Self Liberation & The Unhewn Stone pt1

BackAlleyRadio · #1 11-11-2009

"Don't confuse self-liberation with communal liberation."
-admonition by Nekeisha during the Gathering Around the Unhewn Stone

I quoted the above statement because it stuck in my mind, prodding and probing me think about it after the gathering. It wouldn't let me go. Throughout the event, several similar comments were made that hit me in the same manner as this one. For me and for many, the gathering started us on a good process of healing that we will need to endure to move forward in this movement, yet I think a lot has gone unsaid. That is why I am writing this.

What brings people to a gathering about Anarcho-Primitivism and radical Christianity? There is definitely a specific demographic of people, and though we may all come from differing regions, have different interests, and come from different backgrounds, I think we all share a common disillusionment. We are all fucked up. Anarchists are people who have the gall to critique society from it's roots, and often coming to this critique is a result of either personal experience of the inherent inequality of the system, or a hard personal process of detachment from the destructive pathologies rooted in society. The anti-civiliization critique involves an even deeper process of disillusionment and detachment. And it complicates things even further when the people coming to these ideas are coming from a religious system that has pillaged and colonized the world and has been waging a battle of cultural warfare on the home front. Many of us are at a point in our lives where we are rebelling against and recovering from the religious abuse of conservative evangelical movements and the constant bullshit of modern society.

Over the course of the weekend, I heard several people talk negatively about the general appearance of Christian anarchists- tattoos, dreads, unwashed, homemade clothes. There was a lot of talk about how some don't feel like they fit in. I even heard a comment or two about how these types are pretentious. This is a personal issue for me for two reasons. First of all, I am too often the one being judged. I have tattoos, smelly clothes and stinky armpits. But I am also really shy. When people look at me they see someone who is sure of themselves, someone who has been through a lot and perhaps someone who knows what they want. So when they see me being quiet and reserved, they think I must be stuck-up. I can't tell you how many times I have been through this. The second reason that this is personal is that I have been the one has perpetuated the judgment, and I have gone through a sobering process that has led me to recognize this tendancy within myself. As someone who is shy, it is incredibly difficult for me to talk to new people. When I travel, or go to gatherings like this, I have to really force myself to talk to people. When I see people that look like they have it all together, I am extra-hesitant to talk to them, thinking that they must not want to interact with me. Yet nearly every time I push through my fear and open up to someone, I find that my assumptions are false and I that they are actually really nice. At this gathering in particular I found everyone I talked with to be extraordinarily welcoming.

Why do we make assumptions about people? I have noticed that for me it is a matter of projecting my fears on others. I am afraid that someone won't like me, so I make up things about them to justify my insecurities- they are too cool for me, they don't like people who don't listen to folk, I don't know enough about John Zerzan to uphold a conversation, etc, etc. I say these things because I don't want us to be afraid of each other or make assumptions short of conversations. I just want to bring this up so that we can think about how we interact with each other and form good community. I don't think anyone was talking down on people with tattoos or people without, I just noticed a hesitancy of interaction that I wanted to address.

People with tattoos are often seen as people who have it all together, but I don't understand where such a perception comes from. In my experience, and speaking for myself, people with tattoos are generally really fucked up. They are working through deep issues in themselves and are jaded enough to write their stories of dissalutionment in ink and blood for the world to see. Of course this is a stereotype too, but it is often true. Yet that brings us back to the point of this writing. We all have so much to do to liberate ourselves personally. For a movement to be healthy it needs to provide space for this kind of personal liberation. We can't confuse personal liberation with communal, but we have to recognize that without space for personal liberation, our attempts at communal liberation with be ill-informed and half-assed. And any attempts at personal liberation without recognizing the systematic oppression we are all in and how our personal decisions effect the larger community, is just blind. So many problems in life seem to stem from misunderstanding. Let's not judge each other and make assumptions. We have to realize that we all have issues to work through, all of us. There is no one who has it all together, not one. (Isn't that a bible verse?) So many people are hiding behind masks of confidence, when in reality they question themselves everyday and live with constantly low self-esteem. Don't forget that over-confidence on an external level is often a sure sign low-confidence on an internal level. So let's make room for each other to work through our issues, without making assumptions about people.

(part 2 is the next thread)

BackAlleyRadio · #2 11-11-2009

(sorry this was so long...)

I am so thankful that the gathering ended with a panel discussion between the elders (Ched Myers and friends) and the youth (organizers of the event). That was a particularly helpful time for me as I took in the advice that Ched and the others offered. Ched spoke of the reality that we all come from a post-modern (or hyper-modern) culture that is super fragmented. The conference began by Ched asking everyone where they are from. He said that he would have asked us which religious traditions we come from, but that we would all have inevitably answered in the negative... I was raised _____, but then... I went to a _____ church for a while, but ..., etc, etc. I laughed, but then was hit by how true it is. I would have absolutely answered by saying that I grew up in a fundamentalist church, but have been hanging out with Mennonites, Episcopals and UCC folks for the last few years. This fragmentation was felt as I had several deep conversations with friends about how we feel as if we have no roots, no heritage, no ancestral community. In fact I would say that this was a theme of the gathering. I think a ton of us are attracted to these ideas because of the emphasis on recovering tribal ways and lost cultural identities. We feel so disconnected, tribeless, wayfaring strangers. This is the American predicament. So many feel it, but it runs even deeper when you are aware of it, and you know you can't do anything about it.

