reclusive one

on being a recluse

2009-04-12T20:56:52Z

http://www.hermitary.com/thatch/

Individualisms
Thursday, April 9, 2009

On first impression, philosophical Individualisms seem to be linked to eremitism. Both represent the individual following his or her own will, deciding for themselves that an interior or subjective view of the world is more important than an institutional or cultural consensus about how to live and think.

Although everyone is an “individual,” individuals did not emerge as social phenomena until after the devolution of the Western medieval world view, where a social model unraveled and identification with social and class roles began to blur.

There have always been “heroes” of one sort or another, assertive individuals efforts presented as historical and unique products of individual consciousness and will, but even heroic deeds were not individual deeds but carefully prescribed methods and channels of social expression. A knight was not heroic because he engaged in battle. A monk was not heroic because he spent hours in prayer. A woman was not heroic because she renounced her autonomy to the family.

The heroic archetype was understood in antiquity and the Middle Ages, but it was reserved to those already defined as “heroic” in capacity - hence the knight could go further, but not the monk, the peasant, or the housewife. The discovery of the individual, it may be said, was discovered early on in the East, as in Buddhism, rebelling as it did against the caste system, but the psychological and political implications were not drawn.

In the Western world, those implications were drawn, and the result was the emergence of the individual over succeeding centuries. This meant wars of nobles against nobles, wars of religion, wars of middle against upper, low against upper and middle, etc.

Indeed, war may be thought of as a pivotal factor in social jumps or shocks that set off new cycles, whether material or social. Even when war destroys the rebels, war nevertheless also destroys in the conscience of sensitive observers the moral legitimacy of the victors — and of the existing social and moral system. Wars represent a devolution of the moral “capital” of the powerful, further alienating from dominant culture that set of individuals who are thinkers, creators, and reflective personalities.

In times of crisis, alternative social expressions emerge, among them individuals, at least in modern times.

In 17th century England (and probably in mercantile Flanders, Holland, Italy, France, and other places throughout Europe where Protestantism was followed or accompanied by philosophical skepticism), the extrapolation of individualism to the economic order emerged, even before a full-blown philosophy of individualism. The notion that individuals should have autonomy in their social and economic lives was a product of devolution, opposed by the powerful who would control the new mercantilism. The autonomous economic activity came to be called “capitalism,” but it never flourished because the kings and nobles still owned land, food, shipping, credit, goods — and no individual could enter this field without the traditional social privileges of birth, rank, and social connections.

The hermit Roger Crabb is representative of an “English Protestant” form of individualism in this era, but his eremitism was partly derived from Christian tradition and his own personality, hardly to be imitated. The 19th century United States presented the optimum social conditions for the development of a unique secular individualism, from Dickinson, Thoreau, and Whitman to Muir. This intellectualized eremitism, mingled with the influence of transcendentalism and nature as a motive, reveals an individualism not dependent on the economic or philosophical theories of egoism that emerged from Europe.

The chief emergence of egoism in Europe was in the work of Max Stirner. Of Stirner, here is a Thatch entry of several years ago:

In his The Ego and Its Own, Max Stirner (1806-1856) proposed “egoism” as a model for society and individuals. His rejection of state and religion in favor of property and the will strikes a familiar chord in his successor Nietzsche. But egoism is a model for ruthless hedonism, not watchful solitude.

One can temper the identification of egoism with hedonism but the point is that Stirner was not motivated by solitude or interest in solitude.

Stirner was first to boldly proclaim that society is not an entity for the promotion of the individual but for the subordination of the individual to whatever people, institutions, or conventions were in power. As he argues it, the common weal is not his weal. Leave it to successors to state more explicitly that they will not accept the dream of a common weal or society that is altruistic, or even accommodating the pleasure of anyone. Stirner insists that anything one does must, after all, satisfy or fit the values of the self. He knows that this is the ego, and calls himself an egoist, and conversely dreams of a “union of egoists” that would be the counterpart to the union of powerful or altruistic forces in the world. This would be the only acceptable way for the individual to pursue commerce, trade, or social conviviality.

The pursuit of economic autonomy was what came to be called “capitalism,” as in the writings of American Josiah Warren (1798-1874). Warren announces his overall theory thusly:

Society must be so constructed as to preserve the sovereignty of every individual inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements, which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property, in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate, without involving the persons or interests of others. That there must be individuality of interests, individuality of responsibilities, individuality in the deciding powers, and sense, [and] individuality of action.

Stirner had already argued that without property, the individual is nondescript and meaningless. Warren extended this theme, with an emphasis characteristic of the American experience, into a reduction of culture and society to economic and material relationships based on the individual’s production of wealth. In his essay on “equitable commerce,” Warren gets bogged down in the minutiae of a curmudgeonly storekeeper pricing his items, basically quarreling with any who haggle as equivalent to challenging his very well-being as an individual.

