Ishmael Community Guestbook

John,

Since you quazi-quoted Jensen's "voluntary transformation" line out of context, here's the original:

"Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time."

(for all 20 of Jensen's premises, click on my name or go here: http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm)

I agree with you that there are contradictions between DQ's and DJ's work. I guess I just don't have a problem holding both perspectives in my head at the same time. My thing with Jensen is that I don't think PURPOSEFULLY bringing down Civilization is necessary, because it's already happening as fast as HUMANLY POSSIBLE, whether we are conscious of it or not, which is something I think he demonstrates amazingly and overwhelming comprehensively in his work.

I find that it's best to learn from thinkers' analysis, rather than dwelling too much on their suggestions for what we should do. That's our own responsibility as individuals.

Scott,

While Derrick wrote the words "[w]e need it all," I think it's quite clear there's one thing he thinks we don't need--people working to bring about a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living, which is what DQ (and I) are advocating.

And here's the rub: You can't both work to bring about that voluntary transformation and work to bring it all down, as Derrick advocates--those are contradictory courses of action. Consequently, every person Derrick convinces to devote her/his life to bringing it all down is one less person working for voluntary transformation, and Derrick can be a very moving and powerful writer and speaker. I think he makes the work of folks like me harder than it needs to be, and, as a result, he makes it less likely we'll succeed.

I respect Derrick a great deal, but I'm pretty strongly convinced civilization cannot be brought down, which leaves me wishing he was much less effective in convincing folks it needs to be brought down.

I've been following Derrick Jensen for years...I've read all his books multiple times (which, along with Daniel Quinn's work, is totally necessary to get the whole message).

Consider this passage from Endgame (volume 1, page 305):

"We need it all. We need people to take out dams and we need people to knock out electrical infrastructures. We need people to protest and to chain themselves to trees. We ALSO need people working to ensure that as many people as possible are equipped to deal with the fallout when the collapse comes. We need people working to teach others what wild plants to eat, how to build shelters. All of this can look like supporting traditional, local knowledge, it can look like starting rooftop gardens, it can look like planting local varieties of medicinal herbs, and it can look like teaching people how to sing. ... The truth is that although I do not believe that designing groovy eco-villages will help bring down civilization, when the crash comes, I'm sure to be first in line knocking on their doors asking for food."

He re-emphasizes this point repeatedly throughout Endgame as well as his public talks. There is no doubt that Jensen thinks that "making the Thunderbolt airworthy" is not just unlikely, but impossible, and his argument is powerful. Daniel Quinn says that it may be possible, but we may not succeed. Both say that if we find ourselves "post-crash", knowing how to move forward, using what we've learned, is desirable.

I take both seriously, and find them both incredibly valuable.

It's fitting that it was, in the end, Daniel Quinn who had to write something that would send dlundy stomping away in a huff, never (really?) to return. It's baffled me for years why dlundy continued to stop in every once in a while just to tell anyone who happened to be reading the Guestbook at the time just how wrong Quinn is about religion--Christianity in particular--and animism. I won't miss his periodic rants.

He doesn't seem to be genuinely familiar with Derrick Jensen's work, either, because DJ is just as interventionist as DQ. DJ advocates changing minds (though he doesn't use that particular phrase to the best of my recollection), though for the purpose of taking civilization down, not transforming our culture.

Dlundy also doesn't seem to understand much about animists, who most certainly don't take a noninterventionist approach to their world when they see things not going the way they'd like them to go.

dlundy, what email address can I contact you at? The link in your post doesn't lead to your profile. My email is binnfourattelusplanetdotnet.

"Jensen puts his faith in destroying civilization; I put mine in changing minds. "

No one is motivated by their "mind" but by the vision that comes from a deeper center, as addictions and neuroscience and all behavioral history teaches. From the book Descartes Error onward...We are changed by a cognitive shift involving the "Myth" we see ourselves participating in, as George Lakhoff recently pointed out in his series of books.

Jensen sees civilization as doomed, in its current form. Most agree he's right. He puts no "faith" in that fact whatsoever. He trusts the energies of Nature to do their work, as a real animist would, not trying to do the job FOR nature and 'save' what brought us forth! Ludicrious and arrogant! Adolescent! Ive never heard a more cynical negative remark towards a dedicated worker. Or less accurate.

