Backwards and Forwards?

Hello all,

I've just finished reading Jonathan Zerzan's Running on Emptiness, which is a collection of his essays on Anarcho-Primitivism from the late 90s. And right now I'm reading through John Schumaker's Happiness, which cites Zerzan's essays a few times. I found the ideas of Zerzan very interesting, specifically about how we're trapped in a control system that is really impossible to turn away from unless we go back to the lifestyle we existed in as hunter-gatherers.

Zerzan pictures it as a time before language, before division of labor, before separation, and as a state of one-ness with ourselves and with nature. Schumaker talks about it too, about how the roots of unhappiness stem from our domestication, and how civilization destroys our minds, bodies and spirits.

And its had me thinking a lot lately about what it all means, in context of everything. I've been reading so long about the Work and about esoteric ideas, and the importance of myth and symbolism. And all of these things, for Zerzan, lie on the back of a symbolic culture that by its necessity separates humans from nature.

Is this state that Zerzan pictures 3D STO? Is it something we can't go back to because of DNA changes? When the chains of civilization were bonded to humans, did Nature create an out through the Work?

I'll expand on this later when I have the books at hand.
 
Hi blindpsychic. I haven't read any of Zerzan's stuff yet, so I cannot address your questions directly, but I have an observation or two you might find interesting if you continue this line of investigation.

In terms of the various studies in "evolution of consciousness", one of my faves is Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances". Barfield's period of "original participation" would seem to correspond to Zerzan's and Schumaker's "state of one-ness with ourselves and with nature". The field of Semiotics would likely call it "the Maternal Order of Nature" and point out that we are all born in this state. ATM, this is probably the closest I can come to conceptualizing 3D STO.

Barfield's next stage, "Idolatry" would seem to correspond to Zerzan's observations of "a symbolic culture that by its necessity separates humans from nature". Semiotics would likely refer to the "Patriarchal Order of Culture" and point to a whole host of examples of "oppositional-type" thinking and actions which can begin once we learn to conceptualize an imaginary "self". Philosophers might even refer to this period as starting when a 'war' for Man's mind was lost to the subject-Object Metaphysicians - aka the Aristotlean/Classical mindset.

The final stage Barfield has posited for the evolution of consciousness is "final participation". This is essentially a return to the best that we have left behind and with the addition of a much fuller awareness of our connection with all life and a sense of personal responsibility for everything - including every "representational" system, be it language or whatever.

[quote author=blindpsychic]
When the chains of civilization were bonded to humans, did Nature create an out through the Work?[/quote]

Granting Nature a human-like perception for the moment, I'd say She would have no clue what Man did and is still doing to himself - She just sees him generally acting stupid and being recklessly dangerous. Reason I say that is because Man lives so much in his imagination and imagination is not real, and Nature would likely not be aware of any"thing" that is not really a "thing" because "imaginary things" exist only in Man's imagination, thus not real.

As an aside, if you read and like Barfield's work, you may also like "Poetic Diction". PD was published in 1928 and has never been out of print for very good reasons. "Inklings" C.S. Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien even credit Barfield for being like their "secret teacher". Check Amazon reviews for confirmation and more info if desired.

Happy learning!
 
I only just read one of Zerzan's essays on the net, but from what I gather his perspective of the primitive lifestyle seems to be looking at the way neanderthals lived rather than the paleolithic groups that utilized symbology through art and ancient religion. If that seems accurate then Zerzan might be describing a world view based on lower drives and emotions without the potential for the higher. Just a thought.

You might also like this thread:

The Neanderthal Legacy by Paul Mellars
 
Buddy said:
Hi blindpsychic. I haven't read any of Zerzan's stuff yet, so I cannot address your questions directly, but I have an observation or two you might find interesting if you continue this line of investigation.

In terms of the various studies in "evolution of consciousness", one of my faves is Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances". Barfield's period of "original participation" would seem to correspond to Zerzan's and Schumaker's "state of one-ness with ourselves and with nature". The field of Semiotics would likely call it "the Maternal Order of Nature" and point out that we are all born in this state. ATM, this is probably the closest I can come to conceptualizing 3D STO.

