Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
1
Grief & Praise / Re: shame ritual
« on: July 14, 2011, 09:46:56 AM »
I agree, I personally have a lot of shame and guilt to process. Also anger.
My personal feelings and thoughts may be different. I'm kind of going from what you said and sharing my experience.
I think I've processed a lot of my larger mounds of guilt and shame. Though that doesn't mean that I don't still have things to feel shame for. What I mean instead, is that I had a phase where my focus was on my shame, and in order to take any further action or process anything following, I had to deal with that huge mound first. It was like a blockage inside of me that needed to be addressed and grieved for before there could be room for anything else to flow through or settle in. I think that guilt and shame are connected to the grieving ritual. I think that guilt and shame are like grieving for those I feel like I'm letting down.
I also agree that while there are some things to be thankful for, I don't think we're in a time of luxury to be celebrating anything yet. I don't know about you or everyone else here, but personally I've been thinking more along the lines of what Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith have said about how the longer we wait for civilization to end on it's own, it's going to devour everything to keep itself chugging along until there's just nothing left to feed it--or anyone else.
I've been emphasizing to people lately that their work to heal themselves or to process their grievances, shame, and joys is good. But if it's done as an end in itself, all I can say is "Great. Good for you." I want people to keep in mind that it's necessary, but as a step towards action. I've started to read that some rituals for healing don't address this, and so people just wind up feeling a little better temporarily (or just feeling better and thinking they don't need to worry anymore), but things which bring you and I shame will continue to happen.
I agree, until civilization comes down, we will not have much to be thankful. I think that thanking each other as a form of support (along with material support, like food, shelter, the things communities are supposed to share) does give us energy to keep doing our work to decolonize ourselves as well as the land we depend on. But there is a danger in becoming complacent. I think the work that some of us do can be satisfying, but we need to remember to remain humble, and always be learning how to expand on that little bit of satisfying work. This may sound like that determination to better ourselves, but I think if it is only done for the sake of ourselves and our own satisfaction, and not for the land that gives us life, then it is in the end, pointless.
I think calling it a 'ritual' sometimes confuses people (in that we think of a larger gathering, or large ceremony type deal), and there have been some ceremonies and such that bring strangers together to share their griefs or joys. It seems to me that some of these, while intending to help, don't do these griefs justice. I've found it's always better to just open them up to a close friend, or even agree with a group of close friends/family/partners to spend a day alone together, just opening up and expressing the shame or grief to it's fullest.
I don't think we should expect many people to get on board with understanding the need for grief and shame. All this knowledge of destruction takes a lot of emotional stamina, and I think that may be why so many people fear simple negative feelings. (That, and we've grown up under the influence of those who want to divert us from the negative so that we don't question or act to change their ways). I think there are some who have the capacity to begin understanding this though. I've found some friends who were relieved I was willing to bring it up, like they had things themselves they needed to spill out. You mentioned talking with your friend about this. Do you think they or any other friends would agree to sharing their shame along with their griefs?
My personal feelings and thoughts may be different. I'm kind of going from what you said and sharing my experience.
I think I've processed a lot of my larger mounds of guilt and shame. Though that doesn't mean that I don't still have things to feel shame for. What I mean instead, is that I had a phase where my focus was on my shame, and in order to take any further action or process anything following, I had to deal with that huge mound first. It was like a blockage inside of me that needed to be addressed and grieved for before there could be room for anything else to flow through or settle in. I think that guilt and shame are connected to the grieving ritual. I think that guilt and shame are like grieving for those I feel like I'm letting down.
I also agree that while there are some things to be thankful for, I don't think we're in a time of luxury to be celebrating anything yet. I don't know about you or everyone else here, but personally I've been thinking more along the lines of what Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith have said about how the longer we wait for civilization to end on it's own, it's going to devour everything to keep itself chugging along until there's just nothing left to feed it--or anyone else.
I've been emphasizing to people lately that their work to heal themselves or to process their grievances, shame, and joys is good. But if it's done as an end in itself, all I can say is "Great. Good for you." I want people to keep in mind that it's necessary, but as a step towards action. I've started to read that some rituals for healing don't address this, and so people just wind up feeling a little better temporarily (or just feeling better and thinking they don't need to worry anymore), but things which bring you and I shame will continue to happen.
I agree, until civilization comes down, we will not have much to be thankful. I think that thanking each other as a form of support (along with material support, like food, shelter, the things communities are supposed to share) does give us energy to keep doing our work to decolonize ourselves as well as the land we depend on. But there is a danger in becoming complacent. I think the work that some of us do can be satisfying, but we need to remember to remain humble, and always be learning how to expand on that little bit of satisfying work. This may sound like that determination to better ourselves, but I think if it is only done for the sake of ourselves and our own satisfaction, and not for the land that gives us life, then it is in the end, pointless.
I think calling it a 'ritual' sometimes confuses people (in that we think of a larger gathering, or large ceremony type deal), and there have been some ceremonies and such that bring strangers together to share their griefs or joys. It seems to me that some of these, while intending to help, don't do these griefs justice. I've found it's always better to just open them up to a close friend, or even agree with a group of close friends/family/partners to spend a day alone together, just opening up and expressing the shame or grief to it's fullest.
I don't think we should expect many people to get on board with understanding the need for grief and shame. All this knowledge of destruction takes a lot of emotional stamina, and I think that may be why so many people fear simple negative feelings. (That, and we've grown up under the influence of those who want to divert us from the negative so that we don't question or act to change their ways). I think there are some who have the capacity to begin understanding this though. I've found some friends who were relieved I was willing to bring it up, like they had things themselves they needed to spill out. You mentioned talking with your friend about this. Do you think they or any other friends would agree to sharing their shame along with their griefs?
