologist friend, Devin, has shown me, we need to heal the mind/body split. (I can take no credit for this last paragraph. It's all Devin.) This is "the problem" that I want to "play" on (as opposed to work on) my whole life. I invite you to play on it with me, when you're ready.
I watched a documentary last night that I picked up from the library called The end of suburbia. It introduces the coming (or present, if you've been to the pump lately) crisis of peak oil. The rate of production of oil for the world will peak within the next decade, if it hasn't already. This means that the age of cheap energy is over. The lifestyle we developed during that age of cheap energy will no longer be able to be fueled or otherwise sustained. There is no scalable, cheap, fast solution. But we will continue attempting to expand our economy as we always have, an economy completely based on oil and its byproducts. And our economy (our global economy) will crash. The movie says this will end suburbia. I say this will end urbia as well (a.k.a. cities::civis::civilization). I'm looking forward to the possibilities such an involuntary powerdown will open up.
expand to read full post
I watched another documentary earlier tonight, outside, projected on a screen on the side of a building, at New Roots urban farm, called The future of food. The issue here is genetically modified foods, and how they're fucking with the lives of family farmers (because of the patenting of life, and its uncontrollable reproduction and spread to land where the farmer hasn't paid the patent fee. Monsanto is evil.) and with the ecosystems they are introduced to. The scariest part to me, besides what GMOs could be doing to me allergenically, was the idea that terminator seeds (seeds genetically modified to commit suicide - to produce infertile seeds in the next generation, tieing the farmers to the company that makes the seed forever) could cross-breed with wild plants and spread the suicide gene throughout an ecosystem. I cheered when they talked about superweeds overcoming the Roundup herbicide (that the industrial farmers then kill with something similar to agent orange that is known to cause cancer (*cheering dies down*). Everyone outside of North America is scared shitless of GMOs (the governments and the peoples). They are watching Americans to see when they start dropping dead. The documentary goes on to highlight the organic "counterrevolution." The film barely touched on the environmental impact of monocultural farming methods. That's left for another movie, I guess.
Or a book! I recently read Garden Planet, by William H. Kötke. This book is very readable (not quite as intense and detailed as Final Empire). It covers how civilized humans are killing life on earth and how to create a new human culture that will allow humans to gain "biological legitimacy" in basically being worthy of continuing to exist as a species on this planet. I'll just list all of the ways in which we are raping the earth: global warming, the dying oceans, the vanishing soils, desertification, deforestation, water exhaustion/polluting, species extinction, and the human population disaster. More devastating (from my perspective at least) than the economic collapse is the environmental collapse. Humans can live quite well (thrive, actually) without functioning monetary economies, but they can't very well thrive if the earth is too sick to continue to provide food for them. We are omnivores, so there would have to be nothing edible left alive in order for us to starve to death, but such is a possibility with how badly we are screwing up everything we touch (and we, as a global culture, can't keep our grubby little hands off anything). The solution Kötke provides in building a new human culture is based on, guess what!, ecovillages. And the use of permaculture. I was ready for this book. It fit exactly into the path I was already planning to go down. Sometimes people recommend books for me to read because they fit very well into the path they are going down (not me). So while I thought this book was great and think that everyone should be aware of what it has to say about the future of the human species, I will not recommend it to everyone to read. You will not appreciate it until you are good and ready to appreciate it. You will not change until you are ready to change. (And I know the same can be said of me from your perspective, re: things like God, growing up, getting a job).
But the problem is deeper than even the impending collapse of the environment. It is much more personal. Civilization has made us all sick through the core - soul sick. Even if the economy or the environment never fell apart, it would still be imperative to start to heal. The crises ahead are a great opportunity for such healing to take place, but they are not a prerequisite. We learn as children, as babies, from the very beginning, that we are isolated in this culture, alienated, alone. Our needs are not met at all, and so we learn that to survive we must fend for ourselves independently and not trust anyone else. Instead of loving each other, we distrust (a.k.a. fear, lack faith), and that distrust, that inability to understand each other in our uniqueness, leads to hate. We hate those different from us, but in a myriad of ways, we also end up hating ourselves. We become isolated from ourselves. We split within ourselves and become unendingly conflicted. As my self-taught psychologist friend, Devin, has shown me, we need to heal the mind/body split. (I can take no credit for this last paragraph. It's all Devin.) This is "the problem" that I want to "play" on (as opposed to work on) my whole life. I invite you to play on it with me, when you're ready.
Thursday, April 27
Dance, Monkeys, Dance
Sara, my girlfriend, (and I only apply that label here to distinguish from this Sara who comments here), shared a video with me this morning. It's pretty funny. You are potentially going to find it offensive if you happen to be a theist or otherwise are unable to acknowledge fully that you are a primate. With that introduction, I invite you to go watch Dance, Monkeys, Dance. It was produced by a techno-geek, Ernie Cline, but it fits in well with what I've been thinking lately. Everything he is talking about is the product of civilization, not human nature. And that makes me very, very happy.
Edit (5/6/06): It seems that the page the movie was on has been removed, but you can still listen to the script of the movie read by him in his Spoken Word section.
Edit (5/6/06): It seems that the page the movie was on has been removed, but you can still listen to the script of the movie read by him in his Spoken Word section.
Wednesday, April 26
Meet your meat
I recently came across a shortened version of the video that eventually led to my vegetarianness via Trudy Boots. You can either go to her myspace profile or see the google(TM) video: Meet your meat. I will warn you that it is disturbing to watch, but I think it is vital as a human being (and by that, I mean as an animal, as a part of an ecosystem) to be aware of where the food that you eat comes from. Even though I hope to eat non-factory farmed meat in the future, I am also ashamed that I am not hardcore enough to be vegan for the moment. I'm going to want to cut out dairy eventually anyway. I'll finish out the semester, being sustained on pizza and quesadillas, and then I'll see what I can do afterwards. I'm certainly looking forward to three glorious weeks of organic food at Dancing Rabbit. I really do need to get gardening right now. The waiting - on everything - needs to stop.
Tuesday, April 25
Ani DiFranco
I went to see Ani in concert last night. I went with my friend Annie and her best friend Nikki. It was in Columbia, Missouri, where I believe there is a thriving anarchist community if I'm not mistaken. I wore my "I [heart] anarchy" shirt to the concert, complete with recent splatter marks on front and back from riding my bike in the rain. Ani was amazing. She is an awesome woman. She stopped touring for a while (for the first time in 15 years, except when recording) because of problems with tendonitis in her very talented guitar-string plucking hands. About halfway through her performance, her hand (visibly) started bothering her, but she continued with the show, playing the guitar as powerfully as ever (she must have broken at least 6 strings through the course of the night. at least.). So if you'll indulge me, I'm going to post some of my most favorite lyrics from her.
expand to read full post
I have to begin with my favorite song, Animal:
Okay, so it would be a bit much to continue posting full songs, but I'll at least list some of my other favorites (with links to their full lyrics):
Evolve
Your next bold move
What if no one's watching
Shameless
To the teeth
Welcome to:
Self Evident
I'm going to give the full lyrics here for one last song that resonates with me very much at this point in my life. As you'll see, a few of the lines would apply more to me if I happened to be a woman, but you get the idea... I give you Swandive:
If people want to try to show their love for me by expressing worry- you do what you gotta do. I'm not going to try to convince you to let go of me, of control, of your fear (or worry- it's all the same). You'd have to do that on your own. Know that I appreciate that I am important enough to you that you feel the need to protect me too, but also know that I do not appreciate the attempts at protection themselves. They are misplaced and not helpful. I am not shunning you, only the lifestyle you lead. I'm sure you take offense at that. Now you know how I feel.
This life is an adventure, full of risk and danger and the unexpected. Simply surviving isn't enough anymore. I'm ready to take my swandive.
expand to read full post
I have to begin with my favorite song, Animal:
more and more there is this animal-----------
looking out through my eyes
at all the traffic on the road to nowhere
at all the shiny stuff around to buy
at all the wires in the air
at all the people shopping
for the same blank stare
at america the drastic
that isolated geographic
that's become infested with millionaires
[refrain:]when you grow up surrounded
by willful ignorance
you have to believe
mercy has its own country
and that it's round and borderless
and then you have to grow wings
and rise above it all
like there
where that hawk is circling
above that strip mall
more and more there is this animal
looking out through my eyes
seeing that animals only take from this world
what they need to survive
but she is prowling through all the religions of men
seeing that time and time and time again
their gods have made them
special and above
nature's law
and the respect thereof
[refrain]
ask any eco-system
harm here is harm there
and there and there
and aggression begets aggression
it's a very simple lesson
that long preceded any king of heaven
and there's this brutal imperial power
that my passport says i represent
but it will never represent where my heart lives
only vaguely where it went
[refrain]
Okay, so it would be a bit much to continue posting full songs, but I'll at least list some of my other favorites (with links to their full lyrics):
Evolve
Your next bold move
What if no one's watching
Shameless
To the teeth
Welcome to:
Self Evident
I'm going to give the full lyrics here for one last song that resonates with me very much at this point in my life. As you'll see, a few of the lines would apply more to me if I happened to be a woman, but you get the idea... I give you Swandive:
If you don't already see it in the lyrics, the reason this song resonates with me so much right now is because of my dropping out of school. It is very much a swan dive into the unknown, and it's a jump that's opened me up to receiving a lot of flak from other people. What this song underscores is the absolute necessity for accepting risk and danger as a part of life. Without risk, there is no living going on, there is no life worth living. The only secure (i.e. certain) thing in life is death. To seek out security is to seek out death. To live in a cocoon of protection (a big house in the suburbs, a college diploma, a high school diploma, a bank account, insurance policies, marriage contracts), shielding you from life's unending uncertainties (what will I eat next, where will I live, who will love me), is to effectively eliminate the substance of a fulfilling life. As a culture, we replace the free, dynamic, wild ride that is a fulfilling/successful/thriving life with a hardened shell that tries to control everything and pin every uncertainty down. That hollow shell is fired in a kiln of fear of that unknown. Fear inspires control. The more you (attempt to) control your circumstances, the more you fear losing that control. The antidote to such a vicious cycle is simply to let go of that fear and to let go of that control. It's a little scary, but that's only because it's new. I'm still a baby in this world (the real one). Really, its more exciting than scary.cradling the softest, warmest part of you in my hand-----------
feels like a little baby bird fallen from the nest
i think that your body is something i understand
i think that i'm happy, i think that i'm blessed
i've got a lack of inhibition
i've got a loss of perspective
i've had a little bit to drink
and it's making me think
that i can jump ship and swim
that the ocean will hold me
that there's got to be more
than this boat i'm in
'cuz they can call me crazy if i fail
all the chance that i need
is one-in-a-million
and they can call me brilliant
if i succeed
gravity is nothing to me, moving at the speed of sound
i'm just going to get my feet wet
until i drown
and i teeter between tired
and really, really tired
im wiped and im wired but i guess its just as well
because i built my own empire
out of car tires and chicken wire
and i'm queen of my own compost heap
and i'm getting used to the smell
and i've got a lack of information
but i got a little revelation
and i'm climbing up on the railing
trying not to look down
i'm going to do my best swan dive
into shark-infested waters
i'm gonna pull out my tampon
and start splashing around
'cuz i don't care if they eat me alive
i've got better things to do than survive
i've got a memory of your warm skin in my hand
and i've got a vision of blue sky and dry land
i'm cradling the hardest, heaviest part of me in my hand
the ship is pitching and heaving, my limbs are bobbing and weaving
and i think this is something i understand
i just need a couple vaccinations for my far-away vacation
i'm going to go ahead and go boldly because a little bird told me
that jumping is easy, that falling is fun
up until you hit the sidewalk, shivering and stunned
and they can call me crazy if i fail
all the chance that i need
is one-in-a-million
and they can call me brilliant
if i succeed
gravity is nothing to me
moving at the speed of sound
i'm just gonna get my feet wet
until i drown...
If people want to try to show their love for me by expressing worry- you do what you gotta do. I'm not going to try to convince you to let go of me, of control, of your fear (or worry- it's all the same). You'd have to do that on your own. Know that I appreciate that I am important enough to you that you feel the need to protect me too, but also know that I do not appreciate the attempts at protection themselves. They are misplaced and not helpful. I am not shunning you, only the lifestyle you lead. I'm sure you take offense at that. Now you know how I feel.
This life is an adventure, full of risk and danger and the unexpected. Simply surviving isn't enough anymore. I'm ready to take my swandive.
Wednesday, April 19
Language
Several days ago, a friend from high school, one that went with me to Honduras, Sean, inquired about one of the quotes I have listed as a favorite in my facebook profile. First, the quote, then his question:
expand to read the full post
Language certainly is a powerful force. It shapes the way that we perceive reality. Acutally, when dealing with a species which uses culture so extensively to adapt the environment in which it lives, language shapes reality itself. I know that for myself, I exist for most of the time in a world completely constructed with language - writing, talking, thinking... mostly thinking. It is the most basic layer of abstraction that keeps me from directly experiencing "reality" or "the world." Using language to communicate leaves a whole lot of room for ambiguity. I've talked about my well-placed lack of appreciation for labels before. The labels I associate "me" with have changed a lot since then, but the same sentiment remains: it would be better if I did not put myself in mental boxes, with labels that mask all of the complexity behind them and allow people the opportunity to pass me off without thinking because they misconceive or confuse what one label or another is actually supposed to mean. People will prejudge enough on their own (for all labels are inherently tools for prejudging); I don't need to help them.
Labels I use on occasion but would like to be rid of:
Hippie - Ways in which I fit the label of hippie: I have long hair, I don't shave (and would prefer women to do likewise), I bathe twice a week on average and don't use any kind of soap when I do so, I want to join an eco-village, making love and not war sounds kind of fun, I am in love with the biological world, my email address is "listentotrees", I am a vegetarian (for now), I like to walk barefoot, I also like to be naked (if that counts), I like noncompetitive games like hacky sack, and I like drumcircles and dancing.
Ways in which I do not fit the label of hippie: I do not dress like a hippie (most of the time) unless you count the ways in which I undress like a hippie (see barefoot, et al. above), I do not smoke pot, I am not a pacifist (while making love and not war does sound kind of fun, I'd still be okay with a little class war action (but I guess I should remove myself from the middle class before that happens...)).
But my point is, why does that first list have to be only associated with hippies? And how would people appreciate the qualifications of the second list when they can feel they know me after hearing the label of "hippie"?
