Towards An Anarchist Spirituality...

  • Posted on: 24 September 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href=" is Primal War</a>

<i>&#8220;They therefore invented an idea of "primitive man" as a being whose total intelligence was supposed to consist in some rudimentary fumblings towards the kind of wisdom monopolized by Western civilization. Hardly dreaming that there are other and highly developed types of intelligence and wisdom, as well as different life/goals, than those contemplated by Western man, these anthropologists found only what their prejudices enabled them to see. Their premise was that their own culture as the "latest" in time represented the height of evolution. Earlier cultures must therefore be elementary forms of "modern&#8221; culture, and their degree of civilization and intelligence had to be estimated by the degree to which their values approximated to modern values.&#8221;</i> &#8211; Alan Watts Myth and Ritual in Christianity</td><td><img title="or not" src=""></td></tr></tab...

To begin with, this quote by philosopher Alan Watts is in reference, immediately, to Christianity and it&#8217;s origins, it&#8217;s colonialist imperative but also applies more broadly to modern culture as a whole. I would find it hard to not relate critique of modern culture to Christianity, being that it has been, if not the most dominate religion of the past 500 years,could be called the most dominating with it&#8217;s imperative of conquest and control. We have seen in our lifetimes alone, a massive amount of repression, genocide, ecological devastation and oppression under the flag of divine right. From the conquest of the west to the colonization of the east (read Phillipines, South Korea, Australia, etc.) at the hands of not only the Church as an institution, but the force of will of &#8220;good&#8221; Christian missionaries, paving the way for development and providing reformist cleanup after genocide wrenches it&#8217;s deadly claim.</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This can be attributed, at surface level, to the defects of religion, but I fear this may be too easy. Without religion, would we not still have &#8220;progress&#8221; as a driving entity, in and of itself? This has long been written off as human nature, and in fact, is in the premise of the word progress itself to assume that this is a natural path. &nbsp;Of course, there are deep seeded tones of colonialism in this thought process, not to mention the short view of the world and it&#8217;s existence, but the question we must put forth then, if not god, who takes the blame? If it is not in our &#8220;nature&#8221; to consume and destroy, then it must be in our nurture, and what better fall guy than the divine? &nbsp;Anarchists have long been held to the account of atheism, and for good reason. The institution of god is no different than the institution of the state, if not worse. The development of the institution of mass religion follows closely with the development of civilization. When people began collectively living in sedentary spaces, developing large scale agriculture and relying upon the elements for bounty as opposed to their ability to maneuver towards more fertile hunting and gathering land, we see the rise of ritual. Ritual is the performing of duties not for sake of anything other than the duty itself, in hopes that repetition will bring forth the same results as in times of good harvest. To pay penance to the gods was a way of attempting to ensure that famine would not fall on you or your family, and at times, even attempting to force it upon your enemies. Warfare being a hallmark of confined living, what better ally than the gods to wreak certain havoc upon your foes?&nbsp; Thus we find the beginnings of religion. The enforcement of communal ritual was a given, being that any sway may not be pleasing to the gods, therefore those unwilling to participate, or those defiant of the new lifeways, had to be silenced and alienated, or killed, so as to create a unity and confluence amongst the people. In order for this to take hold, there had to be specialists in determining who was and who was not sincere in their faith, and those rulers were appointed, not by consensus, but by divine right. God chose them. In this time, there was also the formation of the state, from the Latin word <i>status </i>meaning standing or position, words inherent to hierarchy that will be imperative to modern society. We see, from the beginning a tie in of governments and churches. From the murder of indigenous peoples and their land, to the assassination of spiritual prophets for the benefit of the state, the church and the state have remained, and will certainly always be linked.&nbsp; This is not revelatory in any sense, and has been a part of the dogma of anarchy since it&#8217;s inception as a political force. This also, in many ways, holds to the same form of colonialism and imperative that our definitions of life-ways are the standard from which we compare all others. Where then is our spiritual concern? That which drives us to connect with life until there is no separation? Are anarchists to believe that all matters of the spirit belong to the church? And if this is the case, were they taken by the church or invented?</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I hold that spirituality is much older than elements of mass control, and must be explored to attain a wholeness of self that is necessary for reconnection with the world as a whole. The basic proposition of anarchy holds true only one thing: freedom. Freedom from oppressive controls and hierarchy, and freedom to adventure into one's life unfettered by the constraints of societal dominance. Tailgating freedom, within the context of mass society, brings forth additional baggage that is as fluid as the condition of the individual. Some may see non-violence as a strict doctrine of anarchy, because they have had an experience of violence from oppressive forces. Others may hold that violence nor non-violence are inherently anarchistic, but the tying bond between the two sets is freedom as an imperative. In modern western culture, it is remarked often that true freedom cannot ever really exist. Therefor, anarchy is merely an ideal that may be striven toward, but never actualized.&nbsp;</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp;</span>This concept of perpetual bondage is indicative of the omniscient nature of civilization itself. The gods of this culture reflect the same parameters of understanding. Where-as the gods of a polytheistic culture may retain certain powers over various realms, the god of a monotheistic culture is all knowing and cannot be escaped or hidden from. Freedom is not an option.&nbsp; There is no escape from his all seeing eye. This, without elaborating, shows the patriarchal nature of the culture as well as the control imperative. What exactly does this god provide, outside of an archetype of the controlling beast of civilization itself? Is the god the root of the improprieties, or the outcrop? Being that the notions of gods have well preceded industrial civilization,&nbsp; it is possible to conclude that the god follows the rod.