2
Grief & Praise / Re: the "white man"
« on: June 28, 2011, 07:54:50 AM »
Thanks for pointing that out, starfish. I think I had forgotten that myself. This conversation did become oriented around "people's treatment of other people". Thank you for reminding us.
(I may just be rewording things already said, and forgive me if I am, but please understand I'm only doing so to see if I am understanding what is being said.) If we want someone to understand the problems, it helps to not make them feel entirely to blame. I guess when we blame specific persons entirely, it's more like we are attacking their personalities. But what if their personalities would emerge in better actions if they understood the flaws of the culture? Maybe they would be more likely to explore and learn about the influence of civilized culture, and the insanity it promotes, if they didn't feel like guilt was being placed directly onto them as individuals or groups (such as race.)
(also, I suppose I wasn't aware if I've been talking past anyone. If I am, would you have a suggestion? I'm always looking to improve my communication. Or do you just mean that, in using the same word for different uses/meanings, are we maybe confusing each other?
)
What are your views on trying to teach people, or reach people?
I've had times where I wanted to use opportunities to explain the issue of culture when people have voiced frustration or anger towards people who "don't seem to care how they effect others." It's usually worked in a "not everyone has experienced the world as you have, there are other possibilities" kind of context. I suppose I'm curious how this kind of thing has gone for you or others, or whether there is even an inclination.
(I may just be rewording things already said, and forgive me if I am, but please understand I'm only doing so to see if I am understanding what is being said.) If we want someone to understand the problems, it helps to not make them feel entirely to blame. I guess when we blame specific persons entirely, it's more like we are attacking their personalities. But what if their personalities would emerge in better actions if they understood the flaws of the culture? Maybe they would be more likely to explore and learn about the influence of civilized culture, and the insanity it promotes, if they didn't feel like guilt was being placed directly onto them as individuals or groups (such as race.)
(also, I suppose I wasn't aware if I've been talking past anyone. If I am, would you have a suggestion? I'm always looking to improve my communication. Or do you just mean that, in using the same word for different uses/meanings, are we maybe confusing each other?
)What are your views on trying to teach people, or reach people?
I've had times where I wanted to use opportunities to explain the issue of culture when people have voiced frustration or anger towards people who "don't seem to care how they effect others." It's usually worked in a "not everyone has experienced the world as you have, there are other possibilities" kind of context. I suppose I'm curious how this kind of thing has gone for you or others, or whether there is even an inclination.
3
Grief & Praise / Re: the "white man"
« on: June 20, 2011, 09:42:10 AM »
I'm coming into this thread for the first time, with some of my own ideas, but of course you guys are already voicing ideas very similar (perhaps only wording is different), so instead I'd like to say what I like about what's being said before adding anything new (at risk of just repeating everything already said anyway.) And just so you can feel a little better where I'm trying to go with this, I'm presenting possibilities rather than judgments, and also avoiding just repeating all the good points already made. (a little challenge for me, as blurting out sudden thoughts is my tendency, lol).
Thanks for that point, explaining that this is more about the concept than the physical trait.
And a great response (actually this is really really close to my own response to Dan, lol). I'd like to add that it may also lie in one's choice to follow what is learned from those around them living by the concept of 'whiteness', especially when it leads to sociopathic/psychopathic behavior, or their choice to strive for something different, perhaps more life affirming. Also, there are some who may grow up in a community displaying pathological behavior (non-life affirming?) but upon learning from something outside of that culture's norms, can then be led to make that different choice.
First I'd like to say, I love that you are questioning this common reference, suggesting that it's too easy or too simple to just blame it all on the "White Man. To attempt to answer this question you raise, (not in effort to support, just understanding the reasoning leading up to it.) Is that many of the people speaking out against the 'white man' are perhaps doing so because their original culture and ancestors were oppressed and taken advantage of by people coming from European civlizations (who were white men). Maybe... by calling them the "White Man," a person is referring to these folks who regard themselves as 'superior', not to agree with them, but to draw attention to just how deluded, self absorbed, and narcissistic they are, and showing how those views of oneself can lead to sociopathology as they have been known to. Maybe "white man" refers to the type of person who usurps all the privilege, and then denies that privilege, as opposed to simply all humans who are only physically white and male.
Thank you! I think this a great observation, and something we all need to keep in mind! I think it relates to why we need to understand people with tendencies to dominate, even if we don't want to identify with them. Understanding that everyone's experiences are different leads us to want to learn from others' experiences, and perhaps those lessons can bring to light lessons from our own experiences we didn't see before.
And wow, just as we start talking about experience, you share a great one! though it's a short story it has a lot for us to learn from, and is a tangible example of what we've been trying to explore through concept. Everything you've said here is great.
I'm thinking in this situation it's best to ask how this could be said differently. Sometimes it takes lots of effort for us to interpret each other, and we may not always 'get it right'. I think it's fine to use language non-typically, I just mentioned to someone yesterday as it occurred to me, that when we combine our understandings from various sources, we might begin to form our own personal terms, and that can indicate real learning and internalizing is taking place! However, instead of wondering if it really is the case whether you feel you were clear or not, to be inviting for fair communication, perhaps ask a person what they had a hard time interpreting, and ask yourself if there are other ways to present your concepts or ideas. I admit that I am just as capable as anyone of forgetting that asking questions as opposed just telling each other, can lead to better, more mutual understandings. Just wanted to offer a reminder here.