Anarchist - Okay, so the previous label I have not embraced for a while (probably close to a year), but this one I most certainly have been embracing. But it is so misunderstood. The popular perception of anarchy is equivalent or interchangable with chaos (which I am not saying is bad, either), anomie, disorder, and general violent mayhem. But what I mean by the word, to borrow Mother Anarchy's definition, is "without coercive authority or hierarchical organization; a society organized via voluntary, cooperative participation of its individuals." Such a social organization is inherently uncivilized, and so to protect the myth that civilization is the highest fruition of human culture, all of those negative images of terrorism and cut-throatness are propagated. It would be hard to part with this label right now though. I kind of enjoy being summed up by it. It gives me a sense of dangerousness and unpredictability that I've never felt I had before, and in a way, it can almost inspire action, just to try to fulfill what the label implies.
every other -ist (animist, pantheist, nudist, bicyclist, primitivist, (wannabe) permaculturalist) Any word that ends in -ist is describing the believer of an ideology, of an abstraction. I want the language I use to be active, not abstractive. Instead of saying that I am a nudist, why not just go nude? Instead of learning more about primitivist theory, I want to start rewilding, learning skills, eating plants I pick from the ground, squatting to take a shit (over the toilet of course). Instead of philosophizing about the divinity of the universe, I want to simply be present to its glory as much as possible. I don't need these labels to do any of that. People will understand when they see me do it.
Tom Campbell - Ah, the biggest label of all. Who is "Tom Campbell"? What is "Tom Campbell"? Why is "Tom Campbell" called "Tom Campbell" and not some other random combination of vowels and consonants? Really, I don't think I'm too attached to this name. I don't have a problem when people call me Tommy or Thomas or even the occasional Tomothy. And even if someone looked at me and called directly to me with some other random name, like Dave or Shannon, I'd probably still respond. Campbell shows my ties with one half of my family, but I don't know that a name is necessary to do that. It would show a more real connection when people see that I look like a reconfiguration of physical traits from my family or when they see the same mannerisms that my parents have express themselves through me or just when they see us hugging each other and eating together and living together.
Labels are efficient. They are vital for communication in a fast paced, efficient, product-driven world such as our own. But you miss so much when you feel the need to go so fast. Not using labels requires you to slow down and explain out what you want to communicate fully, but in doing so you have the benefit of understanding and appreciating the complexity and uniqueness of experience so much more. What's the hurry?
But beyond the use of efficient labels, all of language itself is deceptive and flawed. Of course, on one hand, that is why beautiful poetry and storytelling is able to exist, because of its ambiguity, but on the other hand, assumptions made through language can be very dangerous. Consider the verb "to be." Whenever you say that one thing "is" another thing, that is making a huge assumption, but providing no proof that such a relationship between the two things on either side of the "is" actually exists. A style of writing exists in which one does not use the word "to be." That style of writing goes by the name of E-prime. (I tried writing the last two sentences (and this one!) deliberately without using "to be," so if they sound funky and convoluted, that provides the reason.) Overall, though, language should be used to connect in whatever way necessary or desired with other people. It would be impossible to function in this abstracted world without language, but it seems that it would be a worthy exercise to focus on the goal of language (what it means) and on communicating that effectively instead of efficiently. Quality over quantity. Somehow, even with using those efficient labels, I manage to ramble on needlessly. I've been realizing that I enjoy reading Ran so much because he writes so concisely. I would like to develop that skill. And I can start right now by finally ending this post.
"it's hard to stay mad when there's so much beauty in the world. sometimes i feel like . . . it's too much. my heart fills up like a balloon that's about to burst, and then i remember to relax and stop trying to hold on to it and it flows through me like rain and i can feel nothing but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid, little life. you have no idea what i'm talking about, i'm sure, but don't worry. you will someday." -lester, american beautyAnd here was my response:
You say that is one of your favorite quotes. I am assuming you like it so much because it is describing a part of what you believe to be true. But reading that i am curious. to whom or what does that gratitude go to? Back to nature itself? Back to yourself? To nobody? Back to the National Parks Service? Back to others? Back to God? To whom do you give that gratitude to and why?
expand to read the full post
one of the (many) things I hate about the english language is that verbs are suppposed to have subjects and objects, and when they are absent, they are assumed. does gratitude need to have a specific recipient? gratitude emerges from me on account of my very existence. my very existence is dependent on everything else around me that built me and formed me and continues to form me - my parents, my grandparents, the biological world ("nature"), the abiotic world, for that matter, my friends and family, and strangers, the cosmos, everything. it is all beautiful because it exists. and i exist out of all of that. and so i am grateful. to everything. i am meaning the same thing as when you would say that you feel gratitude towards God. as it always seems to, it comes down to semantics.I guess I've just been thinking a lot about semantics lately. More than usual, I guess. It started with a discussion over the best term to use when labeling the end of the world as we know it that will come about during our lifetimes. The discussion began with Eula at citymouse/countrymouse protesting the use of "crash" and "collapse" because those words bring up negative images instead of the freedom and opportunity that the breakdown of civilization actually will be. So Ran took on the challenge and is now referring to the collapse of civilization as an "involuntary powerdown," which Eula liked. As Ran also noted, what I hope to do is voluntarily powerdown. For those that don't wish to do so, the powerdown is going to be a very rocky ride. It will be rocky for everyone regardless of whether you are willingly walking away or not, but the degree of rockiness will certainly be moderated by the level of "community sufficiency" you have attained, to use an alternative (and more accurate) term for self sufficiency as suggested by In the Wake.
Language certainly is a powerful force. It shapes the way that we perceive reality. Acutally, when dealing with a species which uses culture so extensively to adapt the environment in which it lives, language shapes reality itself. I know that for myself, I exist for most of the time in a world completely constructed with language - writing, talking, thinking... mostly thinking. It is the most basic layer of abstraction that keeps me from directly experiencing "reality" or "the world." Using language to communicate leaves a whole lot of room for ambiguity. I've talked about my well-placed lack of appreciation for labels before. The labels I associate "me" with have changed a lot since then, but the same sentiment remains: it would be better if I did not put myself in mental boxes, with labels that mask all of the complexity behind them and allow people the opportunity to pass me off without thinking because they misconceive or confuse what one label or another is actually supposed to mean. People will prejudge enough on their own (for all labels are inherently tools for prejudging); I don't need to help them.
Labels I use on occasion but would like to be rid of:
Hippie - Ways in which I fit the label of hippie: I have long hair, I don't shave (and would prefer women to do likewise), I bathe twice a week on average and don't use any kind of soap when I do so, I want to join an eco-village, making love and not war sounds kind of fun, I am in love with the biological world, my email address is "listentotrees", I am a vegetarian (for now), I like to walk barefoot, I also like to be naked (if that counts), I like noncompetitive games like hacky sack, and I like drumcircles and dancing.
Ways in which I do not fit the label of hippie: I do not dress like a hippie (most of the time) unless you count the ways in which I undress like a hippie (see barefoot, et al. above), I do not smoke pot, I am not a pacifist (while making love and not war does sound kind of fun, I'd still be okay with a little class war action (but I guess I should remove myself from the middle class before that happens...)).
But my point is, why does that first list have to be only associated with hippies? And how would people appreciate the qualifications of the second list when they can feel they know me after hearing the label of "hippie"?
Anarchist - Okay, so the previous label I have not embraced for a while (probably close to a year), but this one I most certainly have been embracing. But it is so misunderstood. The popular perception of anarchy is equivalent or interchangable with chaos (which I am not saying is bad, either), anomie, disorder, and general violent mayhem. But what I mean by the word, to borrow Mother Anarchy's definition, is "without coercive authority or hierarchical organization; a society organized via voluntary, cooperative participation of its individuals." Such a social organization is inherently uncivilized, and so to protect the myth that civilization is the highest fruition of human culture, all of those negative images of terrorism and cut-throatness are propagated. It would be hard to part with this label right now though. I kind of enjoy being summed up by it. It gives me a sense of dangerousness and unpredictability that I've never felt I had before, and in a way, it can almost inspire action, just to try to fulfill what the label implies.
every other -ist (animist, pantheist, nudist, bicyclist, primitivist, (wannabe) permaculturalist) Any word that ends in -ist is describing the believer of an ideology, of an abstraction. I want the language I use to be active, not abstractive. Instead of saying that I am a nudist, why not just go nude? Instead of learning more about primitivist theory, I want to start rewilding, learning skills, eating plants I pick from the ground, squatting to take a shit (over the toilet of course). Instead of philosophizing about the divinity of the universe, I want to simply be present to its glory as much as possible. I don't need these labels to do any of that. People will understand when they see me do it.
Tom Campbell - Ah, the biggest label of all. Who is "Tom Campbell"? What is "Tom Campbell"? Why is "Tom Campbell" called "Tom Campbell" and not some other random combination of vowels and consonants? Really, I don't think I'm too attached to this name. I don't have a problem when people call me Tommy or Thomas or even the occasional Tomothy. And even if someone looked at me and called directly to me with some other random name, like Dave or Shannon, I'd probably still respond. Campbell shows my ties with one half of my family, but I don't know that a name is necessary to do that. It would show a more real connection when people see that I look like a reconfiguration of physical traits from my family or when they see the same mannerisms that my parents have express themselves through me or just when they see us hugging each other and eating together and living together.
Labels are efficient. They are vital for communication in a fast paced, efficient, product-driven world such as our own. But you miss so much when you feel the need to go so fast. Not using labels requires you to slow down and explain out what you want to communicate fully, but in doing so you have the benefit of understanding and appreciating the complexity and uniqueness of experience so much more. What's the hurry?
But beyond the use of efficient labels, all of language itself is deceptive and flawed. Of course, on one hand, that is why beautiful poetry and storytelling is able to exist, because of its ambiguity, but on the other hand, assumptions made through language can be very dangerous. Consider the verb "to be." Whenever you say that one thing "is" another thing, that is making a huge assumption, but providing no proof that such a relationship between the two things on either side of the "is" actually exists. A style of writing exists in which one does not use the word "to be." That style of writing goes by the name of E-prime. (I tried writing the last two sentences (and this one!) deliberately without using "to be," so if they sound funky and convoluted, that provides the reason.) Overall, though, language should be used to connect in whatever way necessary or desired with other people. It would be impossible to function in this abstracted world without language, but it seems that it would be a worthy exercise to focus on the goal of language (what it means) and on communicating that effectively instead of efficiently. Quality over quantity. Somehow, even with using those efficient labels, I manage to ramble on needlessly. I've been realizing that I enjoy reading Ran so much because he writes so concisely. I would like to develop that skill. And I can start right now by finally ending this post.
Tuesday, April 18
Searching for the functional family
I wrote a research paper for my women's studies class on the topic of nuclear families. I'll present the paper in class thursday. I wrote it the morning that it was due, so I didn't feel that I did a very good job of it, but in reading over it again in preparation for presenting, it seems okay to me. So here it is:
In this paper, I will describe and contrast the different ways in which to assemble a family, commenting on their relative evolutionary stability, in broad terms, and on their practical, day-to-day costs and benefits to individuals living in these various situations, in narrower terms. The familial situations I intend to examine and compare are the various forms of the present day nuclear family and the alternative, and original basic unit of social and cultural organization as provided to us by anthropologists, the tribe of both present (if scarce) and “prehistoric” times.
expand to read the full postFirst, a definition is in order as to what exactly I am referring to by the phrase, “nuclear family.” I am using Meredith F. Small’s definition, from her book, Kids: How Biology and Culture shape the way we raise our children, “governed by an adult [or two adults] and not a household compound with extended kin networks.”[1]The definition of this modern invention reflects the corresponding alternative, the tribe, in which a family is, in fact, governed by a “household compound with extended kin networks.” The problems inherent in the nuclear family paradigm are those of overexertion on the part of the parents and the correlating underparenting, if I may coin a term to describe the deficit of care that children need but normally do not receive to the full extent required for healthy socialization. The overexertion of the parent(s) is present in any of the possible modern combinations of family members (mom and dad, single mom, single dad, with child(ren). It is simply a matter of the ratio of adults to children necessary, which Small suggests is three to one.[2] Most acutely, the problems of overexertion play out in our society in the form of the double burden on the mother, having to perform a perpetual balancing act between her family and her job/career, trying to provide both emotional/social support and financial support for her child(ren), especially in the case of the single mother. The issue is complicated further when one considers not only the financial motivations for mothers working but also the personal desires of mothers for achievement in the workplace because, here, we are dealing with what makes the mother happy and gives her psychological stability, something that is just as important for the mother as for the child(ren).[3]
The economy has evolved such that more and more people are now working nonstandard shifts, and to some, this appears to be beneficial because it allows for, theoretically, the kind of balancing act in which a parent is with the child(ren) at all times while the other is at work, or in the case of a single parent, that they are at least home during the evening when their children are home and awake. While this setup may allow such a balancing act to even be possible, it does result in much stress for the parent(s), either by the consequential separation of husband and wife in the case of a couple or by the general sleep deprivation that prevails in the case of all parties involved.[4] Incidentally, single mothers end up building up and utilizing such kinship networks that used to be commonplace in the helping of taking care of the child(ren), just so they can survive. While this is the most extreme case of parental overexertion, any form of the modern nuclear family has heavy stresses on it. While in some cases it works out that a parent or parents can rely on other family members, like grandparents or aunts and uncles, to provide the necessary childcare while the parent(s) work, such a setup is often not possible in our society because the pressures on the family have become so high that more often than not, extended family members are no longer a part of everyday life, but rather, relationships are strained and grown children are isolated from their parents or siblings for the majority of the time, excluding such extra-nuclear family as a possibility.[5]
The high pressure on families today lead parents to depend on maladaptive parenting techniques involving coercion and negative discipline that end up doing much harm psychologically to the child(ren), which also points to an explanation as to why the world is in such a mess today. It all starts at home. These parenting strategies basically involve either withholding love and affection from a child or flooding a child with too much affection and praise in order to produce the desired behavioral result in the child, regardless of how the child actually feels about the situation.[6]
Parents resort to these techniques because they are not considering what the child actually needs but only what the parent wants in terms of how the child should behave. Children who are controlled in this way end up tying their own self-worth to the approval of others, eventually internalizing the demands parents originally put on their children so that they must strive to be something that they are not in order to seek some sort of happiness or fulfillment – a fulfillment completely dependent on receiving the requisite approval from any authority figures, rendering the child dependent, self-deprecating, and neurotic.[7] Not coincidentally, in my opinion, these kind of children grow up to become very effective cogs in the capitalist system because they lack the creativity to imagine a way of life different from the one forced upon them, and they still crave and are completely dependent upon the approval of authority figures (such as their bosses) in determining their own self-worth. The nuclear family is promoted as the ideal in this country, and has been since after World War II.[8] This is because it is a very effective unit of organization in maximizing profits and production in the economy, ignoring the adverse effects the nuclear family inherently has of being overworked, stressed, and on the verge of despair – the natural byproducts of such isolation from an extended community of support.
In tribal societies, there is a group of adults, often spanning generations and including either a line of brothers or sisters, and older children that all share the burden of caring for the very dependent young of our species. This developed evolutionarily, first, to allow humans to reproduce more frequently than other species of primates, giving them a superior adaptive edge. But this system of care for children also served as a prolonged time of learning the culture of the family tribe.[9] This is the kind of familial relations that we as humans are adapted to. It is the unit of social organization that evolved with us over millions of years. There is much wisdom to be found in learning about what we, as humans are naturally adapted to. Ten thousand years is not enough time for us to adapt via evolution to the monumental changes to how our society is organized – the switch from being hunting and gathering nomads to sedentary agriculturalists. And fifty years is most certainly not enough time to adapt to the extremely organized, regimented, and isolated unit of familial organization – from the tribe (or extended kin group) to the nuclear family. It is essential for the health of humanity, in my opinion, to somehow regain its connection to live in the way it is adapted to live.