This will be my last visit to this gnarled corner of the web. Too many great voices elsewhere. In fact, everywhere.

No mind changes any other, but when emergence occurs (as Tolle teaches)it opens doors for everyone.

Write me at home, I wont be back.

Christian~ Your post was pure poetry. Thank you.

I'm sure plenty of people out there are reading The Power of Now --- i highly recommend it to fellow Quinn readers, but of course WITH A FEW CAVIATS. Tolle is easily pegged as in the Humans Need To Evolve Futher To Survive On The Planet camp, and this makes no sense to me whatever. We didn't "evolve" away from sustainability, and certainly don't need to "evolve" back toward it --- unless of course you are speaking of CULTURAL evolution. But his macro philosophies aside Tolle's THE POWER OF NOW has, for me, on a personal little "micro" level, been an invaluable tool for empowerment. I would also caution AGAINST taking too much to heart Tolle's implication that our minds and intellects are inherently damaging or debilitating (they evolved BY WORKING along with all our other features, after all). But our cultural obsession with DEFINING ourselves as super-thinkers he describes to a T (Homo Sapiens Sapiens? WTF? "Man the All-Knowing"). I think Quinn might agree it's time to live in the Now (and acknowlege and accept and then ACT UPON the realities thereof).

Also anyone interested in the above may appreaciate Roger Fouts' book Next of Kin. Using Fouts' terminology our "mind-defined" condition might be described this way: We evolved a special ability to process information SEQUENTIALLY --- moving from conclusion to conclusion in a linear process based on more and more data. But we did not, in any genetic sense, lose our ability to process SIMULTANEOUSLY --- like a baseball batter does when he sees a pitch fly and computes in an instant what would take a physicist a slurry of Newtonian equations: how to smack it outta the park with a skinny-ass wooden stick. Fouts points out how good chimpanzees are at computing instantly from a gesture how someone feels, and we all know how "intuitive" dogs and some people can be. In our culture we've simply become obsessed with the EXCLUSIVE use of our sequential processing abilities --- and as Tolle points out our ability to deeply ponder the past and future. Wonderfull as those skills are (and useful as they can be), we need to realize that they are not the end-all be-all of human existance, nor, on a personal level, need they be the primary definers of ourselves. Descarte, roll over: I burn for now with a bit of the effectively eternal fire of life, and therefore I am.

Here is DQ's reply to John's question #15601:

In ISHMAEL (pages 105-110) I dubbed our civilization "the Taker Thunderbolt," a badly designed aircraft that began in free fall and is still in free fall--in the air but not in flight. Nowadays, Ishmael says, "Everyone is looking down, and it's obvious that the ground is rushing up toward you--and rushing up faster every year. Basic ecological and planetary systems are being impacted by the Taker Thunderbolt, and that impact increases in intensity every year. Basic, irreplaceable resources are being devoured every year--and they're being devoured more greedily every year. Whole species are disappearing as a result of your encroachment--and they're disappearing in greater numbers every year. Pessimists--or it may be that they're realists--look down and say, 'Well, the crash may be twenty years off or maybe as much as fifty years off. Actually it could happen anytime. There's no way to be sure.' But of course there are optimists as well, who say, 'We must have faith in our craft. After all, it has brought us this far in safety. What's ahead isn't doom, it's just a little hump that we can clear if we all just pedal a little harder. Then we'll soar into a glorious, endless future, and the Taker Thunderbolt will take us to the stars and we'll conquer the universe itself.' But your craft isn't going to save you. Quite the contrary, it's your craft that's carrying you toward catastrophe. Five billion of you pedaling away--or ten billion or twenty billion--can't make it fly. It's been in free fall from the beginning, and that fall is about to end."

Derrick Jensen sees as clearly as I do the disastrous impact the Taker Thunderbolt is having on our planet. It is at this point that our visions diverge. I would like to avert the crash if at all possible by making the "passengers" of the Thunderbolt understand WHY the Thunderbolt can't stay in the air–and never could have. I want them to understand this for two reasons: first, to get them working on making the Thunderbolt airworthy, and second, if they can't do that–if the Thunderbolt crashes–to make sure they understand that they must not just BUILD IT AGAIN. Jensen merely wants to accelerate the crash. My point is that, if that crash were to occur tomorrow, the people of the world would, I believe, immediately begin rebuilding the Thunderbolt, putting themselves in a position to repeat the catastrophe once again someday in the future. As I say, I would like to avert the catastrophe; but if that's not possible, I would like time to make as many people as possible understand WHY it happened and that we must not just start doing it all over again. Jensen puts his faith in destroying civilization; I put mine in changing minds.

