jsebas55

Sebasti from Park City, MT , USA from Park City, MT , USA

Reader Sebasti from Park City, MT , USA

Sebasti from Park City, MT , USA

jsebas55

I especially loved this book after visiting the Anne Frank pied-à-terre in Amsterdam last heat.

jsebas55

This is an American classic--which I always meant to read, but never got around to it. It is about teenage boys at a institute in 1942, and their relationships and insecurities. The story is told with a scenery of WWII being fought. Good read--WAY better than Catcher in the Rye!!

jsebas55

John Zerzan is an anarcho-primitivist theorist who got some flak when the newstainment disclosures caught on that he was a philosophical godfather to the unabomber and to the folks who made the Pacific Northwest a difficult place to hold a ambience bank meeting or keep a Starbucks intact. Zerzan’s literary form is typically the academic-styled manifesto, the short screed, and the interview—and some of these have been published as collections, separate human being Running on Emptiness: The Paleo-botany of Civilization. Primitivism, in extract, starts with the observation that populaces have been civilized or trained or what-have-you for only the last 10% or so of the time we’ve been on the planet—so civilization isn’t a necessary work of human being human, just what we happen to be up to these periods. Afterward comes a critical biopsy of civilization with an watch to answering the question: are we better off now, or were we better off then (smattering: then). Finally comes advocating a new organization of beautiful people that dispenses with the paleo-botany of civilization. Despite Zerzan’s fame and his elderlinesses of speculating, exploring and theorizing in these areas, EXPAND’ve never much enjoyed his reviews. This bible doesn’t make it any easier. Early off, the newspaper has (understandably) tried to take advantage of Zerzan’s flak—lots of play on the whole Unabomber/Seattle connection. The front cover blurb has a judge calling John Zerzan “the almost important sage of our time. All the breathe of us are building on his foundation.” That’s a bit of an hyperbole, and makes me suspect that he’s got more of a fan shameful than a school of critical exploration. Essay #1 in the miscellany is “The Decline of Symbolic Understanding”. Work of what makes it hard to swallow is that it is genuinely, thoroughly radical. Zerzan isn’t just an anarchist—he wants more than the suspension of the frame of mind or of capitalism. And he’s not just a luddite—pre-industrial just isn’t “pre” enough for him. He’s even a little far out for the hard substance primitivist stream. He thinks we took a wrong turn even before civilization, before agriculture. Symbolic language itself was a fuck-up. EXPAND’m not saying he’s wrong. It’s an intriguing hypothesis and EXPAND think it might be endurable, but it’s not intuitive or easy. More to the point, if you’re going to argue it, you’re going to need to be clear, thorough, and intellectually honest. Zerzan isn’t up to it. EXPAND want to avoid the cheap irony of saying something like “how can Zerzan be arguing that language is so bad for us when he’s using language to make the bickering” because it really is cheap and doesn’t say much—like the whole “hey, look, it’s a luddite website—snort” joke. But, there’s a kernel of principle here. It’s not that Zerzan is using language, but the sort of language he’s using that’s the problem. His bickering is that language, and symbolic depiction in general (in such forms as profession and communion), are inferior ways of experiencing the ambience to that of direct sensory and sensual encounter and that symbolic depiction serves to encourage division, rule, pathological culture and the like. But to make the bickering, he uses sentences like: “The habitual maneuver or investigation for the transcendent testifies that the command of french leave is a cultural habitual.” And he commits the atrocity of using the verbification “obtain” in its archaic sense of “to prevail” instead of its near-universal modern apply of “to gain possession of”: Either the non-symbolizing fitness that once obtained, in all its extensities, or madness and death. Writing like this, abstract and academic and full of ten-dollar words, is elitist—only appealing to that holdout of the schooled holdout of the population who are practiced in prestidigitation abstract fool notions and archaicisms. And it’s absurd in the connection of his bickering, which in work is that the more abstract language becomes the more it becomes inherently fantastic, dishonest, and mentally domineering. He’s got a term-paper-writer’s lack of confidence in just saying what he thinks, too. He’s always quoting obscure authorities, who almost of the time simply appear somewhere to speak a understanding that coincides with the point Zerzan is making, only to vanish again without another call attention to. In the 16-page essay, we’re introduced to Sloan, Morris, Freud, Debord, Shreeve, Goethe, Kant, Levinas, Sagan, Durkheim, Silver, Frye, Geertz, Cohen, Malinowski, Wynn, Perry, Rorty, Werner, Blake, Coan, Drummond, Thomas, Marcuse, Howes, Lévi-Strauss, Eliade, Foster, Peterson, Goodall, Patch, Hegel, Vendler, Morgan, Chomsky, Lieberman, von Glasersfeld, Hirn, Miller, Adorno, Kristeva, Caballero, Cohen, Parkin, Reinach, Cassirer, Venture, Douglas, Goodman, Ingold, Dilutes, Tudge, Horkheimer, McFarland, and