Barfield's next stage, "Idolatry" would seem to correspond to Zerzan's observations of "a symbolic culture that by its necessity separates humans from nature". Semiotics would likely refer to the "Patriarchal Order of Culture" and point to a whole host of examples of "oppositional-type" thinking and actions which can begin once we learn to conceptualize an imaginary "self". Philosophers might even refer to this period as starting when a 'war' for Man's mind was lost to the subject-Object Metaphysicians - aka the Aristotlean/Classical mindset.

The final stage Barfield has posited for the evolution of consciousness is "final participation". This is essentially a return to the best that we have left behind and with the addition of a much fuller awareness of our connection with all life and a sense of personal responsibility for everything - including every "representational" system, be it language or whatever.

[quote author=blindpsychic]
When the chains of civilization were bonded to humans, did Nature create an out through the Work?

Granting Nature a human-like perception for the moment, I'd say She would have no clue what Man did and is still doing to himself - She just sees him generally acting stupid and being recklessly dangerous. Reason I say that is because Man lives so much in his imagination and imagination is not real, and Nature would likely not be aware of any"thing" that is not really a "thing" because "imaginary things" exist only in Man's imagination, thus not real.

As an aside, if you read and like Barfield's work, you may also like "Poetic Diction". PD was published in 1928 and has never been out of print for very good reasons. "Inklings" C.S. Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien even credit Barfield for being like their "secret teacher". Check Amazon reviews for confirmation and more info if desired.

Happy learning!
[/quote]

Thanks, Buddy. I wasn't familiar with Owen Barfield. Looks really interesting.
 
Mr. Premise said:
Thanks, Buddy.

Mr. Premise, I will forever remember you with fondness for providing me with my first understanding of External Consideration, so mainly for you (and, of course, for blindpsychic and any interested others), here's some personal observations of Barfield's work in case they're helpful.

Mr. Premise said:
I wasn't familiar with Owen Barfield.

Possibly due to Barfield's deliberate choice to use unassuming titles.

Mr. Premise said:
Looks really interesting.

At least check out Poetic Diction, then, if you feel so inclined.

Barfield develops in the reader an historical perspective whereby he may understand and see the "poetic consciousness" and the "prosaic consciousness" developing side-by-side until the latter overtakes the former and either kills it or buries it alive, like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty, awaiting the kiss of a true metaphor to awaken back to life. At this point in a race's or society's evolution, an infant would be born into, and inherit, a "mechanamorphic" worldview and be surrounded by others that Gurdjieff would describe as "mechanical". There are, in fact, enough similarities between Barfield and Gurdjieff to startle the reader already familiar with G's work.

Barfield demonstrates by example, how an "expanded consciousness" mankind once had is reduced by the amount of "meaning" that has been lost in the very words we use. By understanding this theme, the reader can probably find plenty of examples on his own to make such a demonstration himself.

An interesting effect I've experienced since developing this historical perspective, is an increased understanding of the connections between various subjects and threads on here - from the topics and threads on linguistics to posts related to ponerization of language, the recent topics on the Cognitive Science child board - even to that topic on Homer's Odyssey!

So, with an understanding of how the individual can be seen as a microcosm of the macrocosm and literally contain the history of his own race or civilization encoded within his own consciousness profile, that 'ol Hermetic axiom: "as above, so below" comes alive and I repeat: Happy Learning to anyone interested in this stuff! :)


-----------------
Edit: grammar
 
Thanks! I ordered Poetic Diction a couple of days ago and am waiting for it to arrive. Some of what he says reminds me of the 18th century Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico. Are you familiar with him, buddy? Later today I'll grab some quotes about him but he thought that cultures went through cycles of modes of discourse starting with poetic.
 
Mr. Premise said:
Thanks! I ordered Poetic Diction a couple of days ago and am waiting for it to arrive. Some of what he says reminds me of the 18th century Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico. Are you familiar with him, buddy? Later today I'll grab some quotes about him but he thought that cultures went through cycles of modes of discourse starting with poetic.

