h1

Free Range Organic Intellect

October 17, 2006

There’s a great post on Free Range Organic Human (I hope Ted doesn’t mind the title I’ve used). I think it’s essentially about how our intellectual way of thinking isn’t really that great for us – and I guess it stands to reason that if Civilisation reveres intellectualism we need to be cautious about it.One likely response to this line of thinking is to try to get back to a non intellectual state. Idon’t think this is a bad idea but I do wonder if our capacity for intellectual thought is the only thing that can get us out of this mess now that we’re in it. It’s a kind of catch 22.

I talk a lot about raising my kids according to lessons learnt from the Continuum Concept book but what would happen if I actually succeeded? Assuming for a moment that it’s possible (I think it’s not) we wouldn’t be doing our kids any favours if we did succeeded, they would be totally ill equipped to cope with the world we live in. It’s an issue I need to dwell on some more but for now here’s a quote from an article that a reader sent me. It’s called ‘Preconquest Consciousness’  by  E Richard Sorenson

Preconquest regions were often fringed by intervening zones of mayhem and disorder, induding warfare, piracy, extravagant sexuality, and brigandage.  Getting through to them was often dangerous.

Groups only lightly touched by aggressive cultures retained much of their basic sociosensual child nurture and instinctive intuitive rapport. These core traits declined as the force of conquest increased. In the face of sustained demanding contact, open sociosensuality largely disappeared from view, to reshape as a confined covert type (seen inside houses, at sea on boats, in obscure nooks, and in isolated social fringes). Where preconquest populations were unrelentingly besieged by harsh conquistadorial demands, intuitive rapport sometimes suddenly give way en masse, precipating a period of acute existential crisis. Arising from such crises was the `savage-savage’ who caused much of the mayhem and disorder seen in those disturbed and dangerous zones that so often barricaded entrance to remnant preconquest areas.(4)

I think I’ve mentioned this stuff before, I’m not sure what the solution to the catch 22 situation but in a previous post about an evil psychiatrist turned advertiser I concluded that the only way around him was through personal growth and increased self honesty. I think this is all we probably can do with any of the conundrums civilisation throws at us.

Advertisements

One comment

  1. Yeah, great Title, I don’t mind at all. I think the exchange of ideas between these different blogs is great.

    I guess what I was thinking of was that people didn’t come up with geometry and mathematics and so forth in order to save the world. It was in order to dominate the world.

    Plus there are only so many intellectuals in the world at a given time anyway, so then you get the masses being acted upon by hierarchies. Sort of like animal farm where the pigs took over.

    What I am wondering though, is not so much “should we go back?” but rather I am wondering if we use science to create models of the world in order to create the perfect society, will we unwittingly create more hierarchy and domination even if we mean well, because the very act in itself is a type of domination?

    Because think of it. It would take some very smart people using sophisticated analysis to come up with societal solutions that adress all of these problems we face as a civilization. But complex solutions are not going to be enacted enmasse at a grassroots level. It would require some elite group with the power to carry these things out. Like a politburo

    Posted by: ted heistman | 10/17/2006

    Ted, have you read ‘In the Absense of the Sacred’ by Jerry Mander. He argues that technology is not neutral and I’d say that his argument also applies to the thought style you are refferring to

    I know it’s not quite what you were discussing but it may be of interest.

    I think if the theoretical very smart people you refer to did the job honestly then they’d come up with the proposition that we should dismantle civilisation. Any other option would involve giving disproportionate power to the elite group and they would misuse their power, there is no one alive who could resist that temptation, at least no one civilised and we’d quickly be back where we are now.

    It’s basically a conundrum, using power to limit power.

    The only way that makes sense to me now is to free my mind from civilisation (call it rewilding, decolonising, dropping out, or whatever) and then create an alternative that might attract or inspire those few other people who’s minds are open to it. Anything else involved the conundrum and I don’t think it can work

    Posted by: Aaron | 10/18/2006

    “The only way that makes sense to me now is to free my mind from civilisation (call it rewilding, decolonising, dropping out, or whatever) and then create an alternative that might attract or inspire those few other people who’s minds are open to it. Anything else involved the conundrum and I don’t think it can work”

    I’m with you on that. I think that issue of neutrality is exactly what I’m getting at, too. I think I have read that article you mention. Or maybe it was zerzan.

    Posted by: ted heistman | 10/18/2006



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: