ENDING CIVILIZATION Derrick Jensen

[eliansito]

http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

Premises of Endgame
Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.
Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.

I havent read the book yet but I wanted to post here to see if I can get some input on one issue that is troubling me lately.

The author suggests civilization will not udergo any voluntary significant change and thus it will inevitably go down, and that we should help taking it down by various means. Now, although the violent means I can understand could be dismissed for various reasons more or less easily, the other means (all other) seem valid yet that would also be considered a will to "change the world" and all that... Please help me draw the line, if there is one, because despair takes over, rage mounts and desperation and hopelessness creep...

Thanks.

R

 

[thevenusian]

I read a couple of Jensen's books some years ago. While I agree with many of his observations and share some of his conclusions, for me his view is missing a similar element to what Jacob Needleman (Lost Christianity- discussed elsewhere on the forum) concludes is missing from the major religious systems. That element would be objective knowledge of reality, which can only be gained through repeated self-observation, observation of the world around us and the help/input from others with a similar aim. Jensen's radical environmentalism is a very subjective interpretation riddled with moralistic judgments- not unlike the moral positions adopted in fundamentalist religious movements, even though many of his observations of problems are true. It is preposterous and a highly subjective thing to propose destroying civilization because you don't like the way it is. I think his road eventually leads to violence and out-of-control emotional responses, which have no actual power to effect the changes he seeks. That was my take, anyway.

 

[eliansito]

That element would be objective knowledge of reality, which can only be gained through repeated self-observation, observation of the world around us and the help/input from others with a similar aim. ........... It is preposterous and a highly subjective thing to propose destroying civilization because you don't like the way it is.

Parking for a moment that his proposed solution includes violent means or direct action.

The taking it down (before it comes down by itself) comes after "proving" or observing objectively (I assume here, bare with me) that civilization is what he exposes it to be, not just because he doesn't like it, I mean who can honestly like this civilization (when looking at the big picture that is). Where is he wrong about civilization?

Another key point that makes me shake is when he says that it will not change voluntarily, will it? if not voluntarily how? My doubts are, do we work on ourselves and wait or do we try and effect change by taking it down (by other than violent means)?
If not why, if so how?

Thanks!

 

[RyanX]

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

It seems that the author draws a line somewhere between the "natural world" and human systems. As if human systems aren't part of the "natural world". If one views the current political/economic system as a model of a predatory species (psychopaths) preying off of the normal human population, civilization and the products thereof, mimic a lot of predator/prey situations in the natural world.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

I believe this is incorrect. The culture as a whole is not "insane". It is, in fact, only a small minority of humans that are insane (psychopaths) and this minority has imposed their will on the rest of civilization.

I believe this is a paramoralism here too. The author has invented "sustainability" as new moral criteria. While I agree that "sustainability" in the proper context is a good thing, the devil is in the details. Sustainable for who and how? The author seems to link sustainability with the natural world. Psychopaths and other predatory species are part of the natural world, are they not? Again, where does one draw the line? While I don't see this author as advocating sustainable psychopathology (if there is such a thing?), I think his mode of thinking here is pathological.

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

In general, I think the author has been submersed in too much pathological thinking to really see outside of it. His reasoning method here is quite linear too. He seems to see violence as inevitable. While this may also be realism, it doesn't offer any sort of sane alternative except "talking about our predicament". Which is fine, but why not do that instead of rationalizing violence and then talk about moralistic sustainability?

I don't know if you've already considered all of this regarding these points the author makes. Maybe you already have, I just thought I'd bring them up. :)

I think as far as changing civilization goes, one first has to get to the bottom of all our lies and assumptions that we've accumulated from the current civilization. Like the phrase "you can't think about the way you think with the way you think" seems true on the macro-social scale as well as the individual scale. I think this group here is doing a pretty darn good job of starting this process of sorting out the mess we're in! I think the work here promoting the various material available from this group can make a large impact, even if it does seem like a butterfly flapping it's wings at the moment, OSIT.

Just my $0.02 :)

 

[eliansito]

Ok here I go

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

It seems that the author draws a line somewhere between the "natural world" and human systems. As if human systems aren't part of the "natural world". If one views the current political/economic system as a model of a predatory species (psychopaths) preying off of the normal human population, civilization and the products thereof, mimic a lot of predator/prey situations in the natural world.

Good point, difference is in human systems vs.economic system.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

I believe this is incorrect. The culture as a whole is not "insane". It is, in fact, only a small minority of humans that are insane (psychopaths) and this minority has imposed their will on the rest of civilization.

