Submitted by lilanarchist on Sat, 07/24/2010 - 15:54.
All creatures, plants, all other life forms seem to live by it. Somehow man feels like he is exempt. I guess the best way I can come to explaining this is to give a few examples. Human seems to eradicate everything that is useless to him and things that he cannot rule.
You find a beehive in an apple tree. If you go near the beehive the bees will react to it, but if you simply pick an apple from the tree, they wont.
A leopard will eat a baboon. A baboon might preemptively attack a leopard on sight, but it will not seek out leopards just to kill them.
I think the best way to further explain this in more detail would be to refer you to a book called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn or online at Ishmael.org
Lil Anarchist
I like the reasoning here
Hi lil Anarchist
I like your reasoning here. Nature is a good guild for us and man has separated himself from nature to a huge extent. Most people don't know what phase the moon is in on any given day. Most have no clue as to what the plants look like that produce the vegetables they eat in the store. Others are just afraid of nature. We as people to a great degree are also afraid of each other.
I would love to hear you take these thoughts a little further. I like the way you started this tread and would be interested in seeing where you take it.
Law of limited competition
I want people to acknowledge where the bars to their cages are at. More to come on this subject later..
Lil Anarchist
Law of limited competition
Phil
Man has separated himself from nature because he covets. That means he wants things that are not his, puro people or things above or below him. He does not look straight across. He is a paradigm of inferior/superiority complexes, but he doesn't need to be. He needs to make a conscious decision and be in a battle of wits with every other man not to be.
This doesn't mean he has to be at war with others that decide to covet. The ones that covet will covet the ones that don't for their freedom, have no idea how they got it and only succeed in trying to take that freedom form them, even if the attempt is as futile as public humiliation. I've faced it and still and not changing my mind. Imagine what it would be like to be the only other anarchist you knew personally and you had to be in a battle of wits with the state, shrinks, I have kids so I have to deal with schools and other fun members of coveting society. I don't want what they have to offer.
Nature can't use what they have to offer. I know this and how can you deal with that society on their terms once you realize these truths. Let's go down a list of how how people can covet, ie (desire what others have) and how they may they may attempt it. Vengeance, jealousy, fear, hate, authoritarianism, greed, building empires, rape, murder, manipulation, scandalization, stigmatization, humiliation, putting down, some will put themselves through extreme discomfort in attempt to appeal to others, or allow someone else to put them through such discomfort.
An Anarchist in dire need of solidarity with others.
The little Anarchist
lilanarchist@yahoo.com
Good thoughts Lil Anarchist
I like the way you think. Having said that I do want to point out that much of what you say falls into the realm of a social construct. Look at the first three chapters of Howard Zinn's book, A Peoples History of the United States, in it you will find and early account of Columbus when he came to the east Indies, as well as early accounts of slavery in America and the oppression of the poor white in America in the 1600's.
You are right in so far as jealousy, greed and other factors motivated these injustices. Yet look at the Indigenous cultures Columbus encountered. They did not have these cultural traits--which is not to say they did not have these feeling as peoples--these behaviors where not acculturated norms. You can say the same when looking at early reports of the inter-relations between black slaves and white indentured servants in the 1650 through 1700. The same can be said of poor whites and Bacons rebelion--though to a much lesser extent in that some of their motivation was indeed greed and self interest.
My point is man is part of nature and exists within nature. Man can't escape nature. Having made that point that is not to say that man does not create social constructs--including the political--that are outside what is natural. Capitalism is an example. Capitalism is not natural, and does not reflect human nature in a balanced way. This is not to say that Capitalism does not make use of natural human traits. The fact is it does as it makes use of greed, jealousy, coveting and a host of emotions that are part of what it is to be human. Capitalism does this to the exclusion and marginalization of other traits that are also natural such as altruism, compassion, social responsibility, generosity, empathy, ect.
My point is one of balance. Capitalistic societies can never achieve balance because they are inherently slanted towards one set of emotions and traits to the exclusion of others. Indigenous peoples and others in the above examples did not have many of these traits enshrined as part of their culture. While you can make the case that racism, for example, was and is enculturated into southern--and for that mater American--culture you can also make the case that this is learned. That it is un-natural. I say this because there are many examples of poor white indentured servants and black slaves working together in the early history of slavery in America. These instances where brutally repressed and cultural and legal constructs where created in the early colonies to institutionalize racism as a tool to divide these groups.
I like the way you think. As to your closing, "An Anarchist in dire need of solidarity with others," all I can say is that I stand with all my brothers and sisters in solidarity, including you. I may not agree with all things that some anarchist say but I do stand on the principle that all should be free to express there views, thoughts and feelings so long as these things do not oppress or infringe upon others who would do and want the same.
I'll send you an email since you included your address in your post.
