|
U-Know! Forum » how to be |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
|
Annexus Quam 856 posts |
Jan 28, 2001, 20:08
|
||
|
Have you ever wondered how little we value individuals when they are, say, from Pakistan? It seems like lives lost in an earthquake there ain't as valuable as, say, San Francisco. After watching a beeb prog about a stone age tribe I saw my own inadequacies as a Western dude. Nothing new there, but I could actually hear the people speak in their own south east asian tongue with no patronising voiceovers (only subtitles), listen to really interesting conversations, share their fears as the hairbrushed clean christians arrived in the forest with their new stories of hell which frightened and their silly songs which bored them to death or as the archdrude farted in the cave so loud that it shocked the happiest of children's faces. By understanding this family's soul I could value myself and realise how modern Western people have nothing interesting to say any longer, immersed in an abstract world, smug and self-complacent, yet spiritually fucked-up to the extreme. The children in the film smiled like I’ve never seen a child smile before, huge wide grins as they jumped around, and it was only them and the forest. It's like those Castaways constantly pretending to be friendly and... interesting personalities. Free your mind and your ass will follow, clones! "If we prove something to our own satisfaction, we can release our energies for finding out about the subject: proving it to others takes second place (Philip Heselton)"
|
|||
|
Erin 10 posts |
Jan 30, 2001, 03:30
|
||
Well said.
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 856 posts |
Jan 30, 2001, 13:51
|
||
Mind you, I have been - somewhat belatedly - enjoying castaway2000, though the only problem as we know is the huge artificial character of it all, as compared to a 'reality show' of a real tribe in SE Asia. Their 'barbaric' conversations are so much more interesting. How many times do we dismiss these third world peoples as un-evolved or un-interesting, as if they had nothing to say? I fear We are the Aloof. Still, it is sometimes possible to experience the real thing in a western environment, there's plenty of occasions for that. Few, but recognisable, when we appreciate real friendship and love, etc etc ... enough of all this...
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 04, 2001, 00:40
|
||
|
It does amaze me how quick we - plastic enamoured Western consumerist kids that we are - can get into something a lot more real and primal. Life on the tree protest camps of the mid 90s sure showed me a thing or two. All kinds of ages, backgrounds and neuroses were there, and yet we ound ways to share and make sure we were all happy. Humans are a group animal. We don't function well alone (a 'loner' is a dnagerous person; the worst punishment is solitary confinement). We are natuarally a co-operative group species. Every time that you go round to a friend's place and someone's brought something to drink, someone else has brought something to smoke, everyone else has just brought themselves, then we are acting in a co-operative and anarchist way. In fact, viewed this way, we're all anarchists in our everyday lives and i can't help feeling enormous hope for our potential.
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 856 posts |
Feb 04, 2001, 11:45
|
||
|
Oh yes! Your campaign at Newbury sounds like another example of Castaway-like cooperation. I'd gladly comment on it but I haven't yet found the time to dedicate some time to the book (even though I am now re-reading all kinds of books, ha!) but time will come as it always does. anarchism sounds like an incompatible word when you think of co-operation/organisation but, in fact, it is a synonym. Experience tells that left to their own resources, humans 'organise' themselves and still, the bigger the organisation is (e.g.parliaments, EU, multinationals, Monsanto in this order) the worse it becomes and the more hated. What you say brings to mind an annual episode. Locally, every time there is a campaign to send money to people in need around the world or increase the amount of money the government dedicates to this, there are two clear streams of opinions: 1. those who (all suddenly!) declare that self-national interests are more important as opposed to "their" interests (you know, the us and them mentality), while still ironically embracing globalisation. 2. those who still aid people in need (with no distinction or barriers) >> the ones in group 1 are actually the ones that, given the chance, will not even help their own folks. >> the ones in the second group view things in a less rigid way, helping one another in whatever way possible, but not following any particular or accepted rules (because if they followed them, then the whole thing would be impossible - which does not mean that it IS) and therefore are denominated anarchists by the ones in group 1 as well as sneered at. >> the ones in group one always make me sad.
