Where We Went
by Jason GodeskyThirteen days between posts isn’t unheard of here, but it’s certainly noteworthy. This past month has been unbelievably stressful for us at the Tribe of Anthropik. Some of it got hashed out in public, but like an iceberg, what you got to see was only the smallest tip. Truthfully, most of it isn’t even related. Giuli & I are getting married at the end of July, and that comes with a lot of stress all its own–to say nothing of a lot of half-buried problems that it can dreg up in a family, things never quite resolved and left almost forgotten for years on end, until something like this happens to bring them all back up at once.
I feel confident in saying that the first phase of the Tribe of Anthropik’s life ended on 19 April 2006. At 11:34 PM, specifically. The second phase has not yet begun. I feel like we’re in a cocoon now.
The things we have planned for when we burst out again are some of the biggest, boldest projects we’ve ever undertaken–and there’s quite a few of them. Rather than peter them out over the next few weeks with a slow ascent from our current state, I think I would rather take advantage of the one good thing that has come from all of this. The Tribe of Anthropik’s been tested this month, there’s no doubt about that, and what remains is the real core of it. We’ve been pulled even more tightly together. We’re going to take this opportunity to regroup, and to prepare for the second phase of the tribe’s life.
Personally, I’ve recovered from most of the emotional and personal stress and trauma I’ve suffered this month, and I’m ready to move ahead. I just thought some of our regular readers might appreciate knowing what’s going on with the tribe. We’re still here, and we’re not going anywhere. We’re taking some time to regroup, organize, and prepare for the next phase.
We’re in the cocoon right now, but don’t worry … we won’t be forever. And when we do come out again, I think you’ll agree with us that it’s all well worth the wait.
So long as you keep on writing, I don’t care what the heck you are or what stage of life you’re in.
Comment by perianwyr — 27 April 2006 @ 4:03 PM
Hmmm. That’s disappointing. We’ve spent a lot of time laying out theory, that’s true, but the ultimate vision for this blog is something of our “code dump.” We’re making a transition in our life. We’ve been writing about why we’re doing it. As we do it more, we’re going to write about how that goes, so other people can learn from our mistakes and maybe take some inspiration from our successes. Living in full, public view in order to make this an “open source” movement–we share our “code” (i.e., our culture, how we do it), in the hopes that others can use it and improve upon it.
So, if that’s the goal, then where we’re at becomes important. If you’re only interested in the writing to date, then you’re interested only in theory. I should hope that you’d also be interested in what comes next: practice and implementation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 April 2006 @ 4:07 PM
Best of luck to you & your wife to be in your journey together! Love & friendship makes even the difficult journey ahead bearable.
Like I’ve posted before–We NEED to move beyond the Pre-Contemplation/Contemplation stage of change>>>the Action stage will be what makes all the difference.
You can be the most well read, researched, theoretically accurate person in the world, and if you don’t put anything into action, nothing happens, or actually in the case of collapse, you go down with the ship.
Comment by Bubba — 27 April 2006 @ 4:31 PM
Fear not, Bubba–we’ve been in action for some time now. We just have a lot to say by way of introduction, first.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 April 2006 @ 4:39 PM
Jason, you don’t know me. I’ve been reading the discussions on your site and value the ideas expressed. However, after reading about this situation may I recommend that you stay in the cocoon for a few years. You’re a smart guy but you’re obviously a young man who’s got a lot to learn about leading people. I don’t know Ben and Miranda but you’ve soiled their reputation just as much as they soiled yours. Throughout this situation you demonstrated immaturity and an inability to wisely handle conflict. You’re not ready to lead a tribe. It’s good that your group has decided to slow down. Best wishes to Anthropik in the future.
Comment by Big Al — 28 April 2006 @ 8:42 AM
If a tribe is ever ready to have a leader, it’s ceased to be a tribe. You’re right, you don’t know me–and what you see as immaturity is not universally seen as such, so I’ll take your opinion as precisely that. I’m not interested in leading people; I’m interested in creating a community that has outgrown its need for leaders. I think this situation proved that the Tribe of Anthropik has reached that stage, and I couldn’t be more proud.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 April 2006 @ 9:01 AM
Leading people, is more about inspiration than anything else. People ultimately lead themselves, but our culture has ‘taught’ us that we have leaders.