Today, there are attempts being made among civilized nuclear families to adopt more tribal ways of parenting children – attachment parenting, voluntary weaning/tandem breastfeeding, elimination communication (a.k.a. natural infant hygiene), co-sleeping. Of course, these are all valiant efforts but are all severely limited in applicability if not attempted in the context of a wider supportive network than the normal nuclear family, in which such intensive parenting practices were originally possible, leading to the same (or more) overexertion of the parent(s) but perhaps psychologically healthier children. The maladaptive parenting techniques commonly in use now are in use simply because parents have to be more concerned with other things than their child(ren)’s welfare, such as work, chores, and hobbies, not leaving enough time or energy for the kind of parenting that children actually need. Children need parents to be responsive to their needs all the time.[10] This need developed under conditions where it could be met – in a tribe in which extended kin also participate in responding to the needs of all of the children.[11] Without this extended supportive network, taking such an intensive and active role in the care of your child(ren) would simply be beyond one’s capability in terms of time and energy as a parent, and that is even considering the case of stay at home mothers. It seems to me that attempting to parent in this way will only cause more strain on an isolated parent, but it is certainly courageous of them to try. Such parents are certainly on the right track; we need to move back towards actually caring for our children instead of controlling them with either discipline or praise, and the only way that this could possibly be truly effective is to also move towards our original societal structure of tribes as well, giving parents, especially mothers, the much needed support in giving their children what they desperately need – love. [1] Meredith F. Small, How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Raise Our Kids (New York: Doubleday), 213.[2] Small, 217
[3] Michele Kremen Bolton, The Third Shift (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 288.
[4] Cynthia Fuchs Epstein and Arne L. Kalleberg, Fighting for Time: Shifting Boundaries of Work and Social Life (New York: Russell Sage Foundation), 58.
[5] Stanly I. Greenspan, The Four Thirds Solution (Perseus Publishing), 206.
[6] Alfie Kohn, Unconditional Parenting (New York: Atria), 5.
[7] Kohn, 23.
[8] Andrew Cherlin, “Changing Family and Household: Contemporary Lessons from Historical Research” Annual Review, 51.
[9] Small, 52.
[10] Attachment Parenting International, http://www.attachmentparenting.org/info.shtml.
[11] Small, 215.
Play
Several days ago, Devin was talking to me about his unfulfilled need for play, and more pointedly, partners in play. I have witnessed my brother growing up being in a constant and never quite fulfilled pursuit of friends with whom he could play. I don't think I ever felt that need quite as strongly given my introvertedness, but the need to play itself I certainly felt just as strongly. I'm pretty sure that's universal.
expand to read the full post
When I try to remember my childhood, I am saddened by the fact that I do not remember playing all that much. I remember competitive playing, such as basketball teams and at recess. (I've been remembering how much I loved four-square and dodgeball (that's dodgeball with one ball and people either "in" or "out" of the circle - with the ones doing thd dodging "in") - so much that I'd love the chance to play them again.) It's not that I don't remember free time during my childhood. It's more that I'm noticing an absence of creative play. I remember consuming a lot of entertainment, but I don't remember "producing" my own entertainment very much. It seems that such a thing would have just taken too much energy. But where did that energy go, if not into creative play? I think I started the cycle very young, the same cycle I follow now, and would follow forever if I weren't to make drastic changes in the way I live my life on a daily basis. This cycle, I'm pretty sure, began with school by introducing the drudgery of work, reciprocated by the seeking of numbing and mindless entertainment in order to recover and escape from life until the next bout of drudgery had to be endured. I somehow managed to waste whole summers by some macro form of this otherwise daily cycle of little death following little death.
I found a neat essay about the importance of doing what you love. We learn in school that work must be a drudgery, that it cannot possibly be fun. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This was the highlight of the article for me:
expand to read the full post
When I try to remember my childhood, I am saddened by the fact that I do not remember playing all that much. I remember competitive playing, such as basketball teams and at recess. (I've been remembering how much I loved four-square and dodgeball (that's dodgeball with one ball and people either "in" or "out" of the circle - with the ones doing thd dodging "in") - so much that I'd love the chance to play them again.) It's not that I don't remember free time during my childhood. It's more that I'm noticing an absence of creative play. I remember consuming a lot of entertainment, but I don't remember "producing" my own entertainment very much. It seems that such a thing would have just taken too much energy. But where did that energy go, if not into creative play? I think I started the cycle very young, the same cycle I follow now, and would follow forever if I weren't to make drastic changes in the way I live my life on a daily basis. This cycle, I'm pretty sure, began with school by introducing the drudgery of work, reciprocated by the seeking of numbing and mindless entertainment in order to recover and escape from life until the next bout of drudgery had to be endured. I somehow managed to waste whole summers by some macro form of this otherwise daily cycle of little death following little death.
I found a neat essay about the importance of doing what you love. We learn in school that work must be a drudgery, that it cannot possibly be fun. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This was the highlight of the article for me:
"More often people who do great things have careers with the trajectory of a ping-pong ball. They go to school to study A, drop out and get a job doing B, and then become famous for C after taking it up on the side.I would only object to the negative connotation being applied, as always in this culture, to laziness (via the protestant work ethic). As Bertrand Russell said so wisely, "the time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." Nevertheless, the article gives some good tips in succeeding in one's search for the work one loves. I'd like to get into a bit of a debate over semantics, since the word "work" is so far gone in this culture with its implicit and pervasive association with drudgery, that the word "play" should always be used when speaking of things one loves to do. Although, I guess there is just as much in the way of implications to fight against when going the other way, as play is viewed conversely as void of productive value or practical application in addressing the fulfillment of life's daily needs (food, water, shelter). Regardless, I intend to play throughout the whole of my life, and make a living doing it.
Sometimes jumping from one sort of work to another is a sign of energy, and sometimes it's a sign of laziness. Are you dropping out, or boldly carving a new path? You often can't tell yourself. Plenty of people who will later do great things seem to be disappointments early on, when they're trying to find their niche."
Friday, April 14
What are you going to do next year?
I have a lot of questions in my mind, as usual. Many, I'm sure, I am not even able to put into words still. Some, of course, I can - mostly because they have already been asked to me by other people. And I don't have the answers when they ask these questions. "What are you going to do next year?" "How are you going to support yourself?" "What do you have to offer to the community if you were to join this eco-thingy you speak of?" "What is your long-term plan?"
And in each case, my answer can be summarized as "I don't know." Or perhaps, "I don't know, yet." Obviously, a lot is weighing right now on how the visit to Dancing Rabbit goes (just a month and a half away!). There's a lot I need to try to figure out during the three weeks that I'll be there.
expand to read the full post
If I do join the village, that answers the first question without a problem. It has been very easy and nice to actually have something, anything, to say when that question comes up. But, honestly, I don't know what the future holds for me. Just not school. I don't think people understand just how desperately I want to get away from the school setting. I am thoroughly institutionalized (I could not succeed in school otherwise). The regimented pattern of "learning" that takes place has sapped me of any and all creativity and original thought. Such is the result of being singlemindedly focused on fulfilling the requirements other people have set for me (again, in order to earn praise). I have no idea what I want to do with the time after I am finished with school, and it is precisely because of all of the schooling I have been through already. The only thing I know to do, in whatever way this may manifest itself, is to unschool myself. Deinstitutionalize. Try to reenergize whatever the source is of my creativity. Not until I do that will I be able to even start to figure out the answers to the rest of those questions. I have no idea how I would support myself at Dancing Rabbit, or elsewhere. If I don't wind up at DR, I could probably find cheap rent with a group of people, get a temporary minimum wage job and dumpster for food (while I continue to unschool and begin to learn what I might actually have to offer this world). And if I do end up at DR, there's no way to even know what kind of work would be available to me until I get there.