&nbsp;</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp; Upon the onset of colonization, being the widening of a particular culture for the purpose of conquest and resource control at the necessary elimination of the cultures of coveted regions, we have seen the encountering of "others", some with a set of gods all their own. It is no secret that the genocide of indigenous people's of the Americas was rife with stories of divine intervention and rite. The various tribal people's of this region had a set of gods that were revered for their different sources of power or kinship, but was the basic standing of these gods the same construct as the European Christian god? Most likely not, however there is substantial reasoning that points to shamanism as an elite form of religious rite as well. This is not indicative only of the indigenous of this region though, as we can go back to see pre-Christian peoples of Europe also held firmly their concepts of gods that had to be snuffed out for the propulsion of the Christian paradigm. What little we know of these gods in a mainstream aesthetic tells us that these societies functioned rather similar to that of the monotheists, but little evidence actually points to this. With the murder of a people also comes the murder of their knowledge, and we have very little knowledge of what the Celtic peoples, or the Picts may have had of their spiritual selves. Just as we have very little mainstream knowledge, beyond the blindly accepted and indoctrinated stereotypical of "pagan" cultures, we treat the indigenous of the Americas with same colonial swath. Narrowing down their culture's belief and spirituality to an easily digested mockery of the truth. Our priests are dominating and controlling, so it would play well that their shamans served the same purpose. We have no real understanding of the spiritual practice of these peoples, but apply to them the reasoning learned by our own oppressive system, despite the teachings from still living indigenous peoples who point otherwise. Of course, it does a colony no good to exchange with it's directive, only to steal and redefine. He who defines, in a large way controls. This is well known in the scientific world, and comes directly from the experience of the religious world. Science is, in fact, the new religion.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp; This taken into account, how can we presume then the spiritual practices of our ancestors were the same as the religious practices of our oppressors? What we know of the cultures of past are that they were not all oppressive, conquest oriented, gender based societies of dominance and control. Some, such as many Celtic clans, held no gender bias and had no concept of gender roles, division of labor (as labor, in modern terms, did not exist) and had no structure of punishment or imprisonment, yet they had many "gods". We do not know how the practice of ritual would have been carried out, if even at all, yet it is clear that there were archetypes within these cultures to represent various aspects of life and connectivity. It would put forth then, that the shamans of the Americas, whose tribal peoples also had "gods" of various ilk, held no power over others as well. Being seen a spiritual guide may have been as commonplace as being seen as a good hunter, or a good thatch builder. Could we then surmise that spiritual life held an equal importance to food and shelter? Yes, it could. What then of the concept of god, not as we know it, but as our ancestors may have it?</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp; Joseph Campbell has done much work in the field of mythology, the study of the myths of a culture, and came to many conclusions that the "god" archetype may have little to do with control, if the society was not interested in control.&nbsp; </span><span class="body" style="font-size: small;">"<i>Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths.</i></span> "</span><span class="bodybold" style="font-size: small;"><a href=""> Joseph Campbell</a> </span><br />
</span>This could be said that the society manufactures the gods, but does not manufacture the desire of the spirit. The largest threat to the Catholic church was not war from outside, but disbelief from inside. Disbelief would not have brought down the church walls, but would have made them impossible to be built in the first place. The cultures we now know as "pagan" were diverse and many, and had to be converted or eliminated for the life-way of roman civilization to&nbsp; prosper, just as the tribal indigenous of the Americas had to be converted or killed off for the foothold of western civilization to take hold and grow. Why then did people not just convert? Because the spirit is a real and important part of life, equally as important as food and shelter. This, of course, is not saying that conversion would have "saved" the lives of every person killed by the genocidal armies of progress, as the racism and divine right of white males was already ingrained into Europeans by that time, giving that their own colonization was completed many generations previous, but we can see that the adoption of Christianity did "allow" for many peoples to survive albeit stripped entirely of a basic element of life, spirit, which, again is as important as food and shelter.&nbsp; Genocide, as Ward Churchill reminds us, is not merely the act of killing an entire people, but killing their way of life. Therefore, you do not have to be dead, to be a direct casualty of genocide. The UN defines genocide as such: </span>any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:</span>a. killing members of the group;</span>b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;</span>c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;</span>d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;</span>e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.</span>With the understanding of the importance of spirituality to non-civilized peoples, it is easy to deduce that an addition to this definition is in order:</span>f. control or destroy the spiritual connection to life of a person or persons.</span>&nbsp;</span><br />
&nbsp;It is clear that religion has for some time been used as an element of control, with it's dominant gods and forced behaviors, but spirit has been it's greatest enemy. With the control or destruction of the spirit, the greatest genocide has already, is currently, occurring. We place our bodies in the pews and our faith in the machines, be they computers or the textual gods of literacy, we are under control. To abandon the spirit is no different from murdering it, and modern living requires just that, an abandonment of adventure and experience with a reliance on ritual and technology.</span><br />
<br />
</span>&nbsp;The secular notion of life put forth by modernity is for the purpose of technocratic rule and objectification imperative. If one can be defined, it can be controlled, therefor if one cannot be defined, it is out of control and must be eliminated or recuperated else the rule of normality ceases to exist. Politics is the normalization of control, and must be abandoned, while spirituality without religion is beyond the confines of normalization and must be embraced. Towards an anarchist spirituality, without confines, without constriction. </span><br />


