Derrick Jensen Excerpts/philosophy

(OurCultureOurCapitol: perhaps not relevant- I just want it
in the archives)

Here's something I started typing in last Thursday, and then
added to.

sent to:
http://yoism.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/derrickjensen_discussion/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ishmael_discussion/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OurCultureOurCapitol/

(Note I decided not to apply to the internship)

Hello,
For an internship at
http://www.thedesertshaman.org/
I'm answering the question:
4.	Please give us a brief (100-150 words) personal
statement of your spiritual beliefs and how they do, or do
not, influence your care and concern for the Planet

I was reminded I had thought of emailing you all a bit from
Derrick Jensen's _The Culture of Make Believe_:

p190
Diamond wrote about morality in a civilized world: "Our
moral syntax has no predicate. Hence we speak of doing
*good*, good for its own sake, or *evil*. We convert each to
a pure substantive, beyond experience, abstract. That is
what [anthropologist] Paul Radin meant when he observed that
the subject (or object) to which love, remorse, sorrow, may
be directed is regarded as secondary in our civilization.
All have the rank of virtues as such: They are
manifestations of God's if not of Man's way. But among
primitives ... the converse holds. Morality *is* behavior,
values are not detached, not substantives; the good, the
true, the beautiful or rather, the ideas of these things, do
not exist. Therefore, one does not fall *in* love, one loves
another; and that is an intricately learned experience, as
hate, in a certain sense, also is."

---
I shall not be vague (Orion :) ), this is meant to lend
support to my view that *Truth* need not be addressed in the
Book of Yo (except perhaps to say why it need not be
addressed).

Here's some more from that same book (the reading of which I
found to feel like a shotgun blast to the head which
(miraculously) left me conscious. I'm not sure if that is
due to my lack of self-control in reading the book (i.e., a
lot, all at once), or the content, or the combination of
both.): pp 601-603

This book began as an exploration of hate in the Western
world, and it ends, really, with the end of life on the
planet. The problem, as near as I can see it, is the valuing
of the abstract over the particular: of production over
life; of economic (and other) systems over living beings, be
they humans, or rivers, or polar bears; of our
preconceptions of what niggers or Chinese or Irish dogs are
supposed to be, instead of this black man, this Chinese
woman, this Irish man, complete with his or her own cultural
and personal histories, with desires and hopes and fears; of
photographs of women over the women themselves, of the
bodies of women over their whole beings, bodies and minds
and hearts and sorrows and joys; of truncated conceptions of
our own capacities, based on what we have benn allowed to
express over who we really are. The problem is, simply, that
of seeing ourselves and others as instruments to be used,
instead of people to be enjoyed in relationship.

What I propose as a "solution" to this problem of the
ascendency of abstraction is a return to the particular. I
support an anti-system to promote a falling in love [hmm...
an abstraction in the service of particularization? I guess
the whole book and the language therein can be described
that way.] with the particular. To love this particular
tree, this particular person, this glint o sunlight of this
dragonfly wing, and, insofar as is possible, to perceive
each of those around us as subjects. This is not a simple
plea for us to all just get along. I'm not suggesting we
replace abstract hate with a love just as abstract. That's
pointless, absurd, meaningless, and, in the end, impossible.
I am not an abstract being. I have fingers, flesh, bones. I
love this person. I do not love that person. Nor am I
suggesting we simply step away from violence. I'm suggesting
that there is a difference--all the difference in the world,
really--between real fights between real people--even when
real blood is spilled--and killings based on preconceptions.
What I'm suggesting is a return to our humanity.

If we are to do that, the first thing we must do is see the
inhumanity of our current system for what it is, and we must
speak about it. If the first rule of a dysfunctional family
or society is *Don't*, the first rule of a functioning
society is *Do*. Talk about it. Speak out, like Ham, Noah's
curses be damned.