The last word was given by Jay Beck. His response to the wisdom of the elders was one of caution. Just as the elders encouraged us youth to be patient in our response and mindful in our reaction to the psychosis of civilization, Jay encouraged the elders to not dismiss our reactionary tendencies as illegitimate responses to our trauma. "When we come to learn from you, don't tell us to calm down. We are angry." I was really encouraged that this was said. It's not healthy to suppress feelings. We can't pretend that everything is okay. We can't pretend that we will find some sort of inner peace to numb the pain of societal problems. Maybe it is the prophetic vocation of youth to be angry and so reveal the otherwise accepted neurosis of society. Maybe when we get older we will calm down, start listening to jazz and become sedentary both geographically and internally. But maybe not. Really. Maybe not. As Andy Lewis mentioned during the panel discussion, much of our rage as a generation stems from the failure of our parents generation. The 'revolution' of the sixties and seventies was halted by it's focus on, well to put it bluntly, peace. The new-age focus on inner-peace and tranquility, the self-indulgence of sedating drugs and free-love, anything to liberate oneself from the problems of society by indulging in vices that ease the inner turmoil and kill any sense of responsibility. Make yourself believe that everything is okay when it is not. Make love, not war. Peace is the answer, what was the question? Hippies quickly became yuppies as their self-indulgence transformed from marijuana and sex to shopping malls and SUV's. This is what we are rebelling against! We are caught in the wake of a preceding generation that had the chance to really change things and yet dropped the ball, leaving us to deal with both the problems of a post-war society and a failed attempt at revolution. It's no surprise that the punk rock and straight-edge movement began directly after this, undoubtedly in direct response to this. No drugs, no alcohol, no promiscuous sex, just unhindered, untamed rage. In terms of the Anarcho-Primitivist critique, our generation is also rebelling against a failed promise. Chellis Glendinning brilliantly puts the rage of our generation in historical context:

"If God died at the turn of the twentieth century, the hero seems to be dying at the turn of the twenty-first, and in it's place the up-against-the-wall, deluged-by-unsolvable-problems nature of our situation is revealed. We find a growing sense, confirmed by actual developments, that there is no future in an age of mass society, multinational takeover, military dominance, unrelenting development, and ecological disaster."

We're fucked and we feel it. Maybe we just don't have the foresight to see the bright days ahead, or perhaps we have the unwelcomed and dreadful insight that there are no bright days ahead to see. The proper, healthy response to this predicament is rage. So much of the work of this movement (from Zerzan to Glendinning to Jensen) is an attempt to break apart the illusion and to help us see that in a world so messed up, there is a proper psychological response and an improper one and that most of society is exhibiting the latter.

We all have so much to work through. There is so much going on inside of us. We are disconnected, fragmented, without vision, and as the bible tells us, without vision we will surely die. We have so much self-liberating to do. The question is, what is self-liberation? Surely the self-indulgence of the sixties and seventies is not self-liberation. Focusing on your own problems at the expense of other people is not self-liberation. But is putting your genealogy back together piece by piece to re-discover your roots self-liberation? Or what about throwing a brick through the window of a bank just because you know that for once you won't get caught, or what about pulling out of a mass action because you are traumatized too much still from the last one. Is that self-liberation? What about taking 40 days and 40 nights to re-connect with the wild and with yourself? These are the kinds of questions worth asking. I think what this movement needs more than anything is a clear sense of what healthy self-liberation is. The problem of civilization is a psychological one inasmuch as it is a social, political or economic one. Liberating ourselves from the taming whip of the master in the first step to rediscovering the wildness within. It doesn't stop here, but perhaps it does begins here. It cannot stop here. That's when self-liberation becomes a joke and the larger community is forsaken. Oppression affects us all personally, but it is also undeniably systematic.

These are some thoughts that have been with me since I left Philly. I'm glad that I have finally taken the time to write them down, and I am hoping that my doing so will spark some conversation. I am so appreciative of the sense of community I feel in this group, even if our gatherings are few and far between. I'm hoping that the conversations we started in Philly will fall on fertile ground and go to seed. Thanks for hearing me out.

Jeremy · #3 11-11-2009

Hey BAR,

I just wanted you to know that I've read your thoughts here and I really appreciate the vulnerability that you've exposed. Thanks for being so brave, brother. Thanks also for encouraging me and others to ask ourselves some of these very important questions that have been with you.