But leadership often just spells charisma/a plan sold to a group etc.
We have masters degrees & Ph.D’s in leadership now adays, but few real leaders. Leaders at best are messengers who can inspire, at worst they lead people off cliffs & people wilingly forego their innate ability to be critical thinkers & decision makers. For many it feels good to “let go of control” and put their faith in someone else, something else etc. Since being personally responsible is a stress, takes effort, thinking–and few want this responsiblity. In addition our culture indocrinates folks to be followers & believers, few leaders are really that…
“maturity” as mentioned by Big Al, is not a innate quality of leaders, I’ve been around tons of them (so defined anyway) and maturity is transient, its amazing how often the LEADERS psychologically regress to simple manipulation of others, fear tactics, tantrums etc. We haven’t lost our childhood behaviors, and the system often promotes those who wish to control others as leaders.
Control is not leadership, its mistaken as such. Does a personal conflict automatically assume immaturity? If so, I doubt their are few people who interact with other humans…that go without social rifts & conflicts. Thats utopian B.S. in my opinion.
Too many judgements & not enough actions & lofty deeds in this world. Too many opinion givers, too few people who live each day vigorously, accept their own mortality & move own to thrive–and truly be Free of the shackles of conditioned thinking & living.
This ultimately will be the downfall of civilization, as much as the reality of finite resources & over consumption.
Comment by Bubba — 28 April 2006 @ 9:22 AM
In anthropology, we distinguish between ascribed and attained power–while ascribed power comes with a given office, attained power is the influence an individual wields because of their charisma, social capital, and so forth. The Melanesian Big Man is no more or less a leader than the President of the United States. Big Men consolidate their power, and become chiefs; chiefs consolidate their power, and become kings. There is no clear dvision between them: only the degree to which they have monopolized power. Tribal Dawn had a Big Man–but the fact that the power that was centralized was attained rather than ascribed didn’t change much. Leadership becomes control when power becomes centralized. The key to a tribe–to rhizome–is making sure that no one is able to consolidate their power, regardless of where that power comes from. In a traditional hunter-gatherer tribe, it’s the multiple dimensions of influence that deny that possibility: the best hunter is not the best shaman is not the best tool-maker. Who wields the most influence depends on what’s being discussed at the moment. In that case, is anyone a “leader”?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 April 2006 @ 9:36 AM
You were looked upon to provide leadership in this situation. The way you handled it lead to a debacle. I’m sure you’ll be called upon to provide leadership again. You should honesty look at yourself in the mirror and learn from your mistakes.
Comment by Big Al — 28 April 2006 @ 10:10 AM
Self-esteem is not something I possess in great quantities, and introspection and examining my mistakes is something those close to me insist I take to a fault. I wasn’t looked upon to provide leadership in this situation, though. An attack was staged on the premise that my “leadership” would be required, but Mike showed that assumption to be false by responding precisely as I would have in his situation. All that was needed from me was to pipe up to defuse the misconception being spread that Mike was acting alone and without our approval. Giuli and I wrote our response together, offering our complete support for the way Mike handled the situation. It was, in my opinion, the most responsible and mature response that anyone could have offered under the circumstances. The fact that the attack was launced under such an assumption of my “leadership,” and that Mike’s excellent handling of the situation required no input from me until I was available again long after the fact, is the proudest moment in our tribe’s history. It showed that we don’t need leaders, because each and every one of us is the Tribe of Anthropik. So no, I wasn’t looked upon to provide leadership. I wasn’t available. My “leadership” was expected by our enemies, but that was a severe underestimation. The Tribe of Anthropik has no leaders, and needs none. I couldn’t be prouder of how we handled it, and it’s put my mind at ease that in this tribe, I do not need to fear becoming a leader, because everyone in it is every bit as capable as I am of answering such a situation appropriately.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 April 2006 @ 10:23 AM
I am just glad to hear ya’ll are alive and well. I was wondering if ya’ll had done the group suicide thing.
Thirteen days is a lifetime on the internet, sadly.