When Warren applies his individualism to principles of “true civilization,” he presents an ideal scenario in which each enlightened individual respects, tolerates, and cooperates with every other individual, a scenario based in part on the experience Warren had hoped would emerge from the utopian social commune of New Harmony, in which he had participated. How often do individuals overreact to disappointments and resentments!

Stirner and Warren are 19th-century representatives of what would be called anarchism, specifically individualistic anarchism, which would differ from European models based on social and political engagement, and thus called social or communitarian anarchism. One can see the vague similarities in individualistic anarchism to forms of eremitism, especially in the United States — but there is a significant psychological difference.

The next entry will explore 20th-century American expressions of individualism, and how they differ from a theory or philosophy of eremitism.

Voting is for Suckers

2009-04-12T20:49:50Z

Suckers

by Mark Davis

“There’s a sucker born every minute.” ~ George Hull

No, it was not P.T. Barnum, though he was part of the story. It is truly amazing what people will believe. For instance, that voting is equivalent to liberty. The ritual of voting is a collective act of self-delusion. A grand illusion weaved into the societal fabric of freedom-loving people. This coping mechanism is obviously not sufficient to provide freedom, yet this behavior continues in spite of the obvious trend of increasing controls imposed by the very state agents that are voted for. Could so many people really be born suckers?

Voting is an act that individuals use as an outlet for the natural desire to be heard by the herd. To speak their minds to power is a feeling that must be soothed by political caregivers. Hoping for a better politician and praying for a better law from a system that is trusted because no other way seems possible. Repeating rote reasons for voting while seeing with perfect clarity the systematic impotence of the state’s devices and the corruption of its agents. The feeling of pretending to be free even if it obviously is not being free becomes soothing. Rituals, drugs and pacifiers all provide relief of the symptoms of natural desires, but these things have no substance of what is truly desired.

Some fight and struggle before succumbing to the soothing touch of authority, and others run down the path of collective drama only to hit a wall and crash into reality. Humans yearn for liberty just like food, water, warm covers on a cold night and sex. How we reconcile the satisfaction of desires with the scarcity of resources that provide satisfaction of those desires is a lifelong project forging each individual’s character. Even born suckers can see the scam once in a while if a light is put on the table for all to see.

Breast feeding just happens when allowed. Mother generates milk and provides a nurturing delivery system for which the child takes too with extreme pleasure. Babies’ mouths are amazing little sucking machines literally coming out of the womb with lips moving. If the satisfaction of a baby’s needs is delayed, they will become angry; aggressively reaching out to take mother’s breast as if it were their own property. So then, literally, we are born suckers with an inclination to appropriate the property of others when we feel the need.

Pacifiers are a coping device that we nearly all learned to accept as a baby. Some never get over it and even emulate it elsewhere in their lives. Pacifiers work until real hunger replaces the fear of the coming hunger and baby spits it out. Then it gets put back in again and again. Finally children will acquiesce to the manipulation of soothing physical stimulation in place of the real thing. Baby knows that the pacifier is not real but it still feels good. As long as baby can be made to believe that it will get fed soon, this fake nipple simulating satisfaction is sucked on with pleasure. Eventually the pacifier itself is desired. Some will even suck their own fingers, clinging to self-delusions well into adolescence.

The first time a device that does not produce food is substituted for a device that does produce food, a baby will almost immediately figure it out, stop, try sucking on it again, then become anxious before finally spitting it out. Trusted authorities are thus caught mitigating fraud to treat the symptoms that manifest from the needs of the trusting. A fraud perpetrated to make baby feel better and accept that there is no food available at this time. Fraud perpetrated for baby’s own good, that is.

The fact that so few people can comprehend what freedom really is should not be surprising. The amazing thing is that so many people do grow up to see the truth. Voting is to liberty what a pacifier or a thumb is to a baby: a willing act of self-delusion that enables people to feel like the need for liberty is being met in the face of a growing hunger for it. This empty ritual leaves voters wanting more liberty while providing none.

Survival instincts to acquire food, water, sex and liberty are powerful stuff. Humans never loose this part of the brain, but growing up forces us to move on, deal with it, cope with it. Living is a skill that one must acquire, and learning how starts at birth. Don’t waste your time or spiritual energy on empty rituals. Hold out for the real stuff.

Voting has nothing to do with being free. It has everything to do with providing a ritual to substantiate control by elite. The real “opiate of the masses.” Whether people are born suckers or get turned into suckers by trusted caregivers, they don’t have to be suckers for life. Maturity requires giving up the use of self-delusion in favor of seeking the truth. Substituting fraudulent mechanisms for real satisfaction will always leave one wanting, feeling hollow. Like suckers.

May 27, 2005

Urban Hermit

2009-04-12T20:44:19Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recluse

A recluse is someone in isolation who hides away from the attention of the public, a person who lives in solitude, i.e. seclusion from intercourse with the world. The word is from the Latin recludere, which means "shut up" or "sequester".