No no no no no.
First step in making this site not total shit is YOU stop posting bullshit trollbait articles like this.




I'm talking about the spirituality of the perception of one's consciousness within the bios/cultural environment one lives in, always having at the same time the individualist autonomy and sovereignty adjusted to the mutualist requirements of being a social participant.

Despite the hilarity of your comment,,,,,,but yes, a social participant as a reclusive mystical hermit,,,,yes, lol.

I <3 trollbait!

i love alan watts he's great.

my thoughts exactly.

my spirituality is best expressed most clearly by the excellent work done by these theoreticians:

we should set up a kickstarter to fund future episodes, they are the only things that keep me going in life.

Get out IA devs!

Can't wait to get the show going again. Have to wait to get the show going again.

If a kickstarter was started up for it, do you think that would be successful?

Really wouldn't need too much. We could also have patches of the Inconsiderate "bullets" design printed.

yes. just set your fundraising goal low enough that it will be reached (maybe like $1,000).

DON'T make patches, buttons, or anything else that reeks of bullshit punk lameness.
give away beer coozies, crazy straws, beer coasters, heroin needles, weed grinders, etc... anything not punk and hopefully related to nihilism as closely as a cold PBR and a double cheeseburger after work are.

the trollz

Dude you used a computer to type all this.

I did what now?

Primmies ain't got no Praxis. Totally down if yall composted ur laptops tho.

not sure if you know what praxis means, but it does not mean ideological purity

how many times we gotta run through this

It means puttin ur theories to practice. Pretty straight forward.