I have always wondered what I could possibly be good for in the workforce, what skills I could possibly offer. I used to say teacher (because I "liked" being a student), or architect (liked playing with legos and drawing (but not with a ruler)), or priest (ha). But I don't know. Whatever skill I do end up pursuing the development of, I want it to be practical. I could see myself going to a trade school of some sort. Carpentry perhaps. My mom has mentioned some sort of ecologically conscious construction company in the area. Perhaps I could check them out.
Obviously, Dancing Rabbit has the most potential to pose an answer to the question of what my long-term plans are. Coming to live in such a place would be a dream come true right now, taking a big step for myself in the right direction, away from civilization (and the civis - that fundamental building block of civilzation, the city).
I was talking with my Aunt Annie a couple weeks ago, and during our discussion about these things, she made me aware of a couple things. One, that when people disapprove of the direction in which I am taking my life, they are doing so out of love because they are worried about me. Two, that it seems as though my attempt to walk away from civilization is also an attempt to walk away from all of the relationships I have had throughout my life, relationships with people who are thoroughly planted in civilization and are not going to walk away from it any time soon. To the second point, I responded that it is certainly not my intent to cut myself off from relationships. Relationships are everything to me. It's all the stuff that distracts us from relating to one another that I want to be rid of. I do recognize that many of my relationships have been strained by the fact that my ideology has changed a lot as I have been able to start to make my own way from the foundation of the ideology I was given from birth. There is a commonality that used to be there that is now absent, and that is certainly a problem to be worked out (or played out, as I like to think of it) - how to continue relating to people, how to connect with people, when the common ideology is no longer there. Thankfully, ideology does not mean everything, and as much as people don't show it in there actions, there is something deeper than ideology in the nature of the human person over which everyone can connect. Appropriately, there is no name to give to that something, for otherwise, it would become part of some ideology. So that gives me hope.
A third comment my Aunt Annie made was that when I started to talk about permaculture, my eyes lit up. She was very happy to see that I was still passionate (in a positive manner) about something, that I had something that gives me life and joy, even if it is only an idea at this stage. And I am very happy about that too. When I say that I want to live in a manner that is "more than sustainable," I am referring to permaculture because permaculture is a kind of horticultural design that is, one, permanent (hence the name "permanent agriculture"), and two, rebuilds biodiversity and replenishes the life of the soil. That is what I am most passionate about learning and implementing at a place like Dancing Rabbit. I don't know how much permacultural design is already going on there (how much I could learn from them), but if there is not a lot as of yet, I want to go out and do whatever I need to do to learn about it and bring it there (my skill!).
Another option that I have been beginning to entertain is to enroll in an eleven month intensive program in which I would learn complete self-sufficiency (within the context of a group, of course) in the wilderness. From my perspective, this would be the most forward thinking and long term planning option available, as it is a goal of mine, if I go to Dancing Rabbit, to help establish a primitivist subcommunity there (which would certainly cut down on a lot of the living expenses, reducing the need for "supporting myself"!). It's just a thought in the beginning stages at this point. But it is all very exciting!
I still have questions that I have yet to get any closer to answering, and that's okay. That's how I like it, actually. I'd be more concerned if I felt that I had found all the answers. I don't ever expect that to be the case. I'll try to tackle a couple more another day, and we'll go from there.
And in each case, my answer can be summarized as "I don't know." Or perhaps, "I don't know, yet." Obviously, a lot is weighing right now on how the visit to Dancing Rabbit goes (just a month and a half away!). There's a lot I need to try to figure out during the three weeks that I'll be there.
expand to read the full post
If I do join the village, that answers the first question without a problem. It has been very easy and nice to actually have something, anything, to say when that question comes up. But, honestly, I don't know what the future holds for me. Just not school. I don't think people understand just how desperately I want to get away from the school setting. I am thoroughly institutionalized (I could not succeed in school otherwise). The regimented pattern of "learning" that takes place has sapped me of any and all creativity and original thought. Such is the result of being singlemindedly focused on fulfilling the requirements other people have set for me (again, in order to earn praise). I have no idea what I want to do with the time after I am finished with school, and it is precisely because of all of the schooling I have been through already. The only thing I know to do, in whatever way this may manifest itself, is to unschool myself. Deinstitutionalize. Try to reenergize whatever the source is of my creativity. Not until I do that will I be able to even start to figure out the answers to the rest of those questions. I have no idea how I would support myself at Dancing Rabbit, or elsewhere. If I don't wind up at DR, I could probably find cheap rent with a group of people, get a temporary minimum wage job and dumpster for food (while I continue to unschool and begin to learn what I might actually have to offer this world). And if I do end up at DR, there's no way to even know what kind of work would be available to me until I get there.
I have always wondered what I could possibly be good for in the workforce, what skills I could possibly offer. I used to say teacher (because I "liked" being a student), or architect (liked playing with legos and drawing (but not with a ruler)), or priest (ha). But I don't know. Whatever skill I do end up pursuing the development of, I want it to be practical. I could see myself going to a trade school of some sort. Carpentry perhaps. My mom has mentioned some sort of ecologically conscious construction company in the area. Perhaps I could check them out.
Obviously, Dancing Rabbit has the most potential to pose an answer to the question of what my long-term plans are. Coming to live in such a place would be a dream come true right now, taking a big step for myself in the right direction, away from civilization (and the civis - that fundamental building block of civilzation, the city).
I was talking with my Aunt Annie a couple weeks ago, and during our discussion about these things, she made me aware of a couple things. One, that when people disapprove of the direction in which I am taking my life, they are doing so out of love because they are worried about me. Two, that it seems as though my attempt to walk away from civilization is also an attempt to walk away from all of the relationships I have had throughout my life, relationships with people who are thoroughly planted in civilization and are not going to walk away from it any time soon. To the second point, I responded that it is certainly not my intent to cut myself off from relationships. Relationships are everything to me. It's all the stuff that distracts us from relating to one another that I want to be rid of. I do recognize that many of my relationships have been strained by the fact that my ideology has changed a lot as I have been able to start to make my own way from the foundation of the ideology I was given from birth. There is a commonality that used to be there that is now absent, and that is certainly a problem to be worked out (or played out, as I like to think of it) - how to continue relating to people, how to connect with people, when the common ideology is no longer there. Thankfully, ideology does not mean everything, and as much as people don't show it in there actions, there is something deeper than ideology in the nature of the human person over which everyone can connect. Appropriately, there is no name to give to that something, for otherwise, it would become part of some ideology. So that gives me hope.
A third comment my Aunt Annie made was that when I started to talk about permaculture, my eyes lit up. She was very happy to see that I was still passionate (in a positive manner) about something, that I had something that gives me life and joy, even if it is only an idea at this stage. And I am very happy about that too. When I say that I want to live in a manner that is "more than sustainable," I am referring to permaculture because permaculture is a kind of horticultural design that is, one, permanent (hence the name "permanent agriculture"), and two, rebuilds biodiversity and replenishes the life of the soil. That is what I am most passionate about learning and implementing at a place like Dancing Rabbit. I don't know how much permacultural design is already going on there (how much I could learn from them), but if there is not a lot as of yet, I want to go out and do whatever I need to do to learn about it and bring it there (my skill!).