Culture as a whole perhaps he means mainstream culture, in case he doesn't even Gourdjieff tells something similar about art/culture/sports in the tales of Beelzebu.

How could a minority impose anything on the rest of civilization without their idiotic (thus insane) consent and active and passive participation?.

I believe this is a paramoralism here too. The author has invented "sustainability" as new moral criteria. While I agree that "sustainability" in the proper context is a good thing, the devil is in the details. Sustainable for who and how? The author seems to link sustainability with the natural world. Psychopaths and other predatory species are part of the natural world, are they not? Again, where does one draw the line? While I don't see this author as advocating sustainable psychopathology (if there is such a thing?), I think his mode of thinking here is pathological.

Sustainability is not invented by the author as new moral criteria, it could be THE only moral criteria by definition if you take the broader meaning of it, sustainable for who and how? sustainable is always for all parties involved in a way as to preserve their dignity and continuity according to their essence (I would say..).

What other broader moral criteria could there be?

In one interview he is asked about the predators and what you point out, and his reply is that the difference is that the predator becomes responsible for the continuity of the prey, how?----the predator in the natural world never takes more than he needs, as opposed to the psychopathic human predator who has never enough.

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

In general, I think the author has been submersed in too much pathological thinking to really see outside of it. His reasoning method here is quite linear too. He seems to see violence as inevitable. While this may also be realism, it doesn't offer any sort of sane alternative except "talking about our predicament". Which is fine, but why not do that instead of rationalizing violence and then talk about moralistic sustainability?

I don't know if you've already considered all of this regarding these points the author makes. Maybe you already have, I just thought I'd bring them up. :)

Thanks a lot, that is what I posted for! :) I would like to dissect those premises here before I read the book so as to not get caught in the twister...

About violence I would like to throw a question, when can violence be considered self defense in the context of a community, group etc...what is the tress hold, someone poisons your rivers, destroys your land, your livelihood etc etc, at what point self defense is not only justified but necessary (if it does at all)? can self defense be non violent and successful (at the current state of affairs)?

R

 

[RyanX]

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

I believe this is incorrect. The culture as a whole is not "insane". It is, in fact, only a small minority of humans that are insane (psychopaths) and this minority has imposed their will on the rest of civilization.

Culture as a whole perhaps he means mainstream culture, in case he doesn't even Gourdjieff tells something similar about art/culture/sports in the tales of Beelzebu.

How could a minority impose anything on the rest of civilization without their idiotic (thus insane) consent and active and passive participation?.

eliansito, this is a good question and one I've had to try and wrap my head around many times.

The problem is multi-faceted, but it basically boils down to psychopaths rising to the top of all important social organizations in a culture. Through their influence, other leaders resonate with the same pathological mindset and that filters down through all levels of society to families and thus individuals. Physical and psychological trauma inflicted on people in their youth also plants the seed of pathology as well creating psychopaths out of what could have been normal people. Also, our diet is designed to make us addictive, zombie-like creatures as well - this diet also being promoted by psychopaths at the highest level of government and medicine. All of these factors and probably others contribute to people not being able to see a moral situation for what it is. So if you add all of this up, it really looks like the whole culture is insane, but if you follow the various strands back to their source, it all leads back to psychopathology and the essential (or genetic) psychopath.

This is essentially the point that Lobaczewski makes in his book Political Ponerology. If you haven't read this one yet, I would highly recommend it.

I believe this is a paramoralism here too. The author has invented "sustainability" as new moral criteria. While I agree that "sustainability" in the proper context is a good thing, the devil is in the details. Sustainable for who and how? The author seems to link sustainability with the natural world. Psychopaths and other predatory species are part of the natural world, are they not? Again, where does one draw the line? While I don't see this author as advocating sustainable psychopathology (if there is such a thing?), I think his mode of thinking here is pathological.

Sustainability is not invented by the author as new moral criteria, it could be THE only moral criteria by definition if you take the broader meaning of it, sustainable for who and how? sustainable is always for all parties involved in a way as to preserve their dignity and continuity according to their essence (I would say..).

What other broader moral criteria could there be?

Here is some information to ponder. This is from cassiopedia on para-moralisms:

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Pathocracy_and_Para-Moralisms

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

In general, I think the author has been submersed in too much pathological thinking to really see outside of it. His reasoning method here is quite linear too. He seems to see violence as inevitable. While this may also be realism, it doesn't offer any sort of sane alternative except "talking about our predicament". Which is fine, but why not do that instead of rationalizing violence and then talk about moralistic sustainability?