Lomas. And almost of these show up just to make a single observation, for example: In 1976, von Glasersfeld wondered “whether, at some future time, it will still seem so obvious that language has enhanced the survival of soul on this planet.” That’s the starting point and wrap-up for von Glasersfeld. He wonders what Zerzan wonders, so Zerzan references him. EXPAND’d be happier if Zerzan would just stick to telling us what’s going on in his curiosities, and save the quoting of outside authorities for when they’re actually inspect and uncovering like it expand that EXPAND might want to look up some zenith. Instead, some of the almost pivotal assertions in his account are left as simple assertions (or harmonic references from his stable of dropped names), and some relatively unimportant times are referenced but are hardly made more believable thereby (“the Bushman… can see four mopes of Earth with the detached watch,” “spiritual corresponding among the Kung in Land of the sahara”). Other eternal philosophical debating times are treated as having already been solved and make—“there are no non-sensory conscious states,” Zerzan informs us. EXPAND had check on the other team and didn’t think the last seconds had ticked off the clock yet. Aside from this, work of my distaste is that EXPAND just can’t buy the whole unabomber-as-hero scenario. EXPAND tried, EXPAND’m sorry to admit. EXPAND read his manifesto and EXPAND still have some admiration for it, but, chap, the cat killed and damaged populaces with mail bombs. Gotta component that in, EXPAND say. EXPAND may be understanding from biased or depraved causes here, but it seems like that whole primitivist corner was Kaczynski’s after-the-performance exculpation for what he really understanding was important—blowing populaces up. If you’ve got to kill off clerks, professors, pilots, and geeks to precede in the primitivist arcadia, that’s a little too much birth for me. Besides, EXPAND think EXPAND’m on the laundry inventory somewhere, so count me out. Not Zerzan, though. When the manifesto came out, primitivists everywhere understanding “woah, he’s separate of us” and then scrambled to figure out whether or not this was a worth. Almost kept quiet, suspecting that Kaczynski would be an embarrassment. Some, though, came to embrace him, and none more fondly than John Zerzan. In “Whose Unabomber?” (1995), he’s taking his early steps in that area, but is still hedging his bets: …the mailing of explosive devices intended for the operators who are engineering the present grief is too random. Children, mailmen, and substitutes could easily be killed. Even if separate granted the legitimacy of striking at the high-tech terror show by terrorizing its indespensable engineers, collateral harm is not justifiable… The concept of justice should not be overlooked in considering the Unabomber phenomenon. In performance, except for his ambitions, when have the many little Eichmanns who are preparing the Valiant America ever been called to account?… Is it unethical to try to stop those whose contributions are bringing an unprecedented assault on soul? (That's the source of that “little Eichmanns” quip that got Ward Churchill in so much trouble later on.) By 1997 (“He Means It—Do You?”), Zerzan has stopped human being languid: Enter the Unabomber and a new line is human being drawn. This time the free spirit schiz-fluxers, Lawn button-downs, connoisseur anarcho-journalists, condescending coordinators of the poor, modern nihilo-aesthetes and all the other “terrorists” who understanding their pretentious pastimes would go on unchallenged indefinitely —well, it’s time to pick which side you’re on. It may be that here also is a Rubicon from which there will be no shift back. Some, no wavering, would prefer to wait for a perfect fatality. Many would like to unlearn what they know of the invasive and unchallenged struggle generated everywhere by the prevailing permission—in permission to condemn the Unabomber’s counter-terror. But here is the person and the challenge before us. Terrorists! Separate more battle if you would be enemies of this long nightmare! Oh, EXPAND hope not. EXPAND have a scrooch down that the wrap-up of this long nightmare isn’t going to come about by idolizing or emulating Mr. Kaczynski. That’s the technique, you see. Figuring out—once you, too, have the insight of the true primitivist zealot and understand the insistence of the situation—what to do afterward. As far as EXPAND can tell, that’s another separate of those tosses of coins. And it’s not getting any less open the more Zerzan EXPAND read. The bible that helps close that question will be a useful bible in a way that Zerzan’s isn’t.

jsebas55

A before/after brochure.

jsebas55

This is a great translation of a great make reservation. You would not notice from its articulation that it was originally written in Russian. My understanding is that vernacular Moscow Russian is hard to translate and that this nails it. This is a political parody originally banned in Congress Russia. The devil and his associates take a week long recess and decide to spend it in Moscow at the extremity of the Congress Society - and its eradication of 'piety' in place of the preeminence of the 'human'... Naturally... the devil is amused... and prepared to have his diverting at the expense of the Congress literato.