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 856 posts |
Feb 04, 2001, 12:51
|
||
|
I take this opportunity of finding you on the net to ask - how then is anarchism politically viable so that the masters of cynicism accept it as the most honest way for humans to organise themselves? I don't like labels but I agree that anarchism is the only way, if only the most logical way. I may be politically naive but I haven't yet found a way out of this conundrum. Free-your-mind-and-your-ass-will-follow ideologies seem to be incompatible with any political acceptance, since politics wallows in the use of *no-action*, i.e.trying to keep the status untouched as much as possible since any change would bring outrageous protests from stale minds who only protest when there are wake-up-of-your-stup-i-faction calls and thus would risk losing votes. An example is group one above. Only when there is a call for change do people complain. A reaction I observe in many people when one says one is trying to change things. Ironically, they get fiercelly reactonary and even blame one for trying to do something 'impossible' or 'silly'. So politics therefore being incompatible, it should ultimately be useless as any small community or tribe can tell us. Before anyone says there is politics or chiefs in all communities I will say that I find small tribes incredibly a-political and without a visible head - except for the shaman who (male OR female!!) is a somewhat marginal though respected figure. The film about the remote asian tribe I saw showed a small community, mainly family-based, with no chiefs. In fact, when there were decisions to be taken (like taking a boy to a doctor in the nearest town due to his burns) and this caused conflict, the discussion was shockingly 'civilised' and 'polite' with enough respect to make any of us shudder with envy. A kind of collective soul permeated the whole tribe and differences were quite enriching. Someone in group 1 (my previous post) would NOW tell me "why don't you bugger off with the tribe, then?" and I would sigh at the inane childish mentality of another breadhead whose world only has two colours.
|
|||
Moon Cat 7264 posts |
Feb 04, 2001, 19:36
|
||
|
This makes for very interesting reading and definitley one of the things that keeps me coming back to HH! I should just like to add that you (AQ) seem to be finding yourself at something of an impasse when weighing up human nature...that there is an inherent need for a community of sorts, and once a community is established (whether it be out of spiritual, or basic survival needs) then there will always be those that take advantage of the community and rise to a position of dominance and power. Basically, we will gather together but there's always gonna be some fucker... Its difficult, but I guess by way of consolation you could say that HH is made up of (sometimes very) disparate individuals yet we gather as a kind of electronic community, to share...whether it be lifestyle info, ideas, theories or even just plain daft jokes. So I think the community ideal is still inherent, just with the nature of communication et al, certainly in our world, takin on a different form. For myself I am a fairly solitary person but at least feel there is a "tribe" here I belong to, even if I dont always agree with what the members are saying. I'm sure this opens HH and its correspondents to accusations of a kind of Liberal elite pontificating about the Issues of the day. Well, I;d say...be that as it may...but ideas get swapped, info gathered and opinions formed and sometimes changed. I dont see that as a problem....I see that as a start. Bless
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 856 posts |
Feb 06, 2001, 14:19
|
||
|
nice one, but I see it in a different way, a small community is self-regulatory in that it gets rid of those who want to take advantage. It is very easy in a small group to know who is a fucker, the fucker will know he or she is a pain in the arse and will always be kicked in the arse by the rest. Tribal communities function as family-based units and so do modern communities with similar interests working for a common goal so I cannot see room for someone trying to take control of the group. And everyone knows if you want to enrich yourself you have to co-operate so you struggle to find common ground. However, it is perfectly possible for what you call the 'fucker' to be anonymous when integrated in a big soulless system like the modern state, with its bureaucratic and technocratic obstacles, etc This in the end spawns abuse and corruption in many cases eg big organisations like the EU or multinaggionals like Monsanto and its GM appropriation of the staple foods of the world, and even a 'fucker' may come to power via democratic election, eg adolf hit-ler and take hold of a nation with a highly-organised machine of control. But what I wonder is - if we all function as small groups we can auto-regulate ourselves with no need for regulation (which is denominated 'anarchy') so anarchism might only be possible in an ultimately non-political situation...?
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page