Small Town Discourse, Episode 6: Technology and Progress with John Zerzan

  • Posted on: 12 April 2017
  • By: thecollective

This podcast bills itself as a show that mostly talks about topical issues (this episode is unusual), and engaging people with very different perspectives. #goodfaithdisagreements



WTF kind of description is that. Doesn't explain or introduce anything about this project. "Different perspectives"...different than what? "Topical issues"...what issues aren't topics? The podcast bills itself as a show--what's that even mean?

I'll rewrite it for you.

This post presents itself as a post that reposts a podcast that bills itself as a show that talks about topical issues on thematic subjects that are mostly talking about different issues from varying perspectives on usual topics (this issue is especially different in that its topic is not issual.

How's that?

imo, people should skip Kaczynski and Zerzan on questions of technology and read Ellul, which is where they get most of their cues on the matter.

I cant recommend this enough for people interested in the critique of technology/progress:

To me, Gunther Anders and Lewis Mumford have a much deep and broad perspective than the focus on the "technique" or technology, which seems to me like more and effect than a cause. What Kaczinsky wrote was also, like in the case of Anders, drawn upon his personal experience of the oppression deriving from the idea of civilizational progress. For the latter it was the Nazi regime; for the first it was a new road being built nearby the woodland shack where he was living on his own.

From my nerds perspective on the matter, read the Ellul book posted and then go read The Technological Society and its Future, you'll see that many parts are actually paraphrases or even direct quotes from Ellul's book. In interviews and in his writing, Kaczinsky has spoke of the broad influence that Ellul has had on him, that he found in Ellul the closest thing to his own perception.

sorry, i meant Industrial Society and its Future. See, their writing is so similar, you come to confuse their book titles!

" Ellul says it is science and technology that we have 'unleashed' that is now taking us over and we need to get our leash back on it. "

This statement by itself makes it obvious that you haven't read nor understood Ellul, as he never calls for keeping science and technology in check, and even makes a point of how it is most likely not possible. I advise you read him again, Emile. The book above is worth your time.

of course the magical Being, a-dreaming is ex-ist, independent of some objectively inalterable nature.
an ism -whether organic or ideological- definitely exists as subject to judgement -only- by the power of Royal Highness which
Is -as only itself will be- once-only gifted

…one can't conceive of It alone(being or freedom) but, only by the creative influence of an illusory, elusive, third-party, Holy Spirit…
thus, the ever-becoming-relationship is rather non-dual; The Trinity.

since 'being' is an intellectual [thought-and-language-based] concept that is not found in our natural relational experience, one can resolve the problems associated with a 'belief in being' by moving to a language that has no dependency on 'being'. [such languages do exist and their cultures naturally employ restorative justice since it is impossible to identify the rootsource cause of any action and result, thus they do not idolize the perceived sources of 'good actions and results' nor do they demonize the perceived sources of 'bad actions and results'; i.e. they celebrate the cultivating of balance and harmony in the transforming relational continuum.].

the impediment to moving to a language that has no dependency on the concept of 'being' is the high switching costs. since 'culture is language', total immersion in a culture that has no concept of 'being' is the way to go. but that may have its drawbacks in other aspects of a cultural package and so an alternative is to 'grow your own' non-being-based [non-dualist] culture (e.g. Zapatistas).

where's the fallacy in a practice of respect for the eternal autonomy of evolving entities
if one's conceived holistic body body is informed by the nihilistic stillness of faith ?
why is the concept of existence or being -necessarily- an end-to-its-own identity?
how can anarchist culture be grown (or propagated) out-of current semantic establishments?
confident believers of spiritual essence in eternity vs the relatively dogmatict followers of our temporal personality and it's property
who are the realists and who the idealists? hmmm? perhaps there is no reality save The Beautiful Idea.

then our desired culture-shift is one based of the imagination and communicable only through symbolic action.
like engaging each other in a spectacular manner to undermine our alienation ,
and consistently, constantly even absurdly and obsessively -if you will-

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.