So far, I think everyone here has shared really good insights. It's possible to see how they contrast, but I've been noticing that even if they do, when considered evenly, and combined together, they offer a better balance. To repeat what bereal said about not everyone having the same experience, we're also not going to develop the same ideas, and we're not going to have the same ways of perceiving or learning from those ideas and experiences. But remember that humans evolved to be social, with different talents and skills with different fluency. There's a reason we need community. With our different skills, and ways of experiencing the world (some being more feeling oriented, some more thought, some more sensing oriented) we need each other, to learn from our different experiences, and to share our skills. I know you all know this, not assuming anybody doesn't already think this or understand this, but it's a good reminder for why we need to consider everything, don't just stop at a few things and set fundamentals. After all, though we're basing a lot of this on old ways and old ideas because they're so great, we need to be open to how we will adapt them to our current world, or even base new ways on them.
Quote
I don't think it's a logical result of any of this to say that civilization is defined by white males, nor is it definitive to it. Nor does having light skin and being of European descent necessarily make you take part in Whiteness. But Western culture has had the concept of Whiteness as one of its major driving forces for some time, even if it is also something that is constantly changing.
Thanks for that point, explaining that this is more about the concept than the physical trait.
Quote
Exactly! Similarly, Western culture has had the concept of "maleness" (patriarchy) at its core pretty much since its conception. But as Dan says above, having a male body and/or light skin does NOT mean that one identifies with or expresses that "maleness" or "whiteness". So I definitely do NOT think that having a male body or light skin makes one inherently civilized, or that rewilding should be off limits to anyone because of physical traits out of their control. I guess the difference lies between one's personal traits and the characteristics (the "-ness", so to speak) of a culture. One does not at all equate with the other.
And a great response (actually this is really really close to my own response to Dan, lol). I'd like to add that it may also lie in one's choice to follow what is learned from those around them living by the concept of 'whiteness', especially when it leads to sociopathic/psychopathic behavior, or their choice to strive for something different, perhaps more life affirming. Also, there are some who may grow up in a community displaying pathological behavior (non-life affirming?) but upon learning from something outside of that culture's norms, can then be led to make that different choice.
Quote
The Nazi's did much to justify their actions with the idea that they were "superior beings", that others were inferior by the imagined "natural" barriers of race. but those who resisted them definitely didn't refer to them as "superior beings" because they knew it was complete BS to begin with. Why should we call Civilization a culture of the "White Man" if we agree that it is hardly definitive of either of these traits (the first one being totally contrived anyway)?
First I'd like to say, I love that you are questioning this common reference, suggesting that it's too easy or too simple to just blame it all on the "White Man. To attempt to answer this question you raise, (not in effort to support, just understanding the reasoning leading up to it.) Is that many of the people speaking out against the 'white man' are perhaps doing so because their original culture and ancestors were oppressed and taken advantage of by people coming from European civlizations (who were white men). Maybe... by calling them the "White Man," a person is referring to these folks who regard themselves as 'superior', not to agree with them, but to draw attention to just how deluded, self absorbed, and narcissistic they are, and showing how those views of oneself can lead to sociopathology as they have been known to. Maybe "white man" refers to the type of person who usurps all the privilege, and then denies that privilege, as opposed to simply all humans who are only physically white and male.
Quote
is it necessary for Rewilders to use this label for themselves as individuals who are attempting to throw off the ideological shackles of civilization?Just to clarify, are you asking about labeling oneself as a rewilder to represent this effort to break away from the dominant culture's ideals? Just wasn't sure if you were referring to the 'white man' label or not.
Quote
Is it necessary for Rewilders to use racial concepts to define themselves if they reject and oppose the culture that is built on those faulty concepts? I'm personally fine with being described as a Euro-American or whatever, but I'm finding that there's just too much baggage that comes with the term "white" (regardless of whether you capitalize it or not).Personally, I don't see it as being necessary, unless one wants others to know the story of where you came from before rewilding. I don't think we need to define ourselves based on racial concepts. as a rewilder I don't see it necessary to define myself as anything other than a human who wants to reach deeper and remember that universal human need, or rather that force which drives all life, the need our bodies tell us when we really ask and listen, to what is really necessary for true survival on our planet (talking about long term survival of everyone, all humans and non-humans, because really, it doesn't make sense to separate our survival from the survival of those we depend on and form relationships with.). I am also Euro-American, by descent. And that can inform the story of my personal journey. But then again, every race, if you go back far enough, has had ancestors who understood that in order for that true survival of everyone, to form those relationships. And even if there is reason to believe otherwise, that should not stop an individual from choosing to seek that.
Quote
If you're going to be honest about race and racial privilege in this society, then you need to understand it. You don't need to identify with it, but at the same time pretending you don't take part it in because you dislike it is dishonest and itself a part of white privilege in Western, particularly American, society.I agree it's wise to be honest about where you come from, and who is privileged. if you come from a background of people who have dominated others, and perpetuated their culture with notions of self-entitlement, and you don't want to continue that culture yourself, it's essential to understand them, and that you yourself, despite your best intentions, can still have the potential to become that way yourself. It's an example of what we don't want to be, and additionally what needs to be stopped if we want truly lasting, sustainable survival.
Quote
It's easy to think that everyone else experiences the same thing as us - which explains why so many white people take their white privilege for granted, and don't even recognize it as such (thinking they achieved what they have purely by their own hard work, for example).