At the moment I have to go do something, so I can't do your post much justice other than letting you know that it's hit me pretty deeply.

rdhudgens · #4 11-12-2009

This is a great and not too long reflection that I really appreciate. You bring up some incisive points. I also thought the Unhewn Stone conf was powerful. I wouldn't understand Nekeisha's comment as prioritizing communal over self-liberation, or negating the need for self-liberation. It's simply that they do need to be distinguished. They work together and feed each other I think. On the point about rage I would want to add the need for lamentation as well, which might be understood as turning our rage towards God (not at God necessarily although that has it's place too I think). Finally, the Apostle Paul wrote (roughly translated) "Jesus came into the world to save those of us who are fucked up - and I am as fucked as anybody" (1 Tim 1:15). Pax.

nabsy · #5 11-13-2009

Wow...I don't really know what to say here. I am glad the words that I said stuck and helped to provoke such deep reflection during what was a really transforming and important event for many of us who attended it seems. You've got a lot to chew on in your posts BackAlley but I just wanted to chirp in and say that I don't see self-liberation and communal liberation as exclusive to one another. What I was trying to get at was that many of us in these kinds of movement don't understand that the are two different albeit co-dependent things.

It's hard to really type out what I am thinking without it sounding like gibberish. But what I sense is that there are a significant number of people in these radical movements--especially some of the most radical like anarchism or anarcho-primitivism--that stop at the point of self liberation (or perhaps even the illusion of self-liberation). They/we think that because we've bucked the system in some way (whether that is in the way we visually represent ourselves, or because we don't live in a house anymore, or because we don't work, or because we hop trains) they've/we've escaped and this bucking of the system is enough. This is most clear to me in issues of race and gender, probably because I am a black woman and those realities are most primary for me. To put it in a concrete way, it is awesome that people can find their own food from the forest or build straw-bale houses with their bare hands, but if you don't have the slightest clue about racial/gender privilege and oppression and aren't doing anything in your own circles to confront it how are those activities liberative for anyone else but yourself? Again this is not to say that those activities aren't important. Shit they are crucial. But Jesus didn't go to the wilderness simply to refresh his body and soul and mind. The refreshing of his mind and body and soul and identifying of his ministry was for the express purposes of liberating the captive. Said differently, his personal liberation served the purpose of communal liberation. It wasn't enough for him to know he was the Son of God, he had to go call others and let them know their true identity in God's eyes. It wasn't enough for him to overcome temptation. He had to go out there and teach others and model for others and sometimes learn from others about doing the same. His wilderness experience was in service of saving/redeeming/liberating the oppressed people around him. He didn't have one without the other.

My note about locks and tattoos (of which I have both) wasn't to say those are bad in and of themselves. It was just to say that people are sadly mistaken if they think that because they've visually differentiated themselves from "the man" or "the system" the work stops there or worse yet that they are somehow not a part of the system anymore. That strikes me as being a shallow understanding of systemic oppression and injustice and a shallow understanding of how white/male/heterozexual privilege functions and unfortunately I do think this ignorance is present in this movement a lot more than we think. That is why I was Ched reality checked everyone about "the collapse," which is a term people kept using as if it was something that was going to happen out there that we would be spared from because we're so liberated and so against the system. I don't know about you but I could feel the disappointment? the tension? I don't know what exactly when Ched stated point blank that civilization probably isn't going to end our lifetime. And you could also feel the thickness in the air when he said people ought not act like when the end comes that we are immune somehow as if civilization is going to collapse around them/us and because we've got this skill or that skill we're somehow going to get the anarcho-primitivist version of raptured out of it. Civilization ending is necessary but it is going to suck ass. It's going to kill a lot of people and most of those people are going to be poor people of color in the global south. Which is why my personal individual self-liberation is nothing more than a selfish-liberation if it doesn't extend out into work for communal liberation and care for the other who is also trapped.

Anyway that's all I got for now...I hope this makes sense. I kinda feel like I am ranting... : )

jaredh · #6 11-13-2009

a lot of good thoughts here.

counter-cultural fashion is not revolutionary. that said, in a world so dominated and dominating through images and self-image it seems completely appropriate for a retooling of our own sense of self including our dress as part of rejection/resistance.

a lot of us were involved in the punk scene or whatever scene way before christianity, anarchism or primitivism were anywhere near our radar...so there's some spill-over there that makes sense to me...that people of subcultural backgrounds would end up in our circles makes a lot of sense. some us us just bring our punk uniforms to bear here...sorry.

self-liberation and communal liberation are not just interconnected...they are the same. or they are so interconnected that where one stops and one starts cannot be discerned.

nekeisha, your take on Jesus wilderness experience is very evangelical and leaves us with a spiritually utilitarian view of nature that i can't agree with.

there are a lot of opinions about the collapse, but i don't see the poor brown global south getting the brunt of it as long as it happens before they are as industrialized and market dependent as we. i think industrialized areas will be the worst off...of course we're all fucked.

i don't think we have done the work yet of looking at how a primtivist critique reframes our discussions of things like gender, class, racism, etc. we are a bunch of slaves wanting to be free but getting mad if someone does their damndest to get off the plantation because the rest of us are still there. i think there is a living example that is organic and dynamic as folks live out rewilding non-programatically and non-evangelically that has power.

BackAlleyRadio · #7 11-14-2009

Nekeisha,

I didn't mean at all to suggest that you were talking down on self-liberation or people with tattoos. I agree with everything you said, at the gathering and just now in your reply, everything : ) Your comment hit me hard in a really good way and provoked a bunch of internal thinking, which is what I shared. I think the main thing that caused me to post that is the amount of conversations I had with people that said that they felt uncomfortable and unwelcomed, specifically because they didn't feel like they fit in with all the 'punk' types.
I probably shouldn't have said there is bickering going on, that's a little exaggerated actually. I felt very welcomed, as usual, within this group.

Shoot, after reading what I wrote, I realized that a lot of my language was much more confrontational sounding then I meant it to be. I hope no one feels like I was talking specifically about anyone. I was talking very generally and have a tendency to exagerate things. Thats the problem with the internet : /

But ya, I really appreciated your comments at the gathering nekeisha... I have been on a path of (exclusively) self-liberation for the last year, traveling, hitching, really working through things within myself. Yet recently I have been feeling very selfish, like I am focusing too much on myself and not doing anything concrete for the wider good. I've had some hard-hitting discussions about this with my housemates in chicago and they helped me realize that I have been too internally focused as of late. So when you said what you did about not thinking that attempts at self liberation are doing anything to oversome systematic oppression, it hit me hard and I really needed to hear it. So thanks! : )

KillerTOFU · #8 11-17-2009

Quote:

Maybe when we get older we will calm down, start listening to jazz and become sedentary both geographically and internally

I just want to make a quick comment on this since I have met you and feel like I hear where you are coming from. I think that as a parent I will be sedentary for now. I think that there is nothing wrong with that nor is there anything inherently unradical or that you somehow no longer have any anger or rage about things. I think there is too much romanticism and privilige in the train hopping traveling kid culture. Not to say that it is inherently bad, but I think it really needs to be looked at that people who do that are often priviliged.

I liked a lot of your comments as well though so not to bash on you too much

Hope to see you soon.

nabsy · #9 11-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Himstedt

a lot of good thoughts here.

counter-cultural fashion is not revolutionary. that said, in a world so dominated and dominating through images and self-image it seems completely appropriate for a retooling of our own sense of self including our dress as part of rejection/resistance.

Hey Jared I see you point and agree with it. This is essentially what I was trying to get at it in both my comment at the gathering and in my comments on here, though reading them over, I am not sure that came across. I don't think however we can underestimate how widespread the idea is that counter-cultural fashion in and of itself is revolutionary though. Because we live in a world that is dominated by images, it is easy enough to fall into the trap of thinking that image in and of itself is all that is needed so that because I don't look revolutionary I am not really revolutionary, or vice versa. I guess it might help to give an example of what I am thinking. A few years back at the conference in Champaign we had a decent sized crew of traveling kids who were very punked out and had changed their names. And yet these very same radical-looking young people who were very nice don't get me wrong, could not tolerate discussion on homosexuality or the suggestion that some people who didn't identify as Christian could be saved, and they were annoyed that we didn't say the word Jesus more. It got to the point where they audibly commented and hissed under their breaths during people's presentations. Now perhaps that is just a sign of immaturity I don't know. But I remember it being a bit of a mind job for me that these young people could be so closeminded (I'm not saying they had to agree, just saying how closed they were to very discussion of some things) even though they "looked the part" of the rebel. I am not against retooling of ones images. All of us do that every day--it is the nature of forming ones identity to do so visually, regardless of whether we are punk or not. But again we are mistaken if we think that because we look the part we are doing our part. That is what I was getting at with the self/communal liberation distinction. These kids surely felt and looked like they weren't part of the system, but what other work beyond that was being done?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Himstedt

a lot of us were involved in the punk scene or whatever scene way before christianity, anarchism or primitivism were anywhere near our radar...so there's some spill-over there that makes sense to me...that people of subcultural backgrounds would end up in our circles makes a lot of sense. some us us just bring our punk uniforms to bear here...sorry.

This is understandable but no one is asking for an apology...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Himstedt

self-liberation and communal liberation are not just interconnected...they are the same. or they are so interconnected that where one stops and one starts cannot be discerned.