We do, but I guess we're just not ideologically pure enough for y'all.

Primitivism is solely an individual lifestyle, and as such has no right to be forced upon others.

Cool story, bro.

Ok, just don't use anything produced in capitalist society to rail against capitalism, okay?


Dude quit pushing your spirituality on me.

Spirituality is for retards.


How about emotional health? What your trying to intellectualize is the essence of a poem, subjective, impossible and trite. Give me tangible ideas damnit.

"tangible ideas" oxymoronic

you took a beautiful quotation and ANALYZED it. you are the horror you critique. you are boring. get away.

Without religion, would we not still have “progress” as a driving entity, in and of itself?

‘progress’ is not a ‘change-force’ it is a quantitative measure of how things change over time, as in a spread-sheet that we update every month or year.

the physical reality that we experience is ‘transformation’ of the relational space we are included in.

‘progress’ is not a ‘physical reality’.

‘progress’ will tell us the growth of cars or smartphones per family and square footage of home per person, and whatever quantitative measurements that change over time that you want to measure.

it will not tell you about the transformation of relations in our living space that is the ‘physically real] change that we experience, how many salmon streams have been covered over by housing developments and how many CO2 to O2 converting forests have been transformed into boards etc. etc.

‘progress’ is an artefact of characterizing change in terms of what happens to some 'thing-in-itself' over time [as if it were in empty space; i.e. recall the picture of a progression of forms from ape to homo sapien; i.e. it is against a blank background].

'progress' is a notion that was built into the Christian ‘Creation’ myth where one creative act followed another on successive days, but not so in aboriginal creation myth which is transformational [things keep morphing into other things. humans come out of clam shells fetched by ravens etc.]

the progress that God made with his Creation was seen as a good thing, like Christmas, lots of presents. problem is, Christians forgot one small thing in emulating God's progress that the aboriginals didn’t. when God was the poster boy for progress, there was nothing there to begin with so there was only ‘creation’ and no ‘destruction’. but in the earth’s biosphere, in order to create something you have to destroy something because it is a finite and unbounded space. in other words, the aboriginals got it right and modern physics has confirmed it. the space we live in is ‘relational’ it ‘only transforms’; i.e. something new means something old has to go. in other words, ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ are conjugate aspects of the dynamic of transformation of the relational space we are included in. this is the change of our physical experience.

so not only did the Christian religious followers ‘get it wrong’ by orienting to 'progress' and continuing to create as if they could create without destroying at the same time, the scientists made the same mistake by formulating laws that assumed that space was empty [Euclidian]. Darwin made the same mistake [though not Lamarck and Nietzsche and Rolph and Emerson]. Darwin’s lineages are usually plotted ‘linearly from left to right along an axis of time. It doesn’t show the biospheric organismic assemblage and the web of relations that [as just discussed elsewhere] are more important than the items of content in the web; i.e. the relational web is the primary agency of change, not the things in the web that are continually gathering and being regathered [morphing] as in the aboriginal myth.

so darwin did a kind of intellectual re-enactment of the progress made by God in his ‘Creation’, ... problem is, darwin forgot that God had created and put darwin and his specimens into a finite and unbounded space, the biosphere, for the species to live in, not in an empty space. so ‘creation’ was no longer a forward linear progression since in order for something new to come in, something older had to make way for it. in Machean physics, “the dynamics of the inhabitants [species etc.] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [biosphere etc.] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat [biosphere etc.] are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [species]. are we ready to play host to a large population of dinosaurs today? do the form and number of the new incoming species have anything to do with the ecosystem they are coming into? is there any ‘back-pressure’ there? of course there is. ‘reciprocal backpressure is characteristic of dynamics in finite and unbounded space.

‘progress’ is a concept made possible by imposing a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame. this serves to make believe there is no reciprocal backpressure. then you just load your Lotus 123 or Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and do your tallies. how many new and improved yada yada yada...

