 
ReSent-Message-ID: 
ReSent-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 13:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: "Jon C. Slenk" 
ReSent-To: +dist+/afs/andrew/usr/js9b/Public/camc.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Message-Id: 
Date: 	Thu, 15 Apr 1993 19:07:35 -0400
To: angst+@CMU.EDU
Subject: Tribalism
Reply-To: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us

From:   dms!curly!grigsby@netcom.com (Spiral Death Trap)
To:	+dist+/afs/andrew/usr/js9b/Public/camc.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Back -- Pardon Our Dust


>don't really have a clue.  Later, the inability of two people to provide
>guidance means that you get shipped off to school, e.g. obedience
>training, to be socialized.  We all know what is learned in school:
>that authority is not to be questioned, unthinking obedience to arbitrary
>rules is good, creative thought is almost always bad, and the kids who
>get big fastest get to dominate (age classification is almost as

What we call "public school' is an institution that was designed from
it's outset to condition the children of the poor to be obedient
industrial workers.

In a post-industrial era, those schools have become a place of horror;
concentration camps for the young where learning happens more by
accident than by intention.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- education, especially for
ourselves, and _of course_ for our children, has to be top priority, no
matter what approach we individually choose for the "corporations ate my
cat" problem. ( The problem of how to live a deeply fulfilling creative
live in a standardized work-a-day society.)

Schools and colleges don't teach us what we need to know in order to
survive and thrive as individuals in this world. They're fine as licensing
institutions for the uncreative masses, I suppose (I suppose grimly--
it's not something that I accept, or like.)-- but they are not
teaching the creative fringe what they need to know. Somehow we have to
step in and fill that gap; somehow we have to build systems that can
teach our kind what we/they need to know in order to acheive our "higher
goals" on the surface of this planet.

>2) Fragmentation forces everyone to duplicate the possessions and holdings
>of everyone else in order to maintain an interesting level of comfort,
>making more work necessary to attain the same level than if things were
>shared.

Very true. This reminds me that we need to give more thought to the
organization of co-ops.

I've been planning out a group interest house here in State College, for
example-- and I'm trying to figure out how to set up an electronics
co-op, so that one of the rooms of the house could be set aside as an
office with shared computer equipment.

I'm thinking the best thing to do is to have one person "own" this or
that piece of equipment, and to have the other members of the co-op
"lease" the use of the equipment from the owner. That way we avoid
squabbles over who get's to keep the equipment if the household, or the
electronics co-op, collapses.

>4) Therefore, we can only assuage our loneliness through consumption,
>perpetuating the system that causes it.  Have kids, go back to 1).

It's definitely a rigged game. If you agree to play it, the chances are
overwhelming that you'll lose. Something like a state lottery. ;-)

>I think that most of the larger-scale problems in Western civilization (?)
>can be traced to the breakdown of the tribal context and the looking to
>higher authority of church, state, etc.

Agreed. Our task is to reintegrate the benefits of the tribal lifestyle
with the benefits of the Hive-State civilization. To have the best of
both, and use each's strengths to offset the problems of the other.

>  It figures, then, that this unit would be the most natural and
>satisfying context for us to live in.  Tribes also have their
>disadvantages: it is easy to have a dominating, hierarchical power
>structure that makes life in a dictatorship seem free and easy.  The
>need to be alone and different must also be respected, and the line
>between tribal loyalty and xenophobia or pillage can be hard to draw.
>These problems are surmountable, however: those of the nuclear family
>are not, if our goal is to lead lives containing ecstasy as well as
>comfort.

It's clear enough what we want; those lives which contain ecstasy and
useful creative work as well as basic comfort.

The great problem to be overcome is to figure out how to accomplish that
goal.

Somehow I'm reminded of the ancient greek funerary societies-- groups of
people who formed a 'club' to provide high quality funerals for each
other. ;-)... For people who can't figure out a way to make a move towards
the intentional community lifestyle, a "tribal club" might be an
acceptable alternative. College towns and city youth scenes might be a
good place to try to start up such a thing.

Hell, since everyone is conditioned to be a passive consumer, a "tribal
club" could offer itself as another form of consumption, sell
memberships, offer some benefits, and like any other clever memetic
virus be spreading it's revolutionary message without triggering off the
"automatic defenses" and skepticism most people have towards the idea of
'alternative lifestyles'.

Later, Bill


 prev message 
 next message