I disagree. I have seen too many instances of people who are striving for their own personal liberation from things they are trapped in and yet have no clue what I am going through as a woman of color in American society and are not contributing to that struggle. I also experience this struggle with myself. I am an anarchist, radical Christian vegan and those things are personally liberating for me and, particularly in the case of anarchism and veganism, they are liberating for nonhuman animals to an extent. But if I sit on the information I have and keep it all to myself and don't seek to share that analysis with others and to be in conversation and mutually respectful work and dialogie with others what am I contributing beyond making myself pure? Again I am making the distinction between liberating the self and communal liberation more than I mean to but I do think there is a difference between what I am advocating, which is that my learning and growing as an anarchist Christian is not just "for my personal growth and well being". It is for that yes, but it is also beyond that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Himstedt

nekeisha, your take on Jesus wilderness experience is very evangelical and leaves us with a spiritually utilitarian view of nature that i can't agree with.

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't think I am being utilitarian and if that is the way I was communicating it, that is not what I was meaning to express.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Himstedt

there are a lot of opinions about the collapse, but i don't see the poor brown global south getting the brunt of it as long as it happens before they are as industrialized and market dependent as we. i think industrialized areas will be the worst off...of course we're all fucked.

My grandma is going to do a lot better in her small plot of land in the Caribbean should the collapse occur in her lifetime but I am accutely aware that daily these and other small nations are increasingly becoming dependent on industrialized societies. This year, despite having lots of land to grow her stuff on, when drought was happening in one part of the world, she couldn't get rice and wheat where she was. If the collapse is not happening any time soon and globalization continues at the rate it is currently, a lot of people are going to be screwed. Not only that but form an environmental perspective the reality is that while industrialized societies are the ones making most of the waste and pollutios, poorer nations are the ones feeling the effects most immediately. I heard Bill McKibbin speak (not a primitivist by any stretch of the imagination) and he gave the example of the situation facing Bangladesh which is already becoming increasingly severe. If the collapse were only tied to peak oil I would agree wholeheartedly. But with the environmental component at play, its the poor folks in the US and around the globe that are already suffering from the effects of industrialized society...effects that we who have class privilege can still pawn off and avoid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Himstedt

i don't think we have done the work yet of looking at how a primtivist critique reframes our discussions of things like gender, class, racism, etc. we are a bunch of slaves wanting to be free but getting mad if someone does their damndest to get off the plantation because the rest of us are still there. i think there is a living example that is organic and dynamic as folks live out rewilding non-programatically and non-evangelically that has power.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in your analogy of slaves on the plantation getting mad at the one who is free. I'm not getting made at anyone for becoming liberated if that is what you mean. In fact, liberating one's mind heart and soul is the first step in any liberative process. But the fact is that many African slaves who escaped from their masters often found ways to turn around and help others off the plantation. That is what I am interested in. I am asking that people not run off and pretend that because they got out that's all there is to it. And that attitude that is present in and unhelpful to this movement.

amandell · #10 11-22-2009

hey BAR
i wasn't at the gathering sadly. But your post interested me.
Part One
I think dress is part of our rebellion. I think it is redemptive. For me the way I mark myself is an oath to be true to what promises I have made and a flag designating sanctuary in a language that my family can read. Its not exclusive because i am not an asshole but certainly as all wonder and power can be mimicked so can honorable markings. So the eyes can't always discern the rebellion from the conformity. i think its also our beauty and our play. Shit, sometimes i can't get Jared out of my mind for weeks after seeing his splendor. (smiling here waco lad)

That said we can abide no astrocism in our gatherings. But how can we beat it when it is the oldest of primate games. From my experience it is best for each species of markings to clean their own house. Of course the fools dressed up crustee in Nekeshia's tale were immature. Innate to their actions is ignorance and immaturity. Interestingly her surprise at the contradiction between markings and actions shows the beauty of the markings when they are honest rather than veiling. The mature members of the band need watch for pretension and exclusion and put it out into the air where it cannot survive. Its our job at out gatherings to do this as much as to find a venue or clearing and invite people. Its needs to be almost a ritual to create a space where this sort of landmine is exposed and rendered harmless or at least tagged for all.

And when we feel shut out of some subset, like you said BAR the living among us need to bite the bullet, open ourselves up in their midst and step into the dmz. I didn't get alot of shit straight over the years but this I think we did well in our gatherings and its not so hard. And maybe from your letter its happening in these gatherings and its all good.
We need our markings, our beauty, our play. Its like the dance in the revolt and Emma was right about that shit. Gotta have the dance. I think its good for people wearing the factory farmed domestic clothes (like the ones I type in now) to feel uncomfortable around the desecration or rejection of the same. But like I confessed...I am biased since the only home i ever found has been among folks who wear these markings and i have been in that sense homeless now for some years and its been hard. I respect Jared's view that their is no revolution in the dress. And of course tons of violent goofs ride the rails in gorgeous splendor covering empty hearts and minds. Maybe its a mark of some shallowness or silliness in me but i in spite of the mimicry I find the markings and beauty of a rebellion to be important and healing. Mostly BAR I just liked your perspective...except the suggestion that its fucked up to be unable to live happily ever after in zombieville. Its not wretching from the toxins....being acclimated and adjusted....thats fucked up.

oh yeah...maybe I am reading the account wrong but....
I think it would be odd if someone still really attached to the system and the failed institutions of a dying world, wearing the weave they need us all to keep buying would criticize any hopeful sign of action and rebellion, no matter how tainted. Not saying Ched Myers did that...but it would suck if he did.
I am not trying to make more of dress and uniform when we got serious issues to face. But was bothering me in the thread. Not sure what....