God had empty infinite space to work his progress in. Science makes their own empty infinite space so as to create the impression of progress where the reality is instead ‘transformation’ of a finite and unbounded relational space, so science gets to emulate God’s Creation and we call that 'progress'. unfortunately religious man and scientific man are not paying attention to how THEIR PROGRESS is screwing things up in the physical reality of relational transformation. as mcluhan said, ... don’t those fuckers realize that the story is not about the new Cadillac factory that was just constructed. it doesn’t matter whether it was a Cadillac or cornflakes factory, what matters is how our relations with one another and the living space are transforming. the transforming medium is the fucking message. progress is an illusion. its what you get when you measure how much new stuff you put into the living space over time. it doesn’t tell you what you destroyed in the process.

God made good progress but He didn’t start with a populated space. What are you thinking of, Western religious man, Western science man???

every time i feel pressured when i leave my house and begrudgingly go to work, i always imagine emile whispering "transformation of the relational space" sensually into my ear. it always calms the nerves.

Anarcho-Postsexualism. Nice.

Same thing with me, only I always imagine him whispering "spatial plenum" into my ear.

“...spirituality is much older than elements of mass control, and must be explored to attain a wholeness of self that is necessary for reconnection with the world as a whole.”

we are the spatial plenum, the relational space that we inhabit. our movement is its transformation. we are the agents of evolution. ... so why not break out of our head-prison and open ourselves up to our real physical experience? “ever desiring, one sees the manifestations. Ever desireless, one feels the mystery. these two spring from the same source but differ in name. the name that can be named is not the eternal name.– Lao Tsu

the world has changed with your arrival within it. it is changing with your continuing presence. not just metaphorically but in a physically real sense. do we all have to go through an exercise like jimmy stewart in ‘its a wonderful life’ and subtract ourselves from the world as it is to see that our influence cannot be assessed in the simplistic terms of ‘what we do’?

if you want to say that your experience as a co-evolver of the dynamic space we share inclusion in, is not a real physical experience, and that physical reality is instead, ‘what you as a thing-in-yourself are doing’, ‘what you are achieving’, ....then you are indeed a ‘child of imperialism’, playing the star role in a creation-myth re-enactment where creative authorship transpires in an absolutely empty space so that ‘achievements’ are the full and sole results of ones actions, a view that blinds us to how our actions are conditioning the living space dynamic that is at the same time conditioning our actions.

if you reject your co-evolutionary agent experience, then you are in the same camp as the heads of sovereign states and corporations, who logically/legally declare their own ‘independent being’ and claim that their power and direction jumpstarts from their own internal components and processes so that they, being 'independent things-in-themselves' are fully and solely responsible for their own productive achievements [in spite of the increasingly frequent and enlarging crowds of infuriated people who have been subjugated and enslaved by such ‘creative authorship’ who are gnashing their teeth, burning flags and corporate logos and effigies and making bombs, ... who, the state and corporate heads claim, are ‘just jealous of our superior competencies’].

so, you would be like the majority in our colonized society to go no farther than ‘playing with’ the proposition of your being a participant in the transformation of the relational spatial-plenum, in the manner that a kitten may apprehensively paw at a sleeping dog. ‘letting sleeping dogs lie’ is the ethic of the masses; it is the story of the persisting existence of capitalist society which trains each and every newborn for a star role in a global ‘creation myth’ re-enactment known as 'Western civilization'.

sounds like it wants to sell us deep ecology even if it points out to real social developments of the past. i prefer my atheist sensual hedonistic ecologism.

no, i think you just prefer hanging out on internet forums.

oh don't we all! solidarity!

well i am not a primitivist so its ok

you aren't an anarchist either.

I feel as if the constant focus on spirituality by anarchists is a boring obsession, and diversion. That's not to say spirituality doesn't have relevance to everyday life, especially as regards refusing colonial/christian ideology, but it seems to me many anarchists care more about other worldly matters than they do about matters regarding real people.

This is basically white people talking to other white people about "spirituality" but white people lost touch with the truly spiritual a looooong time ago.

You, my friend, are a racist.

Several of the anarchists I know have spiritual lives, but few of them speak much about those matters.