Thank you! I think this a great observation, and something we all need to keep in mind! I think it relates to why we need to understand people with tendencies to dominate, even if we don't want to identify with them. Understanding that everyone's experiences are different leads us to want to learn from others' experiences, and perhaps those lessons can bring to light lessons from our own experiences we didn't see before.
Wow, you guys went deep on this. Far deeper than I ever thought of the topic of the "white man." I felt it was purely a semantic issue. I'll illustrate what mean by telling a true story of my life.
Whiel I was living in Hawaii, I made some good friends that were local. (Part Hawaiian. Full blood Hawaiians are extremely rare.) But they were local. They had a word for caucasian people. It was "haole". "Ha" means breath or soul and "ole" means without. (There's a lot if interesting history behind that word but I'll save that for a different time.)
One evenign we were all chilling and chatting and one of the guys there was joking about some stupid haole being a jerk to him. Jokingly I said. "Hey, I'm haole too."
His response was "We got locals here more haole than you. You're not nearly has haole as you think."
Haole has two meaning to these people. One is a caucasian person. Being as white as white can be I was definitely haole and there was nothign I can do about that.
However, there is another meaning. This is a type of person. This person personifies a arrogant American. Therefore, I am a non haole haole to my friends over there.
I feel the same way about the words "white man." I am a white man. I am both male and and caucasian. However, most people would not really put me in the "white man" category in that I am relatively open to other cultures and I like to learn as much as possible before making a judgemet and even then I do my best to not personify the traits in the civilized culture that I dislike.
And wow, just as we start talking about experience, you share a great one! though it's a short story it has a lot for us to learn from, and is a tangible example of what we've been trying to explore through concept. Everything you've said here is great.
thunder thighs,
I apologizing for being a bit curt, and not giving explanation. What I meant was that I did not feel you are adequately reading and recognizing my contributions to this discussion, but rather have basically repeated the same points throughout. Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I thought, but looking back I still don't think that's the case. Sometimes I've been using certain words and language in a non-typical way for so long I've forgotten the "normal" meaning.
I'm thinking in this situation it's best to ask how this could be said differently. Sometimes it takes lots of effort for us to interpret each other, and we may not always 'get it right'. I think it's fine to use language non-typically, I just mentioned to someone yesterday as it occurred to me, that when we combine our understandings from various sources, we might begin to form our own personal terms, and that can indicate real learning and internalizing is taking place! However, instead of wondering if it really is the case whether you feel you were clear or not, to be inviting for fair communication, perhaps ask a person what they had a hard time interpreting, and ask yourself if there are other ways to present your concepts or ideas. I admit that I am just as capable as anyone of forgetting that asking questions as opposed just telling each other, can lead to better, more mutual understandings. Just wanted to offer a reminder here.
So far, I think everyone here has shared really good insights. It's possible to see how they contrast, but I've been noticing that even if they do, when considered evenly, and combined together, they offer a better balance. To repeat what bereal said about not everyone having the same experience, we're also not going to develop the same ideas, and we're not going to have the same ways of perceiving or learning from those ideas and experiences. But remember that humans evolved to be social, with different talents and skills with different fluency. There's a reason we need community. With our different skills, and ways of experiencing the world (some being more feeling oriented, some more thought, some more sensing oriented) we need each other, to learn from our different experiences, and to share our skills. I know you all know this, not assuming anybody doesn't already think this or understand this, but it's a good reminder for why we need to consider everything, don't just stop at a few things and set fundamentals. After all, though we're basing a lot of this on old ways and old ideas because they're so great, we need to be open to how we will adapt them to our current world, or even base new ways on them.
4
Grief & Praise / Re: How to argue with person w/ Civ worldview
« on: March 15, 2011, 12:26:11 PM »
Wow, guys, thanks for the great discussion here! :3 I've been away for a while since writing this I know, but I wanted to update my thoughts since the original question, after considering everyone's input here.
I think that because rewilding does feel spiritual in a sense, and perhaps even the root of it is a spiritual choice to view the world differently, it may be important that people come into it by choice. I don't see it being the kind of spiritual path someone chooses just because their parents do it or it's a popular/majority type thing, like some religions. Everyone I know who got into rewilding has because their personal feelings, experiences, and knowledge have led them to personally conclude that it makes most sense for them. I mean, that's how it was for me. That's one reason why I think it wouldn't really help to force it on people who haven't already seen or realized some of the important points of rewilding, or reasons for it, themselves. Or if they've been exposed to the impending-collapse-of-civ scenario, and were open enough to consider it, and not just deny it.
About a week ago I was feeling really depressed about everything going on, mostly after reading about the mass fish death near California. So a close friend of mine asked why I was down. I had never mentioned my reason for being interested in rewilding to him before, only that I had made the trip to Echoes in Time last summer to learn some dynamite skills. I basically said how I was frustrated that what most people in our society consider as the "real world" is actually the abstract concepts of money economy and business and such, over the REAL WORLD which consists of living things, soil, water, etc, and the economy/ecology of how they all should be able to balance each other. After saying this, he asked if I had read Ishmael, haha and I actually was pretty excited and cheered up. Apparently he has a good friend in NY who he really looks up to who has recommended he read more related works (Derrick Jensen, etc.). He's already into discussing concepts of all kinds of things, which made it easy for me to broach the subject.