I don't know if you've already considered all of this regarding these points the author makes. Maybe you already have, I just thought I'd bring them up. :)

Thanks a lot, that is what I posted for! :) I would like to dissect those premises here before I read the book so as to not get caught in the twister...

About violence I would like to throw a question, when can violence be considered self defense in the context of a community, group etc...what is the tress hold, someone poisons your rivers, destroys your land, your livelihood etc etc, at what point self defense is not only justified but necessary (if it does at all)? can self defense be non violent and successful (at the current state of affairs)?

R

I think the mentality of considering violence is a dangerous one and mostly leads to subjectivity and faulty reasoning. Even in the most extreme cases such as in Palestine today where it is obvious a case of systematic invasion and oppression, people still find a way to be non-violent and show the world what is happening in the hopes that others will shine the light of truth on the situation. There are cases where people are just pressed into certain fight/flight situations where violence is just a natural reaction to the situation. That doesn't justify it, but it gives a context to explain why it occurred. Otherwise, inflicting violence on another is bound to have some pathological component, OSIT.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the destruction of the environment, pollution and so forth that happens at all levels today. It seems to me that one would be better off working to expose the truth of these situations at the deepest level possible instead of trying to rationalize a call for violent acts.

 

[thevenusian]

I think RyanX has done an excellent job teasing apart the flaws in Jensen's arguments. All I can think to add to this analysis is an excerpt from Jacob Needleman's 'Lost Christianity' which addresses the question of how do we respond to the reality of the failures of civilization so evident all around us, from the point of view of those attempting the Work:

The fact of man's injustice to man can be explained in many ways; it may be struggled against in many ways. Yet, from the point of view of lost Christianity, the fundamental problem is completely different from the manner in which we present it to ourselves through our sense of moral outrage. Rather, the question is, how do I sense the suffering of others? from what in myself do I perceive it? how deeply do I feel it? how exactly do I understand it? and from what source in myself will I meet it? Is agitation of the mind and emotions in any sense at all the agent of love or moral action?

The perception of the suffering inherent in the human condition, the perception of man's inhumanity to man: this moment of awareness has been spoken of in all traditions as a tremendous moment in the consciousness of man, or in the consciousness of the founder of a tradition, or in the consciousness of its greatest saints. Think only of the young prince Gautama (Buddha) seeing old age, sickness and death for the first time. The greatness of this moment, however, is not only in the depth and content of the perception, but in the fact that the founder, or the saint, has within him the force to transmit that perception to the whole of himself: to all his faculties of thinking, feeling and will. The compassionate or merciful founder has within him a channel between compassionate awareness and all the functions of the normal human psychophysical body. In short, the founder represents the fullness of what we have termed "the possession of a soul": the power or entity that relates the two fundamental movements within human nature, in this case the gnosis, the higher consciousness of the truth of suffering, on the one hand, and the impulses, functions, thoughts and behaviors that originate in the elements of the body of man.

The real perception of suffering or injustice is an aspect of higher knowing. As such it must be distinguished from mere emotional reaction to the suffering of others. If one wishes to speak of the "horror" of man's inhumanity to man, one is then forced to distinguish, as it were, a higher awareness of this horror, free of the emotionalism and inner violence which are attributes of egoism. Egoism, too, can in its way "see" the suffering of man, but it is a "seeing mixed with illusions and fear, leading to impatience, faulty action and, finally, infliction of yet more suffering upon others, even in the name of love. One is obliged to doubt the value of one's caring actions when they spring only from emotion or moralism.

Certainly there are moments in almost every individual's life when he perceives and feels something of the real suffering of the human race, or of this or that portion of the human race. There are moments of "moral mysticism," comparable in essential aspects to moments of "cosmic mysticism," the felt perception of a greater order and purpose in the universe. But, in both experiences, what is hardest to understand, and what is most easily lost, is the truth that the act of real seeing-what one may call the experience of the Question-is itself the seed, the embryo of that very force within human nature which has the power to respond to the Question and eventually even act upon it and realize the answer. The appearance in oneself of the Question is already the appearance of the soul, my real Self. But as this fact is not understood, the state of Questioning is not cultivated by ourselves or by our educators. Consequently, the force or spirit that has begun to break through is unconsciously dissipated. One longs, as is said, for God, or for Meaning, or for Understanding. or for Justice, and does not see that the longing itself is the beginning of the answer one is seeking. The state of wonder, for example, is itself a higher form of knowing than the explanations one subsequently seeks in the absence of that state. Similarly, the embryonic breakthrough of conscience in the form of perceiving the pain of human life is itself a closer approach to moral power than the reactions and commitments which take place after this fragile and fleeting awareness has given way to the (in ordinary men) more durable aspects of egoism, such as moral outrage. The real moral vision of the human condition is dissipated by emotionalism just as the authentic intuitive understanding of nature is dissipated by intellectualism.