What about pagan anarchists who do not believe in supernatural forces (as such)? I am a Wiccan. For me, there are no "otherworldly" matters; "real people" and the here-and-now are my ONLY concern, for my spiritual tradition holds that what may be termed "the divine" is IDENTICAL to this world that we inhabit and the plants and animals—human or non-human—whose destinies we share. Your wellbeing is a spiritual concern for me. Anti-authoritarianism is a spiritual concern for me.

your point is a good one; i.e. the problem is not in terms of ‘what has become of our world’ in the sense of ‘our continuing construction of the society we live in has gone awry’, so that our challenge now is to ‘re-construct it’ as in ‘re-wilding it’. this is all ‘head talk’. we only have to get in touch with physical reality.

i just listened to wylden freeborne talking to layla abdel-rahim on anarchy radio (feb. 10, 2012), and i would say that i agree [on the surface] with pretty much everything they said; e.g. rejecting the hedges and jensen comments on the black bloc and how our ‘safe space = polite space = violence’ and how hedges/jensen say that we should not ‘violate boundaries arbitrarily’ even though 'boundaries' are something that people impose arbitrarily [to serve their own individual/group interests], and that ‘occupy’ is the wrong terms since the notion of ‘occupation’ is unnatural and what we seek is ‘de-occupation’ etc. etc.

but there is something ‘unsaid’ in all of this that can ‘flip’ the entire thrust of the meaning of it all, and toss me out on the opposite side of where it tosses out wylden and layla, and that would be where layla says; “in the wild, you don’t dream, ... you do” in the context of how people dream about heroic acts without ever acting on them; i.e. “in the wild you don’t act out of a dream of who you are.” but you act out of your own natural wildness and authenticity. this ties to layla’s issue with ‘representation’ and how it dominates our world view.

ok, my ‘objection’ to [what i am interpreting is] her intent, which leads her to the notion of ‘re-wilding’, is what mach and nietzsche would object to; i.e. the problems of looking at 'representations' in terms of 'what things-in-themselves do'. that is, we have [i.e. 'our' Western civilization has] interchanged the dream [psychical] and the reality [physical]; we have interchanged Maya [appearances in terms of what-things-in-themselves-do] for ‘physical reality’ [transformation of the relational spatial-plenum we all share co-evolutionary participative inclusion in], ... therefore ‘what people do’ is 'representation' and it is not where we should look for reality. the only physical reality is the transformation of the relational space we all share inclusion in and are all co-evolvers of.

to talk about ‘what animals do’ is to talk about ‘appearances’ [animals are not afflicted with the self-centred delusions of thing-in-oneself grandeur that civilized humans are]. the ‘heroic act’ of ‘saving a child’ that is being swept off in a raging river, is a degenerate view of this dynamic. do we keep having to refer back to jimmy stewart in ‘its a wonderful life’ to remind ourselves that the transformation of the spatial medium is the message? the ‘wild and authentic human animal in us’ that ‘rescues the child’ is a 'representation' of the 'what things-in-themselves do' form and it is 'not the real story'. the primary story pivots from the evolutionary force that pervades nature, call it the ‘will to power’ or whatever, that orchestrates and organizes the continually transforming spatial-plenum, the manifest aspect of which [which is radically short of the whole transforming ball of wax] is the local, visible, material 'what things-in-themselves do' dynamics.

only if and when we make ourselves and what we do the ‘primary story’ do we interpret our need as ‘the rewilding of human society. we already are wild but we don’t perceive it because we are caught up in ‘schaumkommen’, in Fiktional visions of dynamics in the degenerate Euclidian terms of ‘what we as things-in-ourselves do’. wylden and layla are interpreting the data in terms of ‘what we are doing is not correct’ and that ‘we must learn how to do things in a more natural wild/authentic manner’, as in ‘feral futures’.

the problem with this interpretation is that it starts from the 'Maya' of ‘what we are doing’, finds fault with it, and suggests a revised 'Maya' wherein ‘we should be doing things differently’ and suggest that we can re-learn how to 'do things the way we should be doing things' if we go into the wilderness together and practice. the wilderness is not REALLY something ‘beyond the city limits’, the wilderness is here everywhere. we don’t really domesticate the wilderness by putting a lot of buildings on top of it. that is merely ‘schaumkommen’. the wilderness is one thing and wherever we are, we are included in it.