Porter Doran · #11 11-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandell

... If I am forced dialogue with Paul of Tarsus about gender and power relations in the present shadow of the dying nation state I better be able to talk back ... to openly dismiss even when honor demands it. We know we must try to walk a path without the state and the domination. ...

(I feel that I am interrupting -- please forgive me.)

Both Paul and Peter seemed strongly to teach the value of placating the state, ostentatiously but only when the Gospel would not be crossed thereby. Later, Christendom's church-states seized on this teaching to elevate it to a first principle rather than the counter-point, the counsel-to-prudence that is all it was. In my own rather-facile words, Jesus had said, "You are altogether free"; Paul and Peter later cautioned, "Find ostentatious ways not to be called nihilists." But this relationship between Jesus and them churchmen soon artfully or coercively entirely obfuscated.

They altered the relationship of Jesus's Gospel to Paul and Peter's letters from ( a ) Word of God with philosophical and practical footnotes to ( b ) sentimental history preceding the Real Scriptures. In so doing, they wreaked terrible despite upon the Gospel and the West.

Nowadays, it is unlikely conservatives even realize that the Roman state anciently comprised laws to subjugate women. All history and counterpoint and nuance have for centuries been lost to them, replaced by a meta-Bible founded in these Real Scriptures.

I am almost rambling. But here is something I've written further on the subject (please skip to its third and fourth points) that I hope is lucid:

http://matheton.com/2008/12/22/that-...ot-blasphemed/

amandell · #12 11-22-2009

Why worry what paul meant in those few brief endlessly reworkable sentences? its not like we are without resource or compass bearings in our own selves and surroundings. The weight his comments recieve in the energy we expend on the dialogue seems odd.

amandell · #13 11-23-2009

hey
I was reworking some unclear parts of the post that porter replied to. Like a genius I deleted it and then spent a while rewriting something more helpful and clear. i then lost the whole thing by hitting the back button by mistake after a good hour. late for work and will have to repost later. sorry porter...

amandell · #14 11-23-2009

work delayed by rain...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

I am so thankful that the gathering ended with a panel discussion between the elders (Ched Myers and friends) and the youth (organizers of the event). That was a particularly helpful time for me as I took in the advice that Ched and the others offered. Ched spoke of the reality that we all come from a post-modern (or hyper-modern) culture that is super fragmented. The conference began by Ched asking everyone where they are from. He said that he would have asked us which religious traditions we come from, but that we would all have inevitably answered in the negative... I was raised _____, but then... I went to a _____ church for a while, but ..., etc, etc. I laughed, but then was hit by how true it is. I would have absolutely answered by saying that I grew up in a fundamentalist church, but have been hanging out with Mennonites, Episcopals and UCC folks for the last few years. This fragmentation was felt as I had several deep conversations with friends about how we feel as if we have no roots, no heritage, no ancestral community. In fact I would say that this was a theme of the gathering. I think a ton of us are attracted to these ideas because of the emphasis on recovering tribal ways and lost cultural identities. We feel so disconnected, tribeless, wayfaring strangers. This is the American predicament. So many feel it, but it runs even deeper when you are aware of it, and you know you can't do anything about it.. [original post snipped here].

"If God died at the turn of the twentieth century, the hero seems to be dying at the turn of the twenty-first, and in it's place the up-against-the-wall, deluged-by-unsolvable-problems nature of our situation is revealed. We find a growing sense, confirmed by actual developments, that there is no future in an age of mass society, multinational takeover, military dominance, unrelenting development, and ecological disaster."

I think hope for sanctuary and community may be found in some new species of band society. But i wonder if the fragmentation, the loss as you say of way and root coupled with the inability of some of us to find any ground in text or tradition or orthodoxy makes it very hard to band together unless forced by an emergency survival condition. By that I mean the banding you see in resistance or partisan groups that splinters as soon as the shells stop exploding. What holds a band together in the present atmosphere where gods and heros are dead? what can really be recovered and how do we begin when the atomization of our lives and perspectives can be glossed over for a short period only to surface and disperse the band?