Here are some passages from Vico's New Science regarding the cycles of societies from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/new_science.html:

Vico said:
This New Science or metaphysic, studying the common nature of nations in the light of divine providence, discovers the origins of divine and human institutions among the gentile nations, and thereby establishes a system of he natural law of the gentes, which proceeds with the greatest equality and constancy through the three ages which the Egyptians handed down to us as the three periods through which the world has passed up to their time. These are (1) The age of the gods, in which the gentiles believed they lived under divine governments, and everything was commanded them by auspices and oracles, which are the oldest institutions in profane history. (2) The age of the heroes, in which they reigned everywhere in aristocratic commonwealths, on account of a certain superiority of nature which they held themselves to have over the plebs. (3) The age of men, in which all men recognized themselves as equal in human nature, and therefore there were established first the popular commonwealths and then the monarchies, both of which are forms of human government.

In harmony with these three kinds of nature and government, three kinds of language were spoken which compose the vocabulary of this Science: (1) That of the time of the families where gentile men were newly received into humanity. This, we shall find, was a mute language of signs and physical objects having natural relations to the ideas that they wished to express. (2( That spoken by means of heroic emblems, or similitudes, comparisons, images, metaphors, and natural descriptions, which make up the great body of the heroic language which was spoken at the time the heroes reigned. (3) Human language using words agreed upon by the people, a language of which they are absolute lords, and which is proper to the popular commonwealths and monarchical states; a language whereby the people may fix the meaning of the laws by which the nobles as well as the plebs are bound. Hence, among all nations, once the laws had been put into the vulgar tongue, the science of laws passed from the control of the nobles. Hitherto, among all nations, the nobles, being also priests, had kept the laws in a secret language as a sacred thing. That is the natural reason for the secrecy of the laws among the Roman patricians until popular liberty arose. . . .

Along with these three languages -- proper to the three ages in which three forms of government prevailed, conforming to three types of civil natures, which succeed one another as the nations run their course -- we find there went also in the same order a jurisprudence suited to each in its time.
Of these (three types of jurisprudence) the first was a mystic theology, which prevailed in the period when the gentiles were commanded by the gods. . . .The second was the heroic jurisprudence, all verbal scrupulosity (in which Ulysses was manifestly expert). This jurisprudence looked to what the Roman jurisconsults called civil equity and we call reason of state. . . . The last type of jurisprudence was that of natural equity, which reigns naturally in the free commonwealths, in which the people, each for his own particular good (without understanding that it is the same for all), are led to command universal laws. They naturally desire these laws to bend benignly to the least details of matters calling for equal utility. . . .

But as the popular states became corrupt, so also did the philosophies. They descended to skepticism. Learned fools fell to calumniating the truth. Thence arose a false eloquence, ready to uphold either of the opposed sides of a case indifferently. Thus it came about that, by abuse of eloquence like that of the tribunes of the plebs at Rome, when the citizens were no longer content with making wealth the basis of rank, they strove to make it an instrument of power. And as furious sound winds whip up the sea, so these citizens provoked civil wars in their commonwealths and drove them to total disorder. Thus they caused the commonwealths to fall from a perfect liberty into the perfect tyranny of anarchy or the unchecked liberty of the free peoples, which is the worst of all tyrannies. . . .


But if the peoples are rotting in that ultimate civil disease and cannot agree on a monarch from within, and are not conquered and preserved by better nations from without, and are not conquered and preserved by better nations from without, then providence for their extreme ill has its extreme remedy at hand. For such peoples, like so many beasts, have fallen into the custom of each man thinking only of his own private interests and have reached the extreme of delicacy, or better of pride, in which like wild animals they bristle and lash out at the slightest displeasure. Thus no matter how great the throng and press of their bodies, they live like wild beasts in a deep solitude of spirit and will, scarcely any two being able to agree since each follows his own pleasure or caprice. By reason of all this, providence decrees that, through obstinate factions and desperate civil wars, they shall turn their cities into forests and the forests into dens and lairs of men. In this way, through long centuries of barbarism, rust will consume the misbegotten subtleties of malicious wits that have turned them into beasts made more inhuman by the barbarism of reflection than the first men had been made by the barbarism of sense. . . . Hence peoples who have reached this point of premeditated malice, when they receive this last remedy of providence and are thereby stunned and brutalized, are sensible no longer of comforts, delicacies, pleasures, and pomp, but only of the sheer necessities of life. And the few survivors in the midst of an abundance of the things necessary for life naturally become sociable and, returning to the primitive simplicity of the first world of peoples, are again religious, truthful, and faithful. Thus providence brings back among them the piety, faith, and truth which are the natural foundations of justice as well as the graces and beauties of the eternal order of God. . . .