Another option that I have been beginning to entertain is to enroll in an eleven month intensive program in which I would learn complete self-sufficiency (within the context of a group, of course) in the wilderness. From my perspective, this would be the most forward thinking and long term planning option available, as it is a goal of mine, if I go to Dancing Rabbit, to help establish a primitivist subcommunity there (which would certainly cut down on a lot of the living expenses, reducing the need for "supporting myself"!). It's just a thought in the beginning stages at this point. But it is all very exciting!
I still have questions that I have yet to get any closer to answering, and that's okay. That's how I like it, actually. I'd be more concerned if I felt that I had found all the answers. I don't ever expect that to be the case. I'll try to tackle a couple more another day, and we'll go from there.
Friday, April 7
a life of loud desperation
I have not had a roommate this semester, but it has taken me a very long time to move into the extra space. The extra space, for the most part, is simply unnecessary. However, today, for the first time, I opened up the venician blinds that have stayed put all year (spanning the whole window and mostly open). The clouds this afternoon are gorgeous, with the sun setting slowly behind them, filling up the edges of the clouds with its brilliance and spilling over in streaks of glory. My appreciation of them was greatly multipled by finally thinking to slide back the blinds. The borders of the different window panes are still obstructing my wonderful view, but it is wonderful nonetheless.
An unintended result of opening up one side of my room so much is that it becomes so much more evident that I am living in an concrete box. I've got it dressed up real pretty with a bunch of posters and pictures and maps, but it's still a box made out of the same kind of blocks one would expect to find in a prison, another place, incidentally, whose purpose is to supposedly mold people's behavior and train them to do what they need to do. It's the same kind of thing that goes on here. We just have a better euphemism for this prison than "house of corrections." We call it "education," making it sound like the people in these institutions are being empowered, when in reality it is just another tool for social control.
expand to read the full post
I am, of course, painting a bleaker picture than what the reality experienced is. Obviously, I am not kept in this concrete box by any physical force, only social pressures. I have the keys. Everyone has the keys. And they have us trained so well that no one wants to let themselves out. Well I do, and I'm going to. I may be using exaggeration for effect, but I'm not exaggerating too much.
My uncle made a comment a few days ago (one of the rare ones where he doesn't try to convey his unique sense of humor through texual form and end up infuriating me) that started me thinking about this topic on a broader scale, or "me" in general. He said,
First off, even though this blog is deceptively titled "tom campbell," it does not, in fact, sum up the entirety of my being. His analysis of "me" is absolutely correct if it is applied only to the words that I put here. This blog is obviously completely in the realm of abstractions, and yes, I do allow myself to be both extremely idealistic and cynical when writing in this blog. I almost take it as more of a compliment that he recognizes my ability to be very idealistic and very cynical at the same time. I take pride in being so seemingly contradictory. Both of those words have a lot of baggage, so it's hard to tell what precise definitions are being implied by their use in any particular case, except, to some extent, by context. Idealism could refer to the philosophy of Plato's Forms (something I despise) or simply being optimistic and striving for a goal. Cynicism can refer, again, to a philosophy - this one being that the only good is to be found in virtue resulting in the incessant pointing out of instances in which everyone else is not as virtuous as they should be (something, again, that I despise. I really hope people don't think that that is what I try to do with this blog), or simply as a negative view of the current state of affairs. I would assume that my uncle is using the second (generalized) definition in the case of both words. If I am correct to assume that, is there something bad about having a goal to strive for? (I'm still working out how that is different from the myth of progress. I know it is, but it's still muddled for me.) And is criticizing and trying to make others aware of what one sees as bad not a worthy practice? (of course it is, or else my uncle wouldn't do it himself with his comments either.)
My uncle puts in quotes the word problem, so as to suggest that there isn't actually any problem with the way things are currently going. That is the premise under which he operates - there is no problem. He's right, of course. Our system in America is perfect. It is utopian. But Utopia only works if the people living in it are also perfect. And that will never be the case. People are not perfect. They are not necessarily even good. Or bad. People just are. So when imperfect people are expected to perform perfectly in a perfect system and fail, there's a problem. Sorry, there just is.
That is the premise I start with - there is something very very wrong with our culture today. My uncle commented at one point that he profoundly disagrees with my conclusions and the logic by which I reach those conclusions. I would like my uncle to point out the logical fallacies in my arguments, because I don't think it's my conclusions he disagrees with but the premises I start out with, and premises can't be argued over - one either accepts them or she doesn't. Hence the "agreeing to disagree," as my personal philosophy certainly allows for, what with there being no one right way and all.
I would also contest the idea that I am idealistic, actually. I'm not saying that I'm not striving for some pretty lofty goals, because I definitely am. It is certainly extremely idealistic from my uncle's perspective, but from my perspective, it is actually extremely realistic and practical for me to pursue these goals to "fix the 'problem.'" This civilization will collapse. It is bound to happen eventually. But I think there is sufficient evidence to show that this collapse I refer to will happen sooner rather than later. With this in mind, becoming as independent from the system and as self-sufficient as possible is a supremely practical and pressing goal in the pursuit of a happy and successful future. I will admit to being blatantly and unapologetically selfish right now. But my take on being selfish involves opening myself up to community in which I am completely non-individualistic but rather find security in interdependence with other people. Humans are social beings and would not have been evolutionarily fit if they did not cooperate and collaborate with each other. But genes only care about proliferating themselves, not cooperating lovingly and peacefully with other genes in the hippie camp. The cooperation serves an underlying self-interested purpose of increasing chances of survival. So if it feels like I am separating myself and going off to build a life in which I am concerned with my survival alone, that is partially true, from my genes' perspective. It's only partially true because 1) as I've described, it is in the best interest of my genes to help others in my tribe to survive as well, and 2) my genes, as much as I'm sure they would like to, don't run the show. Their phenotype (or "me") does that. And that phenotype does have motives outside of proliferating genes (e.g. not wanting to contribute to the continued overpopulation of the planet by one, very dangerous species). I would like to aid other people in making their own jumps off of this sinking ship. But to promptly switch metaphors on you, it is as in the case of an emergency on an airplane when the oxygen mask drops - you put on your own mask before helping others with theirs. I need to take care of myself before I am able to think to take care of other people.
So am I extreme in my "idealism" and cynicism? Only to the extent that I am also able to say that my uncle is in extreme denial about what he passes off as a fabricated problem. (Again, it comes down to premises).
As I said, though, this blog does not = me. This blog happens to be where all of this heavy shit ends up. I am able to put my thoughts here (my abstractions) and can be free of them to some extent the rest of the time. While I may appear to be overwhelmingly cynical about our culture here, that does not preclude me from being a relatively happy guy elsewhere. As far as I can self-diagnose, I am not suffering from depression, although that particular bit may be skewed by the fact that I am doped up on entertainment and other distractions most of the time still. My distractions may be of higher quality (surfing the internet instead of surfing the channels on a television, listening to ani difranco and radiohead instead of pop music on the radio), but they are distractions nonetheless, screening me from facing to a full extent the reality of living in this culture of isolation and control. This blog will either completely cease to exist or radically shift in content once I successfully plant myself firmly in the reality of the present moment because at that point, all of these abstractions will become unimportant as I start to experience what they are meant to represent.
The biggest and most important abstraction to me is community. For me, the search for community is synonymous with the search for love and acceptance. As far as I can tell, this is a universal human desire, and 19 years in this culture is plenty to understand that I am not going to fulfill that desire entirely from within such a culture. I do not want to lead a life of quiet desparation. First I am going to be loud about my despair. Then I'm going to find hope.
Edit [4/8/06 2:13pm]: Jason Godesky happened to be writing about the ethics of collapse at roughly the same time I was (since this post actually only began at 6:35pm and was publised around 4am). It answers similar, if broader, critiques about essentially the same kind of things I'm talking about here, and does so eloquently as always.