Of course, it's not so easy. It's all very fine for me to
say how much joy it brings me to listen to birdsong, but my
enjoyment, or anyone else's, is irrelevant to the suffering
of others, to the degree that it does not compel me to shut
down the source of the other's misery. Having fallen in love
with our own lives, and the loves of those around us--even
our honored enemies (though not McNamara and his likes who,
by their actions, show themselves to be willing to
exploit)--the next step is to get rid of our whole inhumane
system, to quit valuing production over life, and to
physically stop those who do. The next step is to bring down
that which originated in conquest abroad and repression at
home. The next step is a planet liberated from destruction;
the next step is the end of civilization.

*Get rid of civilization?* I can hear you say. *That's your
solution?* the hatred that characterizes so much of our
system--the hatred I've described and analyzed in this
book--is not the product of biology. People are not
fundamentally hateful. Our hate is not a result of several
billion years of natural selection. It's a result of the
framing conditions under which each of us was raised. It's a
result of the unquestioned assumptions that inform us. If we
want to stop the hate, we need to get rid of the framing
conditions. Until we do that, we're bound to fail. So, yes,
that is precisely my solution, we need to get rid of
civilization.

Maybe that seems absurd to you. It doesn't to me. It just
seems like a lot of work, done by a lot of people in a lot
of places in a lot of different ways. But I'll tell you
something that does seem absurd to me: the possibility of
allowing this inhumane system to continue.

        *            *           *

How do we bring down civilization? I cannot tell you. There
are as many ways as there are people. The answers are
particular, growing from particular people in particular
circumstances in particular places. But I know that the
first and perhaps most important step is to see civilization
for what it is, to take into our bodies the enormity of what
it has already cost us, and to learn that this realization
did not kill us, thath we are stronger than the pain,
stronger, even, than this long and awful history of
exploitation. Having realized that, we will now be ready for
the technical task of dismantling all that we, as a culture,
have become. And though they--the ones who still gain their
identity from the system--may hate us all and try, like
Noah, to curse and enslave us, they will never be able to
succeed entirely, because, beneath it all, our humanity runs
far deeper than any socialization. We must never forget
that.

---------------

I typed that in mostly to get me to pay closer attention to
it.


Here's the response I wrote: (Note I decided not to apply,
and instead to look for farm work)


4.	Please give us a brief (100-150 words) personal
statement of your spiritual beliefs and how they do, or do
not, influence your care and concern for the Planet.

My spiritual beliefs can be summed up by the following, from
( http://sacredlands.org/enemyofthestate_zerzan.htm ). It
has been said that the Mbuti of southern Africa believe that
"by a correct fulfillment of the present, the past and the
future will take care of themselves." My approach to life is
also expressed by the term I have given to what I do:
experienceart, which is art where one's medium is one's
experience. Philosophically, this can be understood by
placing the individual human in the context of billions of
years of evolution. While the job of the tree is to do what
a tree does best (
http://www.aristotle.net/~diogenes/worthles.htm ), my job
here is to do what I do best. And that is to evaluate and
create opportunities to have the kind of experience I most
want to have, and to support others in doing the same. Most
recently, I have been struck by John Zerzan's _Future
Primitive_ ( http://www.eco-action.org/dt/futureprim.html ),
even though it fits in perfectly to Ken Wilber's "pre/trans
fallacy" concept.

The hypothesis I am now testing is that I will be more
joyful in life if I develop the relationships that will
allow me to live less destructively. I have long lived
without using a car, even while living in a country built
for the car. In the past I have tried gardening, and gone on
long outdoor trips. But only now am I making it a primary
goal to personally grow, gather, or hunt what will allow me
to live (within the context of considering what is best for
the "group of all things").

I do not think people can have quality relationships with
themselves, each other, or existence, as long as they are
living in an extravagantly destructive way. I would like to
believe that anyone who listens to her billion-year-old-self
will choose to withdraw from driving a car/eating pesticide
food/using a computer, even if all those around her are
doing such things. But it is difficult to reject a way of
living if one has no awareness of alternatives.

-------------



Colin
http://j9k.org


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/.DlolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/