And then there's the point about debate being forcefull. It's just part of my personality to become stubborn if someone tells me to do something in a way which makes me feel ordered. Even if it's something I would happily choose to do on my own, I think I just greatly dislike the feeling of doing something just because someone else told me to. It's very important for me to have the ability make an independent choice about what I do. So I've had to tell friends and people I work with before that I'll be very eager to help or do something if it's asked or suggested, but if it feels like they are "telling me what to do" I immediately become stubborn and even feel a little resentment. (Haha, it's kind of funny to me how drastically different it is, if someone asks for help or contribution, I'm happy to give them my best effort, but if I feel like they're not giving me a choice, even if it's just all in the verbal delivery, I'm like "NOPE." >:| ) I'm bringing this up because I think that if I don't like ideas forced on me, why should anyone else respond well? They'll likely become defensive, and isn't that what debate seems to be made of? "HEY THIS IS MY FACT, I"M SHOVIN IT IN UR FACE" "OH HELL NAW! U CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO THINK. THIS IS HOW I DO." "NO THAT'S DUMB" "PFFT well why should I buy what you're telling me". LOL I guess that's a worst case scenario, but even when carried out politely, the impression of respect is really just a front, as people are still forcing ideas.
I will admit that I think earlier on I wanted to debate, because to me, the concept of inevitable civ collapse as well as the continuing destruction of the nonhuman people and life we actually need to support our own life (and all the thoughts of how insane that is) is such an obvious reality to me. I was frustrated that so many people just didn't see it, or if they would be willing to see it, they still would make reasons or justifications for things being this way, even when I pose my feelings about the "real world" that civ is founded on, and the real physical living world like mentioned above (I usually hear human nature arguments, basically bullshit reasons in my opinion). I felt that when a person pressed their "facts" about all societies being based on sex, money, war, I got defensive. I felt that it should be obvious, but because it's rare for people to already understand, thanks to civ-indoctrination and such
I could go on forever, but I'm feeling it's time to conclude for now. So my conclusion:
I definitely prefer communication like that used here on this forum, ideas are suggested, and everything is given fair consideration. If something is disagreed with, there are reasons, but it has still been considered. I feel that people are generally respectful of personal independent choices, and in that way people can be open with each other, and actually get along better than if everyone just buys into the exact same concept, agreeing with each other like a flock, and then attacking ideas that differ. I think that's where a lot of the negativity and horizontal hostility may come from (though I don't really know for sure, it could be all kinds of things, that's just a thought I had. I'm willing to bet someone else can suggest different reasons, and I'd invite them). Lol, my brain is beginning to tangent now on how interesting it is that though being open to and inviting independent choice, a society could be more accepting, less forceful, and perhaps less likely to become stagnant, as they are open to new independent choices and ideas. I just think that's neat. (sounds kinda like egalitarian tribe dynamics that I'd think rewilders would take a liking to)
--having spent the last few hours having multiple conversations and not having had much sleep, I've kind of trailed off, so if I have any further thoughts later, maybe I'll write another post.
TL;DR: Basically I'm deciding not to bother with debate, probably mostly for empathic reasons (I don't like things being forced on me, why should I use a forceful method of communication such as debate, especially when rewilding is often a path taken by individual choice, based on an individual's personal experience, knowledge, feeling, etc. leading them to that choice.)
Haha, besides, I simply suck at debate, so why waste my energy learning to when I can invite people to the ideas, and let them grow into rewilding on their own?
I think that because rewilding does feel spiritual in a sense, and perhaps even the root of it is a spiritual choice to view the world differently, it may be important that people come into it by choice. I don't see it being the kind of spiritual path someone chooses just because their parents do it or it's a popular/majority type thing, like some religions. Everyone I know who got into rewilding has because their personal feelings, experiences, and knowledge have led them to personally conclude that it makes most sense for them. I mean, that's how it was for me. That's one reason why I think it wouldn't really help to force it on people who haven't already seen or realized some of the important points of rewilding, or reasons for it, themselves. Or if they've been exposed to the impending-collapse-of-civ scenario, and were open enough to consider it, and not just deny it.
About a week ago I was feeling really depressed about everything going on, mostly after reading about the mass fish death near California. So a close friend of mine asked why I was down. I had never mentioned my reason for being interested in rewilding to him before, only that I had made the trip to Echoes in Time last summer to learn some dynamite skills. I basically said how I was frustrated that what most people in our society consider as the "real world" is actually the abstract concepts of money economy and business and such, over the REAL WORLD which consists of living things, soil, water, etc, and the economy/ecology of how they all should be able to balance each other. After saying this, he asked if I had read Ishmael, haha and I actually was pretty excited and cheered up. Apparently he has a good friend in NY who he really looks up to who has recommended he read more related works (Derrick Jensen, etc.). He's already into discussing concepts of all kinds of things, which made it easy for me to broach the subject.
And then there's the point about debate being forcefull. It's just part of my personality to become stubborn if someone tells me to do something in a way which makes me feel ordered. Even if it's something I would happily choose to do on my own, I think I just greatly dislike the feeling of doing something just because someone else told me to. It's very important for me to have the ability make an independent choice about what I do. So I've had to tell friends and people I work with before that I'll be very eager to help or do something if it's asked or suggested, but if it feels like they are "telling me what to do" I immediately become stubborn and even feel a little resentment. (Haha, it's kind of funny to me how drastically different it is, if someone asks for help or contribution, I'm happy to give them my best effort, but if I feel like they're not giving me a choice, even if it's just all in the verbal delivery, I'm like "NOPE." >:| ) I'm bringing this up because I think that if I don't like ideas forced on me, why should anyone else respond well? They'll likely become defensive, and isn't that what debate seems to be made of? "HEY THIS IS MY FACT, I"M SHOVIN IT IN UR FACE" "OH HELL NAW! U CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO THINK. THIS IS HOW I DO." "NO THAT'S DUMB" "PFFT well why should I buy what you're telling me". LOL I guess that's a worst case scenario, but even when carried out politely, the impression of respect is really just a front, as people are still forcing ideas.