An unintended result of opening up one side of my room so much is that it becomes so much more evident that I am living in an concrete box. I've got it dressed up real pretty with a bunch of posters and pictures and maps, but it's still a box made out of the same kind of blocks one would expect to find in a prison, another place, incidentally, whose purpose is to supposedly mold people's behavior and train them to do what they need to do. It's the same kind of thing that goes on here. We just have a better euphemism for this prison than "house of corrections." We call it "education," making it sound like the people in these institutions are being empowered, when in reality it is just another tool for social control.
expand to read the full post
I am, of course, painting a bleaker picture than what the reality experienced is. Obviously, I am not kept in this concrete box by any physical force, only social pressures. I have the keys. Everyone has the keys. And they have us trained so well that no one wants to let themselves out. Well I do, and I'm going to. I may be using exaggeration for effect, but I'm not exaggerating too much.
My uncle made a comment a few days ago (one of the rare ones where he doesn't try to convey his unique sense of humor through texual form and end up infuriating me) that started me thinking about this topic on a broader scale, or "me" in general. He said,
"It seems that you like and dislike abstracts, and both sets of abstracts tend to be fixated on extremes; extreme idealism about how to fix the 'problem' and extreme cynicism about the source of the 'problem'."
First off, even though this blog is deceptively titled "tom campbell," it does not, in fact, sum up the entirety of my being. His analysis of "me" is absolutely correct if it is applied only to the words that I put here. This blog is obviously completely in the realm of abstractions, and yes, I do allow myself to be both extremely idealistic and cynical when writing in this blog. I almost take it as more of a compliment that he recognizes my ability to be very idealistic and very cynical at the same time. I take pride in being so seemingly contradictory. Both of those words have a lot of baggage, so it's hard to tell what precise definitions are being implied by their use in any particular case, except, to some extent, by context. Idealism could refer to the philosophy of Plato's Forms (something I despise) or simply being optimistic and striving for a goal. Cynicism can refer, again, to a philosophy - this one being that the only good is to be found in virtue resulting in the incessant pointing out of instances in which everyone else is not as virtuous as they should be (something, again, that I despise. I really hope people don't think that that is what I try to do with this blog), or simply as a negative view of the current state of affairs. I would assume that my uncle is using the second (generalized) definition in the case of both words. If I am correct to assume that, is there something bad about having a goal to strive for? (I'm still working out how that is different from the myth of progress. I know it is, but it's still muddled for me.) And is criticizing and trying to make others aware of what one sees as bad not a worthy practice? (of course it is, or else my uncle wouldn't do it himself with his comments either.)
My uncle puts in quotes the word problem, so as to suggest that there isn't actually any problem with the way things are currently going. That is the premise under which he operates - there is no problem. He's right, of course. Our system in America is perfect. It is utopian. But Utopia only works if the people living in it are also perfect. And that will never be the case. People are not perfect. They are not necessarily even good. Or bad. People just are. So when imperfect people are expected to perform perfectly in a perfect system and fail, there's a problem. Sorry, there just is.
That is the premise I start with - there is something very very wrong with our culture today. My uncle commented at one point that he profoundly disagrees with my conclusions and the logic by which I reach those conclusions. I would like my uncle to point out the logical fallacies in my arguments, because I don't think it's my conclusions he disagrees with but the premises I start out with, and premises can't be argued over - one either accepts them or she doesn't. Hence the "agreeing to disagree," as my personal philosophy certainly allows for, what with there being no one right way and all.
I would also contest the idea that I am idealistic, actually. I'm not saying that I'm not striving for some pretty lofty goals, because I definitely am. It is certainly extremely idealistic from my uncle's perspective, but from my perspective, it is actually extremely realistic and practical for me to pursue these goals to "fix the 'problem.'" This civilization will collapse. It is bound to happen eventually. But I think there is sufficient evidence to show that this collapse I refer to will happen sooner rather than later. With this in mind, becoming as independent from the system and as self-sufficient as possible is a supremely practical and pressing goal in the pursuit of a happy and successful future. I will admit to being blatantly and unapologetically selfish right now. But my take on being selfish involves opening myself up to community in which I am completely non-individualistic but rather find security in interdependence with other people. Humans are social beings and would not have been evolutionarily fit if they did not cooperate and collaborate with each other. But genes only care about proliferating themselves, not cooperating lovingly and peacefully with other genes in the hippie camp. The cooperation serves an underlying self-interested purpose of increasing chances of survival. So if it feels like I am separating myself and going off to build a life in which I am concerned with my survival alone, that is partially true, from my genes' perspective. It's only partially true because 1) as I've described, it is in the best interest of my genes to help others in my tribe to survive as well, and 2) my genes, as much as I'm sure they would like to, don't run the show. Their phenotype (or "me") does that. And that phenotype does have motives outside of proliferating genes (e.g. not wanting to contribute to the continued overpopulation of the planet by one, very dangerous species). I would like to aid other people in making their own jumps off of this sinking ship. But to promptly switch metaphors on you, it is as in the case of an emergency on an airplane when the oxygen mask drops - you put on your own mask before helping others with theirs. I need to take care of myself before I am able to think to take care of other people.
So am I extreme in my "idealism" and cynicism? Only to the extent that I am also able to say that my uncle is in extreme denial about what he passes off as a fabricated problem. (Again, it comes down to premises).
As I said, though, this blog does not = me. This blog happens to be where all of this heavy shit ends up. I am able to put my thoughts here (my abstractions) and can be free of them to some extent the rest of the time. While I may appear to be overwhelmingly cynical about our culture here, that does not preclude me from being a relatively happy guy elsewhere. As far as I can self-diagnose, I am not suffering from depression, although that particular bit may be skewed by the fact that I am doped up on entertainment and other distractions most of the time still. My distractions may be of higher quality (surfing the internet instead of surfing the channels on a television, listening to ani difranco and radiohead instead of pop music on the radio), but they are distractions nonetheless, screening me from facing to a full extent the reality of living in this culture of isolation and control. This blog will either completely cease to exist or radically shift in content once I successfully plant myself firmly in the reality of the present moment because at that point, all of these abstractions will become unimportant as I start to experience what they are meant to represent.
The biggest and most important abstraction to me is community. For me, the search for community is synonymous with the search for love and acceptance. As far as I can tell, this is a universal human desire, and 19 years in this culture is plenty to understand that I am not going to fulfill that desire entirely from within such a culture. I do not want to lead a life of quiet desparation. First I am going to be loud about my despair. Then I'm going to find hope.
Edit [4/8/06 2:13pm]: Jason Godesky happened to be writing about the ethics of collapse at roughly the same time I was (since this post actually only began at 6:35pm and was publised around 4am). It answers similar, if broader, critiques about essentially the same kind of things I'm talking about here, and does so eloquently as always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
He then goes on to say that we can solve all the problems in the world by redirecting all of the money spent on weapons and departments of "defense" to feed, clothe, and educate every single human on the planet, none excepted, and could do so many times over with that money. Then we could go on to explore space in peace. Wow. It was cool until he said that shit. Talk about setting up conditions for a population explosion. (although, In the Wake has suggested that its not overpopulation that is the cause of most of the environmental crisis but rather the overconsumption of resources by the wealthy West.) I guess that's why we'd need to be exploring space - to ship excess people off the planet to start destroying other planets. I'm glad we no longer have the energy resources to do so. Otherwise, the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy would have to be revised - earth could no longer be considered "mostly harmless."
Anyway, I just thought the first part of the monologue was pretty rad.