A person may become a recluse for many reasons: a celebrity may seek to escape the attentions of his or her fans; a misanthrope may be unable to tolerate human society; a survivalist may be practicing self-sufficiency; and a criminal might hide away from people to avoid detection by police. It can also be due to psychological reasons, such as: apathy, an autism spectrum disorder, a phobia, schizoid personality type, or due to avoidant personality disorder. A recluse can also be considered as a loner.

Some may become a recluse due to a physical deformity that makes their outward appearance unsettling to others. A person may also become a recluse for religious reasons, in which case he or she is usually referred to as a hermit or an anchorite.[citation needed]

Reclusiveness does not necessarily connote geographical isolation. A recluse may live in a crowded city, but infrequently leave the security of his or her home. However, isolated and sparsely populated US states (e.g., Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska) often harbor recluses, who are often seeking complete escape from civilization[citation needed].

Decline of Capitalism

2009-02-14T18:40:13Z

From the Huffington Post a very good article that IMHO should be obvious to anyone alive...but delusions die hard, just like gods.
"Last week I said free market capitalism rested on three fatal flaws:
(1) the premise that greed is good; (2) the legal concept of corporate
personhood; and (3) the necessity of infinite growth."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/why-free-market-capitalis_b_163958.html

The Americans we used to be...

2009-02-14T18:38:52Z

From the Wall Street Journal, a very good article that describes what could be the reason we fail as a society and culture. It is kind of conservative in a way. And yes; as a self proclaimed Progressive I have no problem saying that there are traits and ideas from true conservatism that I either don't have a problem with or even agree with. This is one of them. Remember that originally what we call conservative today was liberalism in origin. Barry Goldwater once said that at the end of his life what he was once called and extream conservative for believing would now have him called a liberal. Neo-cons are not Conservatives and Liberals are not Progressives. More on that another time; but for now let's read what may be a good mirror reflecting our current national character and see the lack of having one.

But Sully, 58, Air Force Academy '73, was shaped and formed by the
old America, and educated in an ethos in which a certain style of
manhood—of personhood—was held high.

What we fear we're making more of these days is Nadya Suleman. The
dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small
children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always
wanted a big family. "Suley" doubletalks with the best of them, she
doubletalks with profound ease. She is like Blago without the charm.
She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who
don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She leaves
anchorwomen slack-jawed: How do you rough up a woman who's still
lactating? She seems aware of their predicament.

"Any great nation would worry at closed-up shops and a professional
governing class that doesn't have a clue what to do. But a great nation
that fears, deep down, that it may be becoming more Suley than
Sully—that nation will enter a true depression"

http://online. wsj. com/article/SB123447506782479249. html

While Rome Burned...

2009-02-14T18:22:34Z

There is going to be a massive de-population of this planet either because the world economy can't afford to sustain the current population or because the earth can't survive and continue to allow us to survive at our current levels. My opinion is the world governments will institute scenarios to reduce world human populations first.
The train wreck of the world economy is already well under way with no possible solution other than to let it crash and start over when the dust settles. That is how to make a world population accept changes they otherwise would not. Parents do it all the time. Sometimes you have to let the child fall down to learn the lesson you want to teach them, get their attention, their acquiescence: Accept your rule.
Get ready for it. The majority of people you see or know will continue to live the lie: Take smack about how much they own, buy an SUV they can't afford, quote conservative talk show hosts with an intellectual air, talk convincingly about how the current economic crisis is someone else's fault and in a few months all will go back to normal. Believing the lie is easy once accepted. Watching your god die is hard.
Get ready for it. Prepare to eat less. Set up your home and life like you are going on a long term camping or hiking trip. Get rid of all things you pay bills for that don't support your ability to archive Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Safety and Security needs include:

* Personal security
* Financial security
* Health and well-being
* Safety net against accidents/illness and the adverse impacts
Plant vegetables in pots and bags if you don't have access to land and start living 'small'.
Read about...believe it or not, the Hippies and how they lived. No; they weren't all a bunch of drug addicts. In fact just the opposite.
Read about urban and rural survival. I'm not talking about buying a bunch of guns and ammo...but a .22 or shotgun might not be a bad idea.
Read about cooking whole food. Growing whole food. Where to find whole food.
If you could only have one medicine in your possession on a desert island it should be plain old fashioned aspirin. Reduces fever, anti-inflammatory, good for the heart, pain reliever, cheap, portable.
Durable clothes and shoes/boots and how to sew/maintain them.
Water.
Because help is not on the way.
New Orlenes. The powers that be were right in that experement. The American people did not rise up in anger and outrage over seeing their fellow citizens left to die. Sure; you were suffering from moral indignation. Because it is expected. Good people are expected to show they are good people. Just like wearing bling shows you are sucessful.
But you didn't do anything. Because you didn't really care. You were ok. And if asked you couldn't name one person that survived that or say where any of those people ended up. Because you don't care. You're ok. The Government was right.
Help is not on the way.
Do no harm, help when and if you can, but remember you are on your own: Take care of yourself.