[Source: Thomas G. Bergin and Max H. Fisch, The New Science of Giambattista Vico, revised translations of the third edition of 1744 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1948), quoted in Franklin Le Van Baumer, Main Currents of Western Thought, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), pp. 448-451.]
 
Just to add a quick summary of Vico, for those who don't want to wade through the difficult quotes, Vico was influential with 19th and 20th century Historicism, because he thought that the ways we think, in fact, the ways we can think are dependent on the social and political situation we live in, and that these run in a three-part cycle, ending in a period of decadence (which we seem to be in now) which causes a breakdown that ends up starting the whole cycle over again.
 
Mr. Premise said:
Some of what he says reminds me of the 18th century Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico. Are you familiar with him, buddy?

I was unfamiliar with Vico until now.

Mr. Premise said:
...he thought that cultures went through cycles of modes of discourse starting with poetic.

I think Barfield would agree with that statement and your summary as a general statement of the general theme found in "Saving the Appearances" especially.

The historical perspective I got from "Poetic Diction" was mainly by inference as a consequence of the content, I suppose. This is a work that deals with "meaning" in the fullest sense of the word, so it would seem that local, as well as historical, context is mandatory, but no more is provided than is needed to support various points.

To Barfield, myth is definitely related to any study of language. The mythological consciousness (my term) might also be called the "poetic consciousness" and this poetic consciousness most definitely includes the creative principle in Man.

This early period in humanity's evolution is a time when thought and meaning is bonded together and the experience of material, sensible things, thought and feeling is one of unity. Perception is direct and all of reality is self-evident. IOW, reality is experienced directly, not conceptually.

Comes a time later when mental abstraction reaches a level of absoluteness, so to speak. As an example found in primitive societies: whereas previously there may have been 23 ways to refer to "cutting something", there was no single word for "cut"; and no need for one. Yet, the language evolves and becomes more sophisticated. Talkers begin to do a lot of talking and ordinary people eventually find themselves in a quandry trying to reconcile their unified experience of reality with this new subjective, analytical mind and it's splitting of a unified reality into contrasting pairs, like "objective" and "subjective", etc.

During this period, we might find an individual who considers the full meanings of words as "flashing, iridescent shapes like flames - ever flickering vestiges of the slowly evolving consciousness beneath them", and another individual who thinks of words "as solid chunks, with definite boundaries and limits, to which other chunks may be added as occasion arises."

Once a unified experience of life has been split so widely and so deeply, connections between discrete phenomena which were once perceived as immediate realities, can now only be apprehended by metaphor; but, not sloppy metaphor, "true" metaphor. Sloppy metaphor (my term) is "invented" relation, "true" metaphor reveals those mysterious relations between separate external objects and feelings or ideas which exist independently - not independent of thought - but of the individual thinker. "True" metaphor leads us to back to experience original unity, according to Barfield.

On pg 86 of "P.D.", Barfield says:

Our sophistication, like Odin's, has cost us an eye; and now it is the language of poets, in so far as they create true metaphors, which must restore this unity conceptually, after it has been lost perceptually.