Just saw your note Nathan. No, but I will refer you to the books because your question deserves a through answer and Im not very focused on this presently. I dont have an essay up my sleeve on this presently. But the answers are clear enough.

Thom Hartmann has a great reading list that includes 'Beyond Belief' by Elaine Pagels and 'The Chalice and the Blade' by Riane Eisler and each of these describe the contrasting christian threads of orthodox power structure versus more gnostic contemplative traditions that continue to be expressed as a powerful undercurrent. (this is the non-roman tradition one could expand and expand on)The Dessert Fathers to Barry Lopez, perhaps a present day animist who has christian roots. Not to apply any labels, he escapes them.

And no, its not about the tradition whether Islam, Christianity or Zoroastrianism. Each tradition has its tyranies and its transformational reforms. Its about the uses made of it. Both Vonnegut in Man Without a Country and Fates Worse than Death, and Leonard Cohen in "The Future" and "the Faith" powerfully clarify these points. And yes, have a look. I cant reproduce this here! Vonnegut says the problem is not teaching christ but teaching him as "a way to win" that is the real atrocity.

Actually the worst victims of christian opresson are not the non-christians but its own mystical adherents, the St Joans and Francis types...I understand more gnostic heretics were crucified by the first popes than original followers were ever fed to the lions. And Native american orthodox Christians persecuted the Native american shaker cult similarly. Its a very familiar conflict which takes many forms. Yes, patterns and systems tend to repeat parallel dynamics, in individuals,in families, in history...the whole emerging science of systems is based on the value of this very fact. Us and the Incas? Im sure we can quarrel this indefinitely...

I dont think you could ask for a practice more animist in nature than the ghost dance, which was thoroughly pacifist and also thoroughly christian in imagery, yet thoroughly native in origin and character. This is what I am talking about. Im sure the definition of all this can be more finely honed by others than myself.

This post is addressed to Daniel Quinn:

I first heard about Derrick Jensen's work through a recommendation you made on your reading list several years ago for his book A Language Older Than Words. I thought Language was a deeply moving and beautiful book--still do--and I also admired his next book, The Culture of Make Believe, though its subject was so dark as to make it far from enjoyable for me.

In his more recent work, though, Jensen has expressed his conviction that "[t]his culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living" (quoting from Endgame). Based on that assumption, he's argued that the very best those who love the world can do is to try to bring civilization down as soon as possible in a sort of planned demolition, like taking down a condemned building. While I don't agree with Jensen and see no reason to think you do based on my understanding of your work, my impression is that many people with an earnest desire to save the world have read books by both of you and would likely be interested in reading your reaction to his clarion call for us to "bring it all down."

Hi John--Here is DQ's answer to your question:

My answer in this case is that I discontinued the Q&A when I found I was for the most part just repeating myself or looking up questions that questioners should have looked up themselves. Anyone following the guestbook closely will see that when original questions turn up there now, I post a reply.

Sam

Hmmm....

I was already formulating a question to submit to Quinn, then I read Nicholas's post and Daniel's reply posted by Sam. So I went looking for the "Ask a Question" link and couldn't find it. Sam, do you know why it was eliminated? Surely not every worthwhile question has been asked?

When I was a boy, we were taught that each generation had responsibilities to assume and duties to perform with regard to the acknowledgement and acceptance of the challenges that are presented to us, so that the next generation can have a chance at a better life. Under no circumstances, would it be correct to pose as willfully blind, hysterically deaf or electively mute in the face of any challenge, as many too many in my not-so-great generation are doing in these days.

What has happened to the misguided leaders of my generation? So many in the elder generation have determined to let the looming challenges in our time fall into the laps of our children. At least to me, today’s leaders show an astonishing unwillingness to examine the prospects of a good life for those who directly follow us, let alone coming generations.

