Discuss: Side with the Living

Yes, Jensen is good at exposing the unexamined assumptions of civilization, but unable or unwilling to explore his own.

For example: While sharing his careful perceptions of his immediate environment, he refers to “a half-buried piece of that murdered tree”. Notice he does not refer to those unknown creatures who nibbled on a leaf for their own survival in pejorative terms. He doesn’t even call himself a monster for stepping on a snail. But he assumes that the taking of a tree - which may have been for legitimate survival needs - is “murder”.

Even his concluding remark that “our task is clear: to help life live” reflects an all-too-human arrogance. The best we can (or should) do is to let life live - that is Life with a capital “L”, for all living things must take life in order to live. And we must come to terms with death - of others and of ourselves - as a vital element of Life.

To illustrate the danger of thinking that our good intentions are enough to “help” life, there was a story years ago of an eco-tourism group watching sea turtles hatch on the beach and attempt to run past a gauntlet of voracious sea birds to make it safely to the water. In spite of the guide’s clear warning not to interfere, one good-hearted woman rushed out to shepherd the first hatchling to the sea and, by so doing, initiated a mad turtle rush which resulted in mass slaughter.

To create a wholesome paradigm for humanity, it is necessary to expose the fallacies of our current mythologies and the unquestioned assumptions of our own thinking. But, to do that, one must first face one’s own demons. I don’t believe Derrick Jensen has yet done that work, for he consistently projects his demons onto others.

Robert

I agree in large measure with, and appreciate, your observations on his own use of language.  And, I do not wish to defend Derrick, but I will make the following comment.

We, as a civilization have already gone too far down the road that Rousseau identified so long ago… we have become completely beholding to the tools and instruments of our society so that we can not get along without them.  In short, as I said above, we have all been indoctrinated by “the curriculum of the West.”  Our langauge, our thoughts, our reactions, are not simply indebted to the presuppositions of that ‘curriculum’, they are fashioned by them. 

I would suspect that some of his choices of vocabulary are for effect - rhetorical flourish (a tool of our curriculum) (e.g., “murdered tree”), some are more unconscious influences of the curriculum (when he speaks about “helping life live”)

He also knows he has an audience (cultural tool) and is trying to wend his way through the thickets.

So I would say, some of his uses maybe intentional; some unconsciousinfluences of the curriculum!

Just a thought!

“HardyHarHar…actually the more anti-civ he articulates his case… the more money he makes… har har har!!”

How wonderfully naive of you to think that Sandy. To think that someone is going to make more money by articulating the case against civilization is remarkably foolish.

This is Orion here… We just removed a comment that went over the edge of civility. We certainly enjoy lively discussion, but please do keep things polite.

Scott Walker (of Orion),

Why are you giving such inordinate space to Jensen’s voice? Can you not find thoughtful and articulate writers who are not so caught in their own internal contradictions that they succumb to advocating the violent take-down of civilization?

While I agree with the Orion moderator that the removed post critical of Stephanie McMillan was offensive and vulgar, the more cogent issue should have been disclosure on the part of Jensen defender McMillan (post #8) that she is a collaborator on Derrick’s latest novel and depicted herself on its cover as a gun-wielding silhouette.

Birds of a feather…

A key point that I’d like to comment on, besides the fact that the article is thought provoking, interesting, and quite accurate - is the cooment made about Jensen’s ‘internal contradictions’ - who among us does not live in constant contradiction? I make one choice to live more lightly in my bioregion, and I will affect everything else - positively and negatively, depending on the perspective and scope we take - for example: buying locally grown food versus imported foods - helps farmers here, hurts farmers there (I think that globalization is really negative and will come to an end with Peak Oil).
Drawing attention to the cognitive disonance that occurs when we are reminded to pay attention to and celebrate all the life around us, while we are given the modern mandate to ignore it, kill it, depersonalize it, and to have solely a “use’ relationship to nature - is clearly an unresolvable dualism - we must choose the side that honours life and the dynamics of a healthy ecosystem. I cannot be at peace with nature and rape it at the same time - something must give - and unfortunately our human need to fit in with the crowd ultimately dictates to many of us that we must choose the ‘rape’ side, because to choose the other means that we will choose the road less taken, cause ourselves more isolation from the dominant social group, thus choosing a difficult life. Who really wants ostracism? However, it is through opposition, strife, and challenge that we experience our humanity and feel most alive. It is liberating to learn that our industrial civilization cannot understand this and very likely, will ideologically attack those who are called and inspired to criticize the dominant social paradigm. Each of us must choose to engage and activate ourselves through the natural world. Not to do this means that we will reflect back to each other the deadened inner psychic landscapes that we must maintain in order to secure even a modicum of pseudo-sanity. Metaphorically speaking, there is a fork in our human cultural road, which happened a very long time ago, however, we can vaguely see the other path which is one that honors sustainability and permaculture and we are all free to choose to ‘hike over’ to this path, and recreate what it means to be human. We are free to do this. We just need to understand this freedom and to find others to build this community.
Lastly, so much of the debate about the fact that every species affects every other and the larger ecosystem, has much to do with scale. Our human numbers have been artifically inflated due to the procurement of cheap fossil fuel energy, and our impact on the life of the planet has been so detrimental. We need to start planning for when these populations begin to decline, by having a dream of what it means to be human in a post-carbon world. A society that values nature and biodiversity - placing the environment at the centre, from which all else springs, is our work. May we continue to have writers such as Jensen who provoke our thinking, and to urge us to articulate what we value.

Pammybaby: Absolutely. Thank you.
And regarding Orion’s decision to include Jensen in each issue, brilliant. Just look at the discussions that have been going on since the very first article came out. No other article has inspired discussions that go on for weeks. It’s a good thing. Jensen’s column is the first thing I check out when a new issue arrives!