Finally, Barfield distinguishes between the two main routes of investigation used by grammarians, philogists, historians, etc while serving the cause of looking into the development of consciousness. First, there are those "orange wranglers" (Gurdjieff in BTTHG), whose way of thinking sees the beginnings of language in a series of monosyllabic 'roots' with simple, perceptual references. This is, essentially, projecting post-logical thought back into pre-logical people, like the parent who constantly misreads his own logical processes into a child's mind (American psychologist J.M.Baldwin). Second, there are those whose investigations find language growing more and more poetic as they trace it back into the past, but then conclude this is simply some "metaphorical period" where the "poetic values" in the language are simply for experiencing pleasure (notwithstanding the fact that a society with "poetic consciousness" would not perceive it's own language as "poetic").

The third option begins like the second, but does Not assume that, in earlier periods, the names of sensible, material objects were simply that and nothing more. It also does Not suppose that these sensible, material objects were isolated or detached from thinking or feeling.

There's lots more, but I must stop here for now. I can only, but sincerely, hope that nothing I've written has prejudiced the reader in any way towards the written works in question. Due to the nature of the content of these works dealing with "meaning" and "fullness of meaning" (as contrasted with definitions only), I should probably be more reluctant to comment or pull quotes, but I have enjoyed this study immensely and love to share it! :)


---------------------------------------------
Edit: straightened out a Not or two.
 
[quote author=Buddy] ... Due to the nature of the content of these works dealing with "meaning" and "fullness of meaning" (as contrasted with definitions only), I should probably be more reluctant to comment or pull quotes, but I have enjoyed this study immensely and love to share it! :) [/quote]

Thank you for sharing this work by Barfield, have written it down and will check it out. :)
 
Thus far, this thread had redirected me back to the work of Ibn Arabi and those beautiful Sufi writings I enjoyed so much - like this one by Kahlil Gibran.

Then I was led back here and decided to find and read John Zerzan's "Running on Emptiness". I think it's awesome!

Anyone interested can find that essay here:

_http://www.primitivism.com/emptiness.htm

Zerzan even mentions, and then quotes, James Shreeve, author of one of our recommended books: The Neanderthal Enigma:

James Shreeve, at the end of his Neanderthal Enigma (l995), provides a beautiful illustration of an alternative to symbolic being. Meditating upon what an earlier, non-symbolic consciousness might have been like, he calls forth important distinctions and possibilities:

...where the modern's gods might inhabit the land, the buffalo, or the blade of grass, the Neanderthal's spirit was the animal or the grass blade, the thing and its soul perceived as a single vital force, with no need to distinguish them with separate names. Similarly, the absence of artistic expression does not preclude the apprehension of what is artful about the world. Neanderthals did not paint their caves with the images of animals. But perhaps they had no need to distill life into representations, because its essences were already revealed to their senses. The sight of a running herd was enough to inspire a surging sense of beauty. They had no drums or bone flutes, but they could listen to the booming rhythms of the wind, the earth, and each other's heartbeats, and be transported."
 
Hello all,

Zerzan's essays a few times. I found the ideas of Zerzan very interesting, specifically about how we're trapped in a control system that is really impossible to turn away from unless we go back to the lifestyle we existed in as hunter-gatherers.

Hello
I think he's absolutely right.

I was born in nature in a village in a semi-forested area. I have never reconciled with the city.
I don't know any other kind of life. I can't imagine any other kind of life

There is no agriculture that does not harm nature
There is no building technology that does not harm nature
I do not believe in an organized society that does not produce hierarchy

Zerzan pictures it as a time before language, before division of labor, before separation, and as a state of one-ness with ourselves and with nature. Schumaker talks about it too, about how the roots of unhappiness stem from our domestication, and how civilization destroys our minds, bodies and spirits.

Even without reading what Schumaker or Zerzan have written, I think or share the same things.

Is this state that Zerzan pictures 3D STO?

If anyone has a different or better answer and solution, I would like to hear from them.


Is it something we can't go back to because of DNA changes? When the chains of civilization were bonded to humans, did Nature create an out through the Work?

I think nature will not pity us and will be fair.
It should basically destroy us or send us to the initial state because we threaten everything else that lives in the other state.
Maybe that's exactly what the density wave is. It's like a natural selection eraser.

It's a good way out
 
Back
Top Bottom