After my single, not-so-great generation finishes the `missions’ (ie, fools’ errands) the leading, self-proclaimed “masters of the universe” among us have set before the human community, what resources will be left for our children to consume; how many more people will have to share what remains of the dissipated and degraded resources; where will they find clean air to breathe, clean water to drink? I shudder when thinking about what our children might say about what we have done so poorly and failed to do so spectacularly, all for sake of selfishly fulfilling our insatiable desires for endless material possessions and freedom without responsibility.....come what may for the children, coming generations, global biodiversity, the environment and Earth’s body. How could one generation go so wrong? Here are some of the ways.

First, the leaders in my generation of elders wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, of increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; our desires are evidently insatiable. We choose to believe anything that is politically convenient, economically expedient and socially agreeable; our way of life is not negotiable. We dare anyone to question our values or behaviors.

We religiously promote our widely shared and consensually-validated fantasies of `real’ endless economic growth and soon to be unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities, and in so doing deny that Earth has limited resources and frangible ecosystems upon which the survival of life as we know it depends.

Second, my not-so-great generation appears to be doing a disservice to everything and everyone but ourselves. We are the “what’s in it for me?” generation. We demonstrate precious little regard for the maintenance of the integrity of Earth; shallow willingness to actually protect the environment from crippling degradation; lack of serious consideration for the preservation of biodiversity, wilderness, and a good enough future for our children and coming generations; and no appreciation of the vital understanding that humans are no more or less than magnificent living beings with “feet of clay.”

Perhaps we live in unsustainable ways in our planetary home; but we are proud of it nonetheless. Certainly, we will “have our cake and eat it, too.” We will own fleets of cars, fly around in thousands of private jets, live in McMansions, exchange secret handshakes, frequent exclusive clubs and distant hideouts, and risk nothing of value to us. We will live long, large and free. Please do not bother us with the problems of the world. We choose not to hear, see or speak of them. We are the economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the many minions in the mass media. We hold much of the world’s wealth and the extraordinary power great wealth purchases. If left to our own devices, we will continue in the exercise of our `inalienable rights’ to outrageously consume Earth’s limited resources; to recklessly expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; and to carelessly consent to the unbridled global growth of human numbers so that where there are now 6+ billion people, by 2050 we will have 9+ billion members of the human community and, guess what, even more people, perhaps billions more in the distant future, if that is what we desire.

We are the reigning, self-proclaimed masters of the universe. We enjoy freedom and living without limits; of course, we adamantly eschew any talk of the personal responsibilities that come with the exercise of personal freedoms or any discussion of the existence of biophysical limitations of any kind.

We deny the existence of human limits and Earth’s limitations.

Please understand that we do not want anyone presenting us with scientific evidence that we could be living unsustainably in an artificially designed, temporary world of our own making….a manmade world filling up with gigantic enterprises, virtual mountains of material possessions, and boundless amounts of filthy lucre.

Third, most of our top rank experts appear not to have found adequate ways of communicating to the family of humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the rapacious dissipation of Earth’s limited resources, the relentless degradation of the planet’s environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding at breakneck speed toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world’s colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global political economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic `wall’ called “unsustainability” at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth’s ecology is collapsed.

Who knows, perhaps we can realistically and hopefully hold onto the expectation that behavioral changes in the direction of sustainable production, per human consumption, and propagation are in the offing.....changes that save both the economy and the Creation.

Steven Earl Salmony AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, est. 2001 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

Hi all-

Daniel Quinn has this to say about the Inca post:

The Inca had their OWN Mother Culture (as each culture does). They didn't have ours. To SAY that their Mother Culture "parallels" ours is as meaningless as saying that their roads "parallel" ours (which of course they did, since roads are pretty much roads wherever they're found).

In its thousand year run, the Inca empire (2 million Sq. Km) took over about 0.05% of the New World (42 million Sq. Km). In half this amount of time, our own culture has taken over virtually the whole of the New World–I'd say 90% at the least. Comparing the Inca takeover (0.05% in a thousand years) with our own takeover (90% in 500 years) seems to me to make it absurd to to compare the two cultures. It's like comparing Hank's Auto Shop (two service bays, six gas pumps, and a candy counter) to the Ford Motor Company.

If the Inca's Mother Culture does in some way "parallel" ours (which is certainly debatable), this hardly supports the idea that our world-consuming culture was somehow "a human inevitability."