Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.


+3 votes
as is said in things that John Zerzan has written, with further departure from a purely hunter-gatherer way of life, people started to see a need to worship some sort of a god-form or develop shamanism. His theory is that "God" (and as a sternirist would relate...money...and even words and images!) have come to replace a sense of connectedness to other life-forms.

Do you believe this to be true and why?
as has been said many times about jz's ideology, (parts of) it reeks of religiosity itself. and the point you raise demonstrates that with his "fall from grace" (towards domestication and civilization) perspective. very biblical, in some way.

i suspect it is true that for some (maybe many) folks, god *is* such a replacement. but there are many folks (city folk, primarily) who seem to never have had any connection with nature; some of them have a god, some of them don't.
In addition, your question (and JZ's answer) is based on a linear developmental/evolutionary perspective. This is a perspective that should probably be abandoned.
how this based on on a developmental/evolutionary perspective? It's based on an anthropological perspective, but i didn't say anything about evolution, and certain things develop in the world that does happen but i don't know what you mean by "developmental"
The idea that shamanism, and later, theistic religion, developed from a presumed gatherer/hunter "pure" connection with nature is developmental, but fails due to the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The developmentalism (in order of increasing alienation) is this:
gatherer/hunter connection to nature -> departure from "pure" connection -> shamanism -> worship of god-form -> religious cosmology -> existence of "God"
well, human growth then is "developmentalistic" as well. The point of this question was to see other peoples opinions on this, not to make a half-assed criticism of western thought.

I find primitivism to be inspirational because it makes sense to me. My own nuerosis and the nuerosis of other people i've seen has always made me curious about the elements of civilization that make people lose their minds, and within that nuerosis there seems to be a desire for "unity", or perhaps a desire for coherence in life once again, and maybe that has something to do with the "disconnection from nature".

your last comments seem to strike closer to the mark.  I think that (maybe) peoples' 'disconnection from nature' opens a rupture in their mind that the god-meme comfortably settles into - somewhat like fungal spores landing on newly fallen timber (but without any useful side effects.)  Not so much a linus security blanket, more an infected wound.

I think lawrence may have been hinting at this.  (Or not.  when he dips into the jargon, i really have no idea where he's going.  Guess i'll have to leave that to my betters*.)

[edit:  removed an extraneous explitive.]
haha, he just didn't know what to say...

i wish i had the attention span to study anthropology more, then i could come up with some sort of primitivist formula formula for making people happier...

rs: "i wish i had the attention span to study anthropology more, then i could come up with some sort of primitivist formula formula for making people happier..."


one problem i have with jz and some other primitivists is precisely their reliance on anthropology; and particularly, the supposedly objective truth of *some* anthropological interpretations of historical information (which itself must always be questioned).

another problem i have with many primitivists is the prescriptive nature of a "primitivist formula for making people happier". i don't care for the capitalism formula, i don't care for the communist formula, i don't care for the primitivist formula, .... i don't want formulas. (which is not to say that there aren't aspects of ANY "formula" that i might take as my own).

primitivism can be very appealing to those who see the inherent fundamental problems with the modern world humanity has created, especially when one is fairly new to those realizations. alc, who posts here periodically, is one of the less dogmatic, flexible seeming (self-identified) primitivists i have come across, at least from what i can glean.

the disconnection from nature at the root of your question is a huge, relevant issue imo. what role any god plays in that (where that is in fact the case) is perhaps an interesting question, but it is rarely of much interest to me.

1. although i really enjoy some of jz's critical work, i've never really jived with jz's version of the apple-biting tale nor his churchy moral fits. i resonate more with eisenstein's take on the process of civ ('the age of separation'), though, like ba@ said elsewhere, i'm not quite as optimistic as eisenstein in finding a way out of it...but i am open to hearing it.

2. within his critique, eisenstein challenges the 'replacement' notion of God, the abstract, remote, reified God of civ, by way of  a deep sense of loss of connection within increasingly fragmented conditions (cities, number, language, money, etc.). this, of course, is co-opted by the most fragmented (the power-hungry) into yet another form of increasing alienation. (i may be paraphrasing far too much. it may be worth exploring on your own)

3. from another perspective, i've heard and read jz's style of argumentation enough to understand he argues in bad faith, particularly against those who critique civilization from a non-primitivist perspective. straw-men, name calling, appeals to emotion, moral-finger-wagging etc. examples: jason mcquinn, bellamy from free radical radio, and of course, lawrence jarach. to put it bluntly, these latter three folks simply strike me as more embodied, engaged with the here and now, than does jz who seems to me to inhabit a world of ideas, abstractions, nostalgia, and dogma. that is, what i consider a deep narcissism..

which leads me to...

4. i most definitely see and criticize what's present to me here and now as best as i'm able. i can only work from here. i most definitely use, and come to make my own, anthropology, linguistics, history, etc., as it suits me...me, where i am, when i am, who i am...as a living process(?) rather than an idea in future or past. this is, to me, the difference between narcissism and 'egoism' (for a lack of a better term). in other words, i have no (conscious) desire to continue formulating pictures of myself to fall in love with, be it a 3015 cyborg or pre-columbian arawak, although the latter holds far, more in common with my own desires than does any form of transhumanist legotopia.


edit for typos, extra thoughts

good stuff, af. i relate a lot to your last paragraph.

regarding eisenstein's observation (that i agree with) of the deep sense of loss of connection most people feel today, i like to view that further through (my interpretation of) alan watts' description of life as a cosmic game of hide and go seek - as humans we circle around, continually losing our sense of connection, and then seeking and finding it again...on and on it goes.
just letting yall know that these are real cool responses, i would definetly like to read about einstiens age of seperation

what i like about all forms of critiques of totalities is that it takes the burden off myself in terms of realizing how fucked up I am, and the issue i see with today's ideological beliefs is a lot of them are based off nonsense and spooks, and i have no faith in society abandoning its spooks...

as far as JZ, i don't like the fact that he criticized Hakim Bay for just admitting that he doesn't know what the future is going to be like, by saying the technological utopia could be humanities freedom. He definetly doesn't want to depart from his ideological beliefs
I believe god and other deities were created to explain the world around us, help us cope better with the harshness of life. Something to look forward to.

Please log in or register to answer this question.