I will admit that I think earlier on I wanted to debate, because to me, the concept of inevitable civ collapse as well as the continuing destruction of the nonhuman people and life we actually need to support our own life (and all the thoughts of how insane that is) is such an obvious reality to me. I was frustrated that so many people just didn't see it, or if they would be willing to see it, they still would make reasons or justifications for things being this way, even when I pose my feelings about the "real world" that civ is founded on, and the real physical living world like mentioned above (I usually hear human nature arguments, basically bullshit reasons in my opinion). I felt that when a person pressed their "facts" about all societies being based on sex, money, war, I got defensive. I felt that it should be obvious, but because it's rare for people to already understand, thanks to civ-indoctrination and such
I could go on forever, but I'm feeling it's time to conclude for now. So my conclusion:
I definitely prefer communication like that used here on this forum, ideas are suggested, and everything is given fair consideration. If something is disagreed with, there are reasons, but it has still been considered. I feel that people are generally respectful of personal independent choices, and in that way people can be open with each other, and actually get along better than if everyone just buys into the exact same concept, agreeing with each other like a flock, and then attacking ideas that differ. I think that's where a lot of the negativity and horizontal hostility may come from (though I don't really know for sure, it could be all kinds of things, that's just a thought I had. I'm willing to bet someone else can suggest different reasons, and I'd invite them). Lol, my brain is beginning to tangent now on how interesting it is that though being open to and inviting independent choice, a society could be more accepting, less forceful, and perhaps less likely to become stagnant, as they are open to new independent choices and ideas. I just think that's neat. (sounds kinda like egalitarian tribe dynamics that I'd think rewilders would take a liking to)
--having spent the last few hours having multiple conversations and not having had much sleep, I've kind of trailed off, so if I have any further thoughts later, maybe I'll write another post.
TL;DR: Basically I'm deciding not to bother with debate, probably mostly for empathic reasons (I don't like things being forced on me, why should I use a forceful method of communication such as debate, especially when rewilding is often a path taken by individual choice, based on an individual's personal experience, knowledge, feeling, etc. leading them to that choice.)
Haha, besides, I simply suck at debate, so why waste my energy learning to when I can invite people to the ideas, and let them grow into rewilding on their own?
5
Grief & Praise / Re: The Rewilding LOLCAT
« on: March 15, 2011, 10:10:49 AM »
I think this was someone's project for art school. Immediately in my mind, bike and ivy came together into "Ivy-Bike Basket" and...
6
Grief & Praise / Re: Fellow Rewilder Dies
« on: November 23, 2010, 09:13:13 AM »
This is so saddening... I never had the chance to talk with her or meet her, but reading that quote was very sad. It really hurts me too when, like she said, some people would rather suffocate life or that they have to hurt others to control them.
7
Grief & Praise / Re: How to argue with person w/ Civ worldview
« on: November 15, 2010, 01:23:20 PM »Quote
we learn all about how to debate, argue, and prove points, but do we really learn how to hold a conversation in a safe way?
That's a great question, and from this experience in particular, I don't really feel like it was a fair or safe conversation, in the sense that I felt like this person was trying to overpower me with their facts. Ugh, those annoying facts. But like Scout said already, people who demand facts are probably not going to see it, and it seems to me that demand for facts is just an excuse they make for being really stubborn in their viewpoint. I don't really like debate or arguing that much because it just feels like I have to try too hard to present something that I think people should be able to see right around them, and it's not going to do any more good to present facts if they can't see it themselves. (LOL I realize I just ended up paraphrasing what Scout already said)
In the end I've decided it's not really worth it to have great argument skills, I'd rather have skills that will count towards bringing down civ or living after civ. Besides, I'm just not the kind of person who wants to force an idea on someone, all I can do is give them my own experiences or guide them if they are interested. Forcing ideas is basically what arguing feels like to me.
8
Grief & Praise / Re: How to argue with person w/ Civ worldview
« on: November 05, 2010, 01:35:43 PM »
Lol, I hate debate too for this reason. I usually just give up when people demand facts. What you've said reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about this earlier today, and he helped me come to the conclusion that 1) this person is basically saying "this IS this way" which from my experience is a terrible way of looking at the world. I think I really just wanted to challenge his assertion with "well, no it isn't always like that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be either" and 2) since he says something IS this way, or otherwise it's a fact, that means he's closed himself off to other possibilities, and isn't going to be open to someone saying "but what if this". Which pretty much goes with what you've said, if the person doesn't get it already, proof and explanation won't convince them any further.
The debate really came up when we were in a group of four people, two guys were talking about sex in an objectifying way, me and another guy were getting sick of it, so when they asked what was on our minds, I basically told them I'm fine with sex talk but not when there's objectification. Basically they defended it saying "oh well it's not like we're actually going out and doing these things", and eventually tried to say basically "this is just how the world is". Ugh. I get frustrated when I meet friends and then learn that they view the world that way. And go figure, these guys love to debate.
The debate really came up when we were in a group of four people, two guys were talking about sex in an objectifying way, me and another guy were getting sick of it, so when they asked what was on our minds, I basically told them I'm fine with sex talk but not when there's objectification. Basically they defended it saying "oh well it's not like we're actually going out and doing these things", and eventually tried to say basically "this is just how the world is". Ugh. I get frustrated when I meet friends and then learn that they view the world that way. And go figure, these guys love to debate.