Keep going, don’t ever stop, and to hell with the naysayers!!
Anthropik kicks almost as much asss as i do!!
congrats again on the wedding!!
Comment by Rory — 28 April 2006 @ 10:45 AM
Thanks, Rory. It’s nice to hear some support.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 April 2006 @ 1:54 PM
It’s almost noon here on the west coast and the sun is out. So I’m considering taking the rest of the day off. But before I do, I want to share with you peeps something truly beautiful. This is the stuff of fantasy.
“In the early 1970s, two idealistic young people—Gwen Carpenter Roland and Calvin Voisin—decided to leave civilization and re-create the vanished simple life of their great-grandparents in the heart of Louisiana’s million-acre Atchafalaya River Basin Swamp. Armed with a box of crayons and a book called How to Build Your Home in the Woods, they drew up plans to recycle a slave-built structure into a houseboat.”
Read more:
http://karavans.typepad.com/karavans/2006/04/getting_offtheg.html
Comment by Peter — 28 April 2006 @ 2:32 PM
The atchafalaya basin is less than 10 mins from my current location. I’ll have to see if i can hunt them up
Comment by Rory — 28 April 2006 @ 2:41 PM
Cue: Disneyland’s [i]It’s a small world, afterall.[/i]
That couple is long gone.
Comment by Peter — 28 April 2006 @ 2:51 PM
verily, peter dost speak the truth. mine heart has been rent into a thousand pieces, and each has been thrust in the orifice of an unknown calf.
Comment by Rory — 28 April 2006 @ 3:03 PM
Dost thou speaketh the truth, verily we allude to the hallowed halls of truth, yet rarely doth the ring of truth echo forth. A grasping it twas and will ever be, but I saw well met… may your journey bring forth the fruits of your labors and mayhaps, just mayhaps thou will be counted as one of the chosen that sees the gates opened before thee, know thou shalt not be able to run further, a choice made in your past will determine your future–which path whilst thou chose?
Comment by Bubba — 28 April 2006 @ 3:53 PM
TEH WAR THEYRE IF WE JUDGE IT BY TEH STANDARDS OF PR3VIOUS WARS IS MAR3LY AN IMPOSTUR3!!!11! OMG LOL IT IS LIEK TEH BATLES BTWEN CARTANE RUMINANT ANIMALS WHOSE HORNS R S3T AT SUCH AN ANGL3 TAHT TH3Y R INCAPABLE OF HURTNG ONE ANOTHAR111!1! WTF LOL BUT THOUGH IT IS UNREAL IT IS NOT M3ANNGLES!!!111 WTF LOL IT AATS UP DA SURPLUS OF CONSUMABLE GODS AND IT HALPS 2 PR3S3RVE DA SPACIAL MENTAL ATMOSPH3RE TAHT A HEIRARCHICAL SOCEITY NEDS!1!1!111 OMG WTF LOL WAR IT WIL B SEN IS NOW A PURELY INTARNAL AFARE11!11 WTF LOL IN DA PAST TEH RULNG GROUPS OF AL COUNTREIS ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT RECOGNIEZ THERE COMON INT3REST AND THEYRE LIMIT DA DASTRUCTIEVNES OF WAR DID FIGHT AGANEST ON3 ANOTH3R AND DA VIC2R ALWAYS PLUND3RED DA VANQUISHED!1!1!! OMG LOL IN OUR OWN DAY THEY R NOT FIGHTNG AGANEST ON3 ANOTHER AT AL11!11 TEH WAR IS WAEGD BY EACH RULNG GROUP AGANEST ITS OWN SUBJ3CTS AND TEH OBJECT OF TEH WAR IS NOT 2 MAEK OR PREVENT CONQU3STS OF TARI2RY BUT 2 KEP TEH STRUCTURE OF SOCEITY INTACT11!!!!!1 LOL TEH VARY WORD WAR THEIR HAS BCOM3 MISL3ADNG1!!11!1 OMG IT WUD PROBABLY B ACURAET 2 SAY TAHT BY BCOMNG CONTINUOUS WAR HAS CEAESD 2 AXIST!!1!!1! OMG DA PECULIAR PR3SUR3 TAHT IT 3XERTED ON HUMAN BNGS BTWEN TEH NAOLITHIC AEG AND DA EARLY TW3NTEITH C3NTURY HAS DISAPEAERD AND BEN R3PLAECD BY SOMETHNG QUIET DIF3R3NT1111!1 WTF LOL DA AF3CT WUD B MUCH DA SME IF TEH THRE SUPER-STAETS INSTEAD OF FIGHTNG ON3 ANOTH3R SHUD AGRE 2 LIEV IN PERPETUAL P3AEC AACH INVIOLAET WITHIN ITS OWN BOUNDAREIS!!!!!1 FOR IN TAHT CAES EACH WUD STIL B A S3LF-CONTANEAD UNIEVRSA FRED FOR 3VAR FROM TEH SOBRNG INFLU3NC3 OF 3XTERNAL DANGAR!!11!! OMG A PEAEC TAHT WAS TRULY PERMAENNT WUD B DA SMA AS A PERMAENNT WAR!!!11!! THIS - ALTHOUGH DA VAST MAJORITY OF PARTY M3MBRS UND3RSTAND IT ONLY IN A SHALOWAR SENSE - IS TEH IN3R MAANNG OF DA PARTY SLOGAN WAR IS P3AEC!!11 OMG
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 April 2006 @ 4:19 PM
…yeeeaaahhh…
howzat diet comin’ along?
~Tossy
Comment by Tosspot — 28 April 2006 @ 4:28 PM
Well, if they’re going to get all Elizabethan on my fat ass, I assume we’re just trying to be unintelligible. Nothing can beat Immanuel Goldstein’s book-in-a-book from 1984, translated into 12-year-old AOL’er.
Diet’s been abandoned for some time, with a few abortive attempts to remount ending in my ultimate failure. Today is the first day of a new induction–so far, so good. 7.3 grams of carbs for the day so far, and all is well.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 April 2006 @ 4:30 PM
i ordered the book based on your charts and what not.
do you feel better for being on the diet? are you coping with cold better now with the warmer weather?
best of luck,
T
Comment by Tosspot — 28 April 2006 @ 5:50 PM
I’m also glad to see you back, and had missed the frequent updates. The entire “debacle” couldveshouldve been handled differently, but its good to see (collective) you acting human.
I’m also interested in the paleo diet and am a little disappointed that your weekly reports are suspended, but its quite understandable. I’m still on the brink of it. I’ve joined the mailing list (which is extremely underwhelming) but have been doing a lot of other reading. There are many conflicting views to sort out, but it does seem in general that animal fats are not nearly as demonic as they have been made out to be, and carbohydrate rich diets are indeed worse than we believe. Other than the loss of cheap/delicious starches, I am not happy about giving up some of my favorite vegetables as well (peas, beans, corn, edamame, wild rice). I did find a local source of organic/free range/grassfed meats and have been really amazed at the difference in taste, digestability and post-eating energy feelings. It costs a lot more, but if I would cut out restaurants (seems mandatory) it would easily be offset. Struggling with an unwilling partner is the largest challenge so far, but this is true of all aspects of my wanting to “power down” while she prefers to remain civilized.
Take whatever time you need to “reform the tribe”, but don’t feel you need to stop posting in the meantime… your takes on other blogs/news/etc and updates on your diet would be quite welcome.
Comment by rob — 28 April 2006 @ 6:44 PM
13 days is a bad omen. Maybe we all can take up a collection for a ticket on a helicopter and drop your tribal asses in the jungle somewhere. And don’t forget that solar powered laptop so that you can type out implementation stories 5 times a day.
Comment by Rick Larson — 28 April 2006 @ 10:05 PM
jason-
what are ya thinkin?
“some of it got hashed out in public” (LINKLINKLINKLINK)
like we haven’t had it up to our craws already?
please let it heal, for your sake as well as everyone else’s……
kate
Comment by kate — 29 April 2006 @ 2:14 PM
Hope you are all doing fine, I haven’t read anthropik in a while (less since after you finished the thirty theses). I don’t know if you should feel obliged to talk about all that personal stuff on a blog though. It seems very odd to me. On the other side it’s cool that your struggle to create a primitive community is so well documented, so we can all learn from it.
I wish you great luck!
Comment by gunnix — 29 April 2006 @ 5:15 PM
Kate, those links are meant to explain a little more of the situation to people who didn’t know about it and might wonder what he’s talking about. I don’t understand how simply acknowledging that this happened is somehow not “letting it heal.”
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 30 April 2006 @ 12:04 AM
ok, nevermind. i apologize for my comment. i just didn’t see the point in stirring it all up again, or the point in making sure that if anyone MIGHT have missed it, well, they can get the FULL story here. after all, you said that this bruhaha was only the tip of the iceberg, but he was able to vaguely allude to all the other issues (family, etc.) without providing details…..
this has been a painful thing for alot of people. maybe not to the degree that the central characters have experienced, but painful nonetheless. i for one would like to move on.
so i will. i should have done so before i made my comment. so i am sorry about that. it wasn’t a judgement as much as a plea, really. sorry.
Comment by kate — 30 April 2006 @ 7:49 AM
As a quiet little Tosspot, I read and absorbed the problems you had with a certain blog contribution. I’ve tried to ignore it, and even read the responses at Ishcon.
I feel I have to agree with both of Kate’s posts.
Frankly, Mr. Godesky - you do have a negativity problem. Reading some other posts from way back in the forums, it almost seems you like teh internets drama ZOMG!!!!1
To most readers, that’s all this was.
Also, having read the bruhaha when it happened, I can only say you spanked the most accessible people, and not the person who incited the fight. You know the commenter i’m talking about. In fact, you (or your brother I believe) complimented this person on his fine Buddhist blog - where he even wrote all about the anthropik fight for his audience. I guess he was too enlightened (or too much a peer) to spank.
so, you killed off two people you supposedly cared about. nice. am I b& yet? i really enjoy your site - but this was not handled very well at all.
the end.
Moving on, I hope the warmer weather brings you nicer moods and little need for bundling up (i assume you kept off the weight, even in slipping up in the diet?).
Any educated answers to a forum post about Mercury in fish?
Wedding: big event for you, very personal, you want it all to go right - but y’know… is ‘the stress’ worth eating a whole chocolate cake over? I’ll offer that walking around town worked wonders for me during some heavy family stress times, following a loss. bring a personal music player (I’ll say ‘discman’ because I am ‘poor’ and do not have an MP3 player in any form, but my computer!), it helps regulate your steps. especially if you bring good heavy beat-music.
I still think if I met you I would like you.
~Tossy
*swallows second thoughts and clicks submit*
Comment by Tosspot — 30 April 2006 @ 12:29 PM
I have felt like I’ve been hit with a stray bullet, too, but I know people always change and grow, and some people are more interesting to watch than others.
I think it’s unfair an a little silly to try and offer advice to someone.
First of all, if you are trying to tell someone something you think they don’t see, you are only going to spring the defense mechanism, you are going to create deeper denial.
Secondly, if you are mistake about that person, you risk ruining oyur relationship with that person because you are see that person so differently than they see themselves, and to be honest, who needds enemies with friends that are always mistaking you?
Lastly, if you can’t discern what a perosn is really looking for, why are giving them anything in the first place?
That is an obvious sign of a person who gives and already has expectation to recieve. Usually, in the form of “being right” or any acknowledgement would do.
The thing about making everyhing public and written down two-dimensionally,it’s easy to see a person’s down side.
IF you had a recording of the moment I broke up with every girlfriend I had, would I still be your friend?
Dark moments are in our nature, and the lack of acceptence of these moments hinders growth, ends friendships, and so on.
I’m glad in “reality” I can just B me, without a past an a written record hanging over my head.
——
The best parting shot is none at all.
TonyZ
Comment by TonyZ — 30 April 2006 @ 2:01 PM
tossy! i love you! i was just fishin for supper. we’re eating venison tonight
but i wore my macabi fishing skirt, so anyway 
tony! i don’t have a clue! who you’re addressing that to, or what it means. i tried to take a leek today, but couldn’t find one. too early?
i hope this animosity mellows before the festival, or i will cancel the farm field trip. i am not bringing a buncha pissed off people here and handing them