I had some thoughts on the elders/youth dialogue but retracted them til its possible to hear a audio of the conference. Is that part available? i also said some rant about texts and church fathers that porter doran was kind enough to respond to. Its a talk i wanna have but I think I was distracting things from what BAR was saying.....sorry

amandell · #15 11-23-2009

Jared wrote

"i don't think we have done the work yet of looking at how a primtivist critique reframes our discussions of things like gender, class, racism, etc. we are a bunch of slaves wanting to be free but getting mad if someone does their damndest to get off the plantation because the rest of us are still there. i think there is a living example that is organic and dynamic as folks live out rewilding non-programatically and non-evangelically that has power. "

and Nabsy replied

"I'm not entirely sure what you mean in your analogy of slaves on the plantation getting mad at the one who is free. I'm not getting made at anyone for becoming liberated if that is what you mean. In fact, liberating one's mind heart and soul is the first step in any liberative process. But the fact is that many African slaves who escaped from their masters often found ways to turn around and help others off the plantation. That is what I am interested in. I am asking that people not run off and pretend that because they got out that's all there is to it. And that attitude that is present in and unhelpful to this movement."

And I am wondering.....

this slavery has no plantation to return to...no easy boundaries...its inside us and in between our relations as well as in our techniques and cities. Isn't the most liberating action to form an opening or a dilution of the oppression by doing exactly what jared is saying....living an example non-programatically with some measure of success? Until you find a way that has some hope of cohesiveness and continuity what more is there to do? That is all there is to it at that point...or do I misunderstand Nekeshia?

Andy Alexis-Baker · #16 11-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandell

the inability of some of us to find any ground in text or tradition or orthodoxy makes it very hard to band together unless forced by an emergency survival condition.

What tradition and orthodoxy would make it hard to "band together"? Until the Enlightenment with its concomitant political structures, people lived in much tighter knit communities than is possible today when we think of ourselves as autonomous individuals (don't tell me what to do) whose freedom is constantly under threat by the other.

The only "tradition" that really makes it hard to live in a banded together way is modern liberalism. Epistemologically it takes a radical shift, politically it takes a break, sociologically it takes more than "self" liberation in that the self is a creation of the modern world [a la Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989)].

jaredh · #17 11-23-2009

nabster,

i think we're saying a lot of the same things in different ways. i think we do call alot of things liberatory that are not. image is the easiest thing to change. i know the kind of seeming-counter cultural kids that are anything but.

i do think you still draw too hard a line between what frees the individual and what frees the community. not to mention we are not defining community here. part of my individual liberation is letting it become communal and vice-versa. i don't think a lot of us are sitting around with our mouths shut. most of us never shut up.

i believe the primitivist critique has to throw our ways of understanding gender/class/race issues on it's head. we are using a new critique and still using old paradigms of justice, liberation, etc. personal purity is not the same as personal liberation. i'l run the risk of sounding like a christian herre, but it is for freedom that we are set free. then who knows what we;ll be capable of. i don't see freedom as utilitarian either.

Wilderness doesn't exist for us to retreat to and gather our thoughts and have visions so we can go back into the city. it can help us do these things, but it doesn't exist for that.

i agree with your analysis of collapse. i don't think it's about oil only. the less industrialized nations are receiving a lot of the pollutants, but i wouldn't say that the overall effects of civ. are being dumped on the poor global. i don't think we of priviledge are avoiding the effects of it at all.

i am interested in folks finding ways to help others get free. but i am not going to throw stones at folks who are trying to get out first. what does anyone have to offer if none of us go get free? what are we inviting people into? it seems that right now we can and are only inviting people to dialogue.

andrew, good to see your words.

i don't know a better place to work through our internalized/colonized shit than in a materially/physically changed situation. it seems that beginning twith the tangible and practical liberation (in regard to civ.) that we can set up a much more free situation to continue to do surgery and remove the remnants we carry with us. we must not be naive and think that the work is done when we get out, but damn, it seems much easier to work those things out in a freer place than where most of us are now. not only that, but we don't wanna spiritualize the whole thing. it is about heart an spirit, but it is about the world and my body. and the land. our bodies and our moments lived.

glad we're talking.

amandell · #18 11-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Alexis-Baker

What tradition and orthodoxy would make it hard to "band together"? Until the Enlightenment with its concomitant political structures, people lived in much tighter knit communities than is possible today when we think of ourselves as autonomous individuals (don't tell me what to do) whose freedom is constantly under threat by the other.

The only "tradition" that really makes it hard to live in a banded together way is modern liberalism. Epistemologically it takes a radical shift, politically it takes a break, sociologically it takes more than "self" liberation in that the self is a creation of the modern world [a la Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989)].

I think you miss me. I am saying some of us lack the ability to play nice with tradition and orthodoxies. Honesty of heart and mind find too much rot in them to pretend. There is radical break here with the past this lack of foundation is the problem. Its not about autonomy getting in the way but bands need a stay together story to stabilize enough horizontally or an iron banding for sheer survival. Whether or not the self is "just" a creation of the modern world remains a question for me. Though maybe your reading has given you a more strit definition of the self. feel free to elaborate or not on that point.
I found in community teh strength and weakness was the mitigation of the relationships based on the Faith. Adjusting one relationship to the Faith resulting in a movement either towards or away from the banding experience. Just one commune...not end all of experience but the source of what I believe to be many valid sociological observations in my life that likely would bear on any band or group to some extent.