9
Stone & Bone / Re: Deer Leg Bones
« on: November 05, 2010, 07:59:52 AM »
Well it's been a while since I started this post, still haven't found the leg yet (sorry deer 
)
So either it's been carried off by an animal or it's still hidden. Haha, next time I'll bury bones in the actual ground, not a compost pile.
)So either it's been carried off by an animal or it's still hidden. Haha, next time I'll bury bones in the actual ground, not a compost pile.
10
Grief & Praise / How to argue with person w/ Civ worldview
« on: November 05, 2010, 07:54:38 AM »
(wasn't sure which category to post this in, but it sort of fits with grief I think)
Recently I got into some friendly debate, and I found myself without actual facts to back up my argument.
So what would you say if someone made the claim that "The whole world runs on money, sex, war, even non civilized cultures objectified women, everyone gets involved in war at some point, and that in those wars nobody is perfect." I realize he was trying to point out that nobody is perfect, but I do know that a lot of things people believe about indigenous cultures have been told to them who would want them to dislike these cultures, and to actually believe this. I know there are some in history who started wars, but then I wonder if that was their original culture, if they didn't just become that way because they were corrupted by civilized people trying to manipulate them. I just don't buy that there is no culture out there or in history that doesn't base itself on money, sex, or war. Now, sex makes sense, but it would not be the ways that people in this culture assume (prostitution, pornography, etc). I know that some of you guys on the forum have had some highly informed conversations on matters of what non-civilized cultures are really like. I would like to read more books on the issue, but as of now I don't have the time to do my own research.
Also I know there may be the answer that I shouldn't waste my time arguing with people of civilized mindset, since they're already insane, but I really want stick up for what I know is right.
So if you were in a conversation with someone and this came up, what would you say to defend indigenous cultures from this terrible generalization of people?
Recently I got into some friendly debate, and I found myself without actual facts to back up my argument.
So what would you say if someone made the claim that "The whole world runs on money, sex, war, even non civilized cultures objectified women, everyone gets involved in war at some point, and that in those wars nobody is perfect." I realize he was trying to point out that nobody is perfect, but I do know that a lot of things people believe about indigenous cultures have been told to them who would want them to dislike these cultures, and to actually believe this. I know there are some in history who started wars, but then I wonder if that was their original culture, if they didn't just become that way because they were corrupted by civilized people trying to manipulate them. I just don't buy that there is no culture out there or in history that doesn't base itself on money, sex, or war. Now, sex makes sense, but it would not be the ways that people in this culture assume (prostitution, pornography, etc). I know that some of you guys on the forum have had some highly informed conversations on matters of what non-civilized cultures are really like. I would like to read more books on the issue, but as of now I don't have the time to do my own research.
Also I know there may be the answer that I shouldn't waste my time arguing with people of civilized mindset, since they're already insane, but I really want stick up for what I know is right.
So if you were in a conversation with someone and this came up, what would you say to defend indigenous cultures from this terrible generalization of people?
11
Grief & Praise / Re: If Mars Attacks
« on: November 05, 2010, 07:37:59 AM »
The stuff about water bears is really interesting. I don't really know much about them, besides the part about them being indestructible. That's really cool to learn that they forage and do other things most animals do, just on the microscopic level.
On the topic of aliens invading from space: I don't think that any life depleting culture on any planet, would actually make it to the point of space travel that allows them to colonize other planets before their civilizations collapsed. This is based on how I look at this issue when people talk about "our" civilization colonizing other planets. All I can see when I imagine a culture moving in this direction, is that they use up all the resources, kill the planet, and then, well shit, they have enough to travel into space, but nobody makes it to a planet they can colonize. So basically to me any culture striving for this is just going to fuck themselves and everyone else over in the process, and in the end get nothing out of it.
So I'm really more concerned about people who believe we should just colonize other planets, it turns into their excuse for not defending the environment. "What if we kill the planet, and nobody can survive?" "Oh, well uh we'll just colonize other planets." People see it as a sign of superior evolution (which is civilized people butchering the actual meaning of evolution to kiss their own asses), but I view it as just a highly idiotic risk. Wouldn't it just make more sense to take care of THIS land? Like people used to? "Dur stop ruining my space fantasy!"
Sorry I don't have any resources to back up my argument, just my personal view of the scenario.
On the topic of aliens invading from space: I don't think that any life depleting culture on any planet, would actually make it to the point of space travel that allows them to colonize other planets before their civilizations collapsed. This is based on how I look at this issue when people talk about "our" civilization colonizing other planets. All I can see when I imagine a culture moving in this direction, is that they use up all the resources, kill the planet, and then, well shit, they have enough to travel into space, but nobody makes it to a planet they can colonize. So basically to me any culture striving for this is just going to fuck themselves and everyone else over in the process, and in the end get nothing out of it.
So I'm really more concerned about people who believe we should just colonize other planets, it turns into their excuse for not defending the environment. "What if we kill the planet, and nobody can survive?" "Oh, well uh we'll just colonize other planets." People see it as a sign of superior evolution (which is civilized people butchering the actual meaning of evolution to kiss their own asses), but I view it as just a highly idiotic risk. Wouldn't it just make more sense to take care of THIS land? Like people used to? "Dur stop ruining my space fantasy!"
Sorry I don't have any resources to back up my argument, just my personal view of the scenario.
12
Grief & Praise / Re: DOUBLE RAINBOW
« on: November 05, 2010, 07:16:56 AM »
I saw this a while ago, my friend showed it to me, the song first, haha. At first I thought, man this guy is really fucking excited, he's crying! Then I realized that I've only ever seen a complete single rainbow a few times in my life, and each time I've gone running to let everyone around know, so a double complete rainbow totally deserves such an excited reaction. I mean, it's one of those things people never think they'll ever see, so to actually witness it is pretty amazing.