 

[eliansito]

This may be a good place to reflect that true moral law is born and exists independently of our judgments in this regard, and even of our ability to recognize it. Thus, the attitude required for such understanding is scientific, not creative: we must humbly subordinate our mind to the apprehended reality. That is when we discover the truth about man, both his weaknesses and values, which shows us what is decent and proper with respect to other people and other societies.

Wouldnt the above extract from your posted text include and embrace sustainability? In hypnosis/ NLP there is a similar concept described by the term "ecology" which means that the therapeutic change effected benefits all involved parts and harms none.

I appreciate the bit on paramoralism, I didn't know the concept.

I think the mentality of considering violence is a dangerous one and mostly leads to subjectivity and faulty reasoning. Even in the most extreme cases such as in Palestine today where it is obvious a case of systematic invasion and oppression, people still find a way to be non-violent and show the world what is happening in the hopes that others will shine the light of truth on the situation. There are cases where people are just pressed into certain fight/flight situations where violence is just a natural reaction to the situation. That doesn't justify it, but it gives a context to explain why it occurred. Otherwise, inflicting violence on another is bound to have some pathological component, OSIT.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the destruction of the environment, pollution and so forth that happens at all levels today. It seems to me that one would be better off working to expose the truth of these situations at the deepest level possible instead of trying to rationalize a call for violent acts.

You are most probably right about violence, I struggle with the frustration of trying to apply the nonviolent logic to situations where the odds are so against the people as in your sentence I emphasized.


I keep this one too thevenusian:

The real moral vision of the human condition is dissipated by emotionalism just as the authentic intuitive understanding of nature is dissipated by intellectualism.

Tx again
R

 

[RyanX]

Wouldnt the above extract from your posted text include and embrace sustainability? In hypnosis/ NLP there is a similar concept described by the term "ecology" which means that the therapeutic change effected benefits all involved parts and harms none.

I think it depends on how you define sustainability and with what context it is applied. Then the big question is how Jensen intended to use this term? I guess I would have to read his book to understand his full meaning, but based on his premises, it seems there is a pathological component behind the way he uses the term.

I did a little google searching for this guy Jensen. Here is an interesting page:

_http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/12/181-derrick-jensen.html

Jensen currently lives among the redwoods of Crescent City, California, where he devotes much of his time to wildlife habitat restoration. In his own words: "Are human beings destined to destroy this earth? Why do we act as we do? What will it take for us to stop the horrors that characterize our way of being? Every morning when I wake up, I ask myself if I should write or blow up a dam."

[quote author=Jensen]The whole reform versus revolution question, which is not the question you asked, is just crap. If we just wait for the great glorious revolution there is not going to be anything left when we get there, and if on the other hand all we do is reform there won’t be anything left in the end anyways. We need it all. We need everything. We need people chaining themselves to trees, we need people taking out dams[/quote]

[quote author=Jensen]In so far as what we can do to get there, I’ve done benefits for earth liberation prisoners and fully support the actions of the ELF and the ALF. I have supported them publicly on a bunch of occasions, and in a bunch of different local and national venues. That said I do have a criticism, and my criticism is that I wish they would move up the infrastructure. I think what we need to do is start looking for bottlenecks and start looking for leverage points.[/quote]

 

[Buddy]

Jensen currently lives among the redwoods of Crescent City, California, where he devotes much of his time to wildlife habitat restoration. In his own words: "Are human beings destined to destroy this earth? Why do we act as we do? What will it take for us to stop the horrors that characterize our way of being? Every morning when I wake up, I ask myself if I should write or blow up a dam."

Now that is particularly disturbing. Based on his writings that Ryan provided, I definitely do not see Jensen's concerns coming from any realization of his intimate connections with the environment and life on this planet. Sounds more like he's rationalizing a desire for violence and perhaps looking for a base of support?

 

[eliansito]

Jensen currently lives among the redwoods of Crescent City, California, where he devotes much of his time to wildlife habitat restoration. In his own words: "Are human beings destined to destroy this earth? Why do we act as we do? What will it take for us to stop the horrors that characterize our way of being? Every morning when I wake up, I ask myself if I should write or blow up a dam."

Now that is particularly disturbing. Based on his writings that Ryan provided, I definitely do not see Jensen's concerns coming from any realization of his intimate connections with the environment and life on this planet. Sounds more like he's rationalizing a desire for violence and perhaps looking for a base of support?

I would give him the credit of a third possibility, I think that he has had many realizations on his intimate connections with the environment and life on this planet and is struggling still with the realizations on what to do next as in "should I write or should I blow up dams". I don't know if he is blowing up dams, he is writing though, and putting the crux of his own struggle out there, perhaps with an inclination to direct action which would be where he errs.

Regarding his description of culture as insane, just read an excerpt from Gurdjieff in another thread that comes handy to express what he means imo, similarities are stricking:

Ouspensky:"Why of course not! ...Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."

Gurdjieff replied: "Of exactly the same order. These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."
[....}
"Yes, that is because people believe in progress and culture. There is no progress whatever. Everything is just the same as it was thousands, and tens of thousands, of years ago. The outward form changes. The essence does not change. Man remains just the same. 'Civilized' and 'cultured' people live with exactly the same interests as the most ignorant savages. Modern civilization is based on violence and slavery and fine words.

"...What do you expect? People are machines. Machines have to be blind and unconscious, they cannot be otherwise, and all their actions have to correspond to their nature. Everything happens. No one does anything. 'Progress' and 'civilization,' in the real meaning of these words, can appear only as the result of conscious efforts. They cannot appear as the result of unconscious mechanical actions. And what conscious effort can there be in machines? And if one machine is unconscious, then a hundred machines are unconscious, and so are a thousand machines, or a hundred thousand, or a million. And the unconscious activity of a million machines must necessarily result in destruction and extermination. It is precisely in unconscious involuntary manifestations that all evil lies. You do not yet understand and cannot imagine all the results of this evil. But the time will come when you will understand."

I have extracted the relevant passages, the rest is in this thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=17008.0 in Lauras reply.

R

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=eliansito]
I havent read the book yet but I wanted to post here to see if I can get some input on one issue that is troubling me lately.

The author suggests civilization will not udergo any voluntary significant change and thus it will inevitably go down, and that we should help taking it down by various means. Now, although the violent means I can understand could be dismissed for various reasons more or less easily, the other means (all other) seem valid yet that would also be considered a will to "change the world" and all that... Please help me draw the line, if there is one, because despair takes over, rage mounts and desperation and hopelessness creep...[/quote]

There are many ways of looking at any issue depending on one's make-up, knowledge, being, etc., but one thing that is out of the question for me is violence or deliberate destruction if it is against esoteric principles of becoming a genuine, Real man and/or that I am incapable to take responsibility for my actions.

The guy may really be struggling with coming to grips with the horror of the situation, or he may not, but I tend to think that you, me and anyone else in esoteric work should remember Gurdjieff's warnings about internal weakness that leads to the kind of considering (that attitude which creates inner slavery, inner dependence) that results in losing ourselves because of identifying with people:

[quote author=Gurdjieff]
[...]
"And he 'considers' not only separate persons but society and historically constituted conditions. Everything that displeases such a man seems to him to be unjust, illegal, wrong, and illogical. And the point of departure for his judgment is always that these things can and should be changed. 'Injustice' is one of the words in which very often considering hides itself. When a man has convinced himself that he is indignant with some injustice, then for him to stop considering would mean 'reconciling himself to injustice.'

"There are people who are able to consider not only injustice or the failure of others to value them enough but who are able to consider for example the weather. This seems ridiculous but it is a fact. People are able to consider climate, heat, cold, snow, rain; they can be irritated by the weather, be indignant and angry with it. A man can take everything in such a personal way as though everything in the world had been specially arranged in order to give him pleasure or on the contrary to cause him inconvenience or unpleasantness.

"All this and much else besides is merely a form of identification.
ISOTM, p.158
[/quote]

There is another form of weakness G. talks about that may be related. A man seeing the activities of another and then getting mechanically drawn into identifying with him...compelled to give more and more attention to the other person as if he couldn't give enough attention to the struggles and activities of another or to do enough for him. If this is compelling or happening against your will, then it is weakness. If agreement with this person's ideas and activities is conscious and deliberately chosen as a genuine act of your will, then it might be an objectively useful condition (in some sense?).

Which do you think it is? Is any of this helpful, or am I out of the ballpark? :)


Edit: clarifications

 

[eliansito]

Not out off the ball park at all, I wouldn't be able to tell if my interest in his ideas comes from identification or from genuine interest and G words you posted raised a red flag i will keep in mind while I read or research further down Jensen's work.

Impossible to separate the observer from the observed in this case for me, and that alone might just be a sign of the weakness G talks about.

Thanks!!

R