Porter Doran · #19 11-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandell

Why worry what paul meant in those few brief endlessly reworkable sentences? its not like we are without resource or compass bearings in our own selves and surroundings. The weight his comments recieve in the energy we expend on the dialogue seems odd.

It's a matter of wrestling with Christendom and the Christian and Western past. Paul's been used (I would aver abused) in certain ways by church and state for centuries. Can we -- I do not mean, Should we or, Will we -- I mean, Is it psychologically at all possible for us to -- ignore the world outside and inside us as we build our new world? We are probably too complex creatures for that. We must wrestle until we can ignore.

[Edited to add:] And to some of us Paul seems a man full of the spirit of Jesus. We, at sea, wish to learn anything we can from Jesus -- in his own words, in Paul and Peter and John, and in our hearts. We could no more ignore one of these potential sources than a desperate sailor could ignore any star or a desperate lover any memento from his desire.

amandell · #20 11-23-2009

hey porter
no argument on your conclusion based on your professed ability to find your love and the sea in Paul....for me its not like that...the ripples of a life lived and suffered and fought that I feel in the gospel stories i don't find at all in the epistles....there a blank for me unless i import the ripples from elsewhere and conjure them into the epistles. I am just weary of that game but i respect your different take

Porter Doran · #21 11-23-2009

Friend, that isn't really what I said, is it?

amandell · #22 11-23-2009

you lost me....explain
I meant in the post that you find something of spirit in paul....I don't

however the place that this has in this thread at least for my interest regards how such differences as these between you and I are found across the spectrum of "christian anarchoprimitive whatever the hell we are or aren't" I am wondering how that affects any potential banding together...maybe it doesn't, maybe its terminal
you do well to use the word friend...i have no problem with your views...they are well thought out and nuanced...just not my own
peace

BackAlleyRadio · #23 12-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandell

hey porter
no argument on your conclusion based on your professed ability to find your love and the sea in Paul....for me its not like that...the ripples of a life lived and suffered and fought that I feel in the gospel stories i don't find at all in the epistles....there a blank for me unless i import the ripples from elsewhere and conjure them into the epistles. I am just weary of that game but i respect your different take

Well said. I feel that tension as well. Interpreting the epistles is like a dance, trying to make positive what one thinks is not. Though dancing is fun for a while it gets tiring.

Mark Fish · #24 12-29-2009

may I butt in? ok I will:

In the 60's I tugged at my hair to hasten its growth. Long hair was a flag, a freak flag that meant you were not bound by the necessity to have a job, to be in school (I was permanently suspended in 1969 from high school for long hair), or family obligations. Long hair meant you were free to express your disdain for society and rejoice in your natural beauty. At that time only the really hip had really long hair and everyone else tried to grow it as long as their respective restrictive environments allowed. Then in the 70's, society let up on it's hair restrictions - high school jocks had long hair and let it fly in the wind as they drove their Corvette Stingrays. Long hair was no longer a sign of the truly hip and liberated. There were long haired racists and even John Lennon cut his hair!! There were long haired hippy freaks at the the grateful dead concert who were later seen driving home to their suburban lives in late model Volvos - are they hip? They looked hip at the concert?! Army recuiter posters showed guys with flowing locks but then John lennon cut his hair!!! (did I say that already?)

I finally cut my hair in 72, got my GED and went to college (only to grow it again in the 80's and then to cut it again in 2000). Style is fickle but appearance should follow your true circumstances and what is in the heart (true hippness) and sometimes we get it turned around. Sometimes we only wish to appear hip without actually being there. I mean, at least, we fly the flag if only in solidarity with those who are indeed hip. Today if my graying locks should appear rather longish its only because Josie (my lovable wife) just doesnt feel like cutting it. If only I would allow her to cut off my long gray beard (my only remaining signifier to the world aside frrom my Salvation Army clothes) she would not hesitate one second to whack that puppy clean off.

While the intentional community of Homewoods was still going it was populated almost soley by gutter punks, rail kids, and dreadlocked crusties with tattoos galore; some had long hair some real short but they all were real hip; some in different ways than others but all real hip in a real way. We often disccussed our respecctive journeys toward the Ideal and how far along some seemed to be compared to others. One guy from the city came down to visit and ridiculed us for having plastic buckets. Another visitor accused us of being too dependent on trucks and cars while he biked and bussed around the city. Many people came through Homewoods with a critique that was not flattering whether voiced or not. But thats ok, we were trying something and we felt good about it, mostly - even if it was just a giggle to ourselves in the night as we turned in just knowing that we were living on nothing, spending nothing, paying nothing to the man, living for free and off the grid of the system 9for the most part).

Tattoos or no tattoos, dreadlocks or not, if it is a foot race toward the Ideal that we are on, I hope I come in last place to meet you all there.

BackAlleyRadio · #25 12-30-2009

Thanks Mark, that was a good little antedote : )