13
Rewild Camps, Events & Meet-ups / Re: How to Organize a Rewild Camp
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:43:27 PM »
I've read that fieldguide over a few times, I'm thinking my best chance to really set up something like this is at college. However, this particular school has a lot more business students and such, not really sure how interested they would be. My brother just started going to college in Bloomington, they're the least conservative town in Indiana, and I get a feeling a rewild camp would attract more people there. But hey, I want to give it a shot here. The idea of showing that documentary (can't remember the title right now, but it was mentioned in/ or in a reply to the fieldguide) which I should be ordering soon. I'm just writing this here because I feel that if it's posted and recorded, then I'm less likely to just put it in the back of my mind and put it off until it's too late. Also I don't have a lot of experience with starting groups or clubs, but it's important to me, so I want to try.
14
Rewild Camps, Events & Meet-ups / Re: Midwest
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:36:34 PM »
Hey WildGardener, sorry for the late reply. Michigan's not too far to have a get together or a camp sometime. I'm actually going to Ann Arbor for a weekend two weeks from now.
I feel like we should get acquainted somewhat, at least as much as an internet forum can allow. So what's your experience living in Michigan? What kind of stuff do you get to do?
I guess to describe my experience, this summer was my first chance to really learn much, so far as wild plant foods and such. I had a summer job at a grass-fed cattle farm, they had some wild black cherry trees and tons of mulberries and I discovered Spring Beauties in my parent's backyard. Also I got to go to Echoes in Time and met lots of cool people. I'm wanting to start a bow making project this year, maybe even learn some trapping. Don't know how much I can do with roadkill right now besides using skins and stuff, since I'm living near downtown Indianapolis for the year. I found out about a permaculture farm near Hoosier National Forest, though I can only contact them through the WOOFF program. In their description they mention getting to catch and eat game animals. I'm looking to check them out sometime this year or next year. Right now I'm just trying to stay sane living in this city, I'm finding it wears me out a lot. Unfortunately I went into the college bullshit 4 years ago, and just have a few months left to finish up, but once that's done I'll have a little more independence to figure my stuff out.
Anyway, yeah, people let me know if you'd be interested in a rewild camp or even just a casual meet up. I'd really like to make some friends around here already interested in rewilding, kind of helps to have a support base, as so far I feel a little lonely here when it comes to rewilding. Some of my friends say it sounds interesting, but when it really comes down to it don't seem like they'd really get into it. Haha, I'm catching myself rambling a bit.
I feel like we should get acquainted somewhat, at least as much as an internet forum can allow. So what's your experience living in Michigan? What kind of stuff do you get to do?
I guess to describe my experience, this summer was my first chance to really learn much, so far as wild plant foods and such. I had a summer job at a grass-fed cattle farm, they had some wild black cherry trees and tons of mulberries
and I discovered Spring Beauties in my parent's backyard. Also I got to go to Echoes in Time and met lots of cool people. I'm wanting to start a bow making project this year, maybe even learn some trapping. Don't know how much I can do with roadkill right now besides using skins and stuff, since I'm living near downtown Indianapolis for the year. I found out about a permaculture farm near Hoosier National Forest, though I can only contact them through the WOOFF program. In their description they mention getting to catch and eat game animals. I'm looking to check them out sometime this year or next year. Right now I'm just trying to stay sane living in this city, I'm finding it wears me out a lot. Unfortunately I went into the college bullshit 4 years ago, and just have a few months left to finish up, but once that's done I'll have a little more independence to figure my stuff out.Anyway, yeah, people let me know if you'd be interested in a rewild camp or even just a casual meet up. I'd really like to make some friends around here already interested in rewilding, kind of helps to have a support base, as so far I feel a little lonely here when it comes to rewilding. Some of my friends say it sounds interesting, but when it really comes down to it don't seem like they'd really get into it. Haha, I'm catching myself rambling a bit.
15
REWILD FORUM / Personal Rewilding Journals?
« on: August 20, 2010, 09:21:17 PM »
Urban Scout,
I noticed you post weekly goal lists on your blog. I understand that people can also form their own blogs for this (and don't even need the internet to make them) I was thinking it could be helpful for some to have a Post or section for people to share their personal goals and actions. I guess people already can just write posts about what they're doing, but I wonder if having a section in the forum could encourage it even more, and even start some interesting conversations where others can give suggestions or even just get ideas from others. Again, I realize that many people use blogs for this, but in that form it feels like there's one person as the focal point. That's fine with blogs, just think it might inspire a bit more conversation and activity on the forum. It was kind of just a sudden thought, but I felt like I shouldn't pass up the opportunity to share it. Also, you said you were feeling lonely on the internets
I noticed you post weekly goal lists on your blog. I understand that people can also form their own blogs for this (and don't even need the internet to make them) I was thinking it could be helpful for some to have a Post or section for people to share their personal goals and actions. I guess people already can just write posts about what they're doing, but I wonder if having a section in the forum could encourage it even more, and even start some interesting conversations where others can give suggestions or even just get ideas from others. Again, I realize that many people use blogs for this, but in that form it feels like there's one person as the focal point. That's fine with blogs, just think it might inspire a bit more conversation and activity on the forum. It was kind of just a sudden thought, but I felt like I shouldn't pass up the opportunity to share it. Also, you said you were feeling lonely on the internets
Pages: [1] 2