NIce response and I think we should collaborate more
I hold similar views as you in the sense of individuals being in touch with nature. Most importantly I like how you and PhilR are actually honest in the sense of humans being capable of harboring bad traits such as injustice, manipulation, coercion just to name a few since the list goes on. It is true that the discussion of human nature is rather convoluted and I believe that you or PhilR touched on it by stating that due to living in a capitalistic society we can never express the traits of compassion, justice, love, etc.......Most anarchist that I met will never touch on the bad aspects of human life and actually admit that people can actually be as galvanizing as they are. So I respect both of you guys on that.
In terms of getting in touch with nature I just want to ask how is it that you will come about this? I'm not sure if you mentioned it and if so I may have forgot about it so I apologize about that. I believe one way for one to be in touch with nature is to adopt the tenets of contemplative religions (such as Buddhism, Daoism, Janeism, etc). All thou there are systematic approaches to these contemplative religions Im sure it can be vindicated due to the fact that they only teach good morals that I think anyone could agree upon. I dont want it to sound like I disagree with you because I believe that it is imperative that man gets in touch with nature and learn that the earth is here for all living organism to harbor and live freely upon.
In adoption to the tenets of these contemplative religions I'm not implying that it will be utopian or that everyone will be welcome to such rigorous principles which is why I ask what position that you are taking. The way the human brain is it is remarkable what can be accomplished. Its remarkable how certain concepts, propositions, statements, etc can change the physiology of our brians. I like to think of Ideas, principles, etc as drugs because when one looks at the fundamental elements of each, both have the power to change our worldview; our perception of the world; the way we would like to experience the world. (you really see this in contemplative traditions as well as other traditions which i will not advocate).
The thing that still perplexes me is how people can still come to believe specific propositions, statements, etc while knowing that it is completely immoral and wrong(such as capitalism being the best way to live ones life when clearly capitalism is responsible for bringing out the most inhuman actions of man). So I completely agree with you in the sense that not only does man need to be in touch with nature more but that there needs to be a radical change on a conscious level. I'm glad PhilR actually touched on how different the Native American culture was from that of the Spaniards. Howard Zinn does a great job of providing us with a clear distinction. But what still puzzles me is how some human beings are consciously aware of how one can live their lives in accordance to nature and living a just life and how others have not developed this mind set?
I think the answer has to do with two things: circumstance and morality. A great example of circumstance is that of the native americans and the spainards. (the natives lived in a society that not only lived in accordance to nature but they lived off specific principles that most people can ultimately say are good morals[although i know some cultures did practice cannibalism and human sacrifice . Whereas the spainards were barbaric, greedy, dirty etc). So it is clear that these two cultures had two extravagantly different worldviews. The reason why I mentioned morality is because I believe that some aspects of morality is embedded within us and depending on our circumstance certain moral values will come about in action. But this does not mean that we cant change.
Ultimately what I'm saying is that there needs to be a radical shift in consciousness and I would love to learn more about how to do that because the only thing i know is that raising awareness and educating are the only two areas that I can think of...If there are other ways of doing this I would love to be able to learn about this but I think it would be great for you, PhilR and I to come together and discuss more about this since it seems like we all have the same concerns.
my email is Orlando_Hawkins21@hotmail.com
Just a few questions
I like how you mentioned how humans developed the mindset that being in touch with nature is such a bad things and that being in touch with natures is in a way degrading, but I would like to know the direction that you are going with this and if we are to be in touch with nature, how exactly will this come about?
For example you mentioned "You find a beehive in an apple tree. If you go near the beehive the bees will react to it, but if you simply pick an apple from the tree, they wont". But aren't these actions by the bee's part of their intricate biological makeup or do you think it came from a general consensus among the bee's?
If we are to abid by the laws of nature how will this come about? will it be it be somthing similar to what the native American's do?
overall nice post and I'm hoping in your next post you can answer my questions
just something to think about
law of limited competition
Ohawkins21
I have pointed out to you quite plainly, I believe that nature doesn't seek vengeance for one and it doesn't need the whole world all for itself all to itself. It does not try to destroy all that is useless to it. Your question about the bees, the consensus of bees is survival not vengeance so I guess it would be both their innate nature and general consensus of the hive. If nature was about "survival of the fittest" there wouldn't be much diversity and man would have himself a hell of a time coming out of his home. He'd invariably be taken under by a species that was more numerous than himself.
Man already is an integral part of nature, he is just in complete denial of this fact unless for the exception of some indigenous people and some anarchists.
You asked if they'd live like natives, some natives lived in covetous societies and wound up destroying their own civilizations, like the Aztecs used to sacrifice several people a day because they thought they had control over whether the sun came up the next day. Change can come by learning from the past but you must also learn from your own insights too.