as wylden mused [and which deserved further exploration], maybe the ‘trickster’ is a mythology too. to ‘rewild ourselves’ seems like we are caught up in the obsession with ‘representation’ that layla says is the basic problem with civilization; i.e. ‘re-wilding’ seems to be a case of tricking ourselves into changing our ‘representation’ rather than changing our way of being in the world. sure we can get naked and authentic in the bush and/or do as the bonobo do, but this is all about ‘representation’ or ‘cargo cult science’ [like simulating an airstrip by clearing some jungle and lining its perimeter with torches to entice the big metal bird to come down from the sky and disgorge treasures from out of his belly]. it is a representation-ritual, wherein we trade out one representation-ritual for another, presumed superior one.

we live in a society/civilization that is mistaking the psychical for the physical and vice versa, which manifests in our mistaking physical reality for ‘what things-in-themselves do’; i.e. in mistakenly seeing our own lives in terms of ‘what we as things-in-ourselves do’. this error leads to the next error in seeing our needed response in terms of changing ‘what we as things-in-ourselves do’ [the re-wilding of ourselves].

we are far too caught up in ourselves as ‘things-in-ourselves’ that are notionally our own locally jumpstarting authors of ‘what we do’. this is the problem as mach, nietzsche, poincaré, bohm, schroedinger have identified it. it is the problem of confusing idealization for reality; i.e. for finding fault in ‘what we do’ rather than in how we are understanding the world and our relationship with one another and the transforming spatial-plenum we share inclusion in. what is waiting for us, is our acknowledging that 'the medium is the message', that the 'figures' cannot be separated from the 'ground' except when we confuse idealization for reality and conceive of dynamics, including our own, in terms of 'what things-in-themselves do.'

if this was rephrased in tiqqunist terms about ritualizing a crisis of presence, people would be all over it.

no they wouldn't.

The phrase is 'deep-seated', not "deep seeded".

Grammarist !

"I am not convinced that there is any reason to use the term "spiritual" in any positive sense anymore. It is no longer necessary, if it ever was, to turn to god or a spiritual realm to explain any reality we encounter. If we continue to use to speak of "spirituality" or "spiritual meaning' in any positive sense,it is necessary to create clear, new meanings for these terms that wrench them from their religious significance with its assumption of a separate spiritual realm. I personal prefer to find other words that don't have such implications. Like the marvelous, the poetic, wonder...."

Apio Ludd
"Why Not in Wonderland?"

I liked this article a lot, and i referred to it in a recent conversation I had with a friend of mine. He pointed out that science has changed drastically, relativity for instance is not deterministic.

Anarchists aren't the real radicals, join DGR and work towards a US with a national direct democracy. Let's see this country go to war next time when they need a majority of its citizens being the voice. We could have stopped the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with a national direct democracy.


Hello friends and allies,

Industrial civilization is destroying the planet. The evidence is all around us: rivers devoid of life, prairies wiped out, migratory bird populations dwindling, indigenous communities struggling to survive, the devastating practices of mining, deforesting, and fracking. The land called Wisconsin is under constant attack from ecocidal maniacs. It's time we fight back.

Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is a movement that starts with this understanding and this urgency. The goal of DGR is to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. This will require defending and rebuilding just and sustainable human communities nestled inside repaired and restored landbases. This is a vast undertaking but it needs to be said: it can be done. Industrial civilization can be stopped.

There's no better time to join in this fight and the Wisconsin chapter of the DGR movement is recruiting. Whatever your gifts are--art, organizing, and so on--if you have the passion to defend this land, we urge you to consider joining us.

The process of joining DGR Wisconsin is simple. First, you can choose the capacity in which you want to get involved. THEN, WE'LL SET UP A PHONE INTERVIEW AND DETERMINE IF YOU ARE A GOOD FIT. If you are interested, please visit our website and follow the steps:

What has DGR Wisconsin been doing lately? Here's our latest report:

In resistance,

Deep Green Resistance Wisconsin
(262) 208-5347


"You know an odd feeling? Sitting on the toilet eating a chocolate candy bar."

George Carlin

What does this have to do with Anarchist spirituality? Your posting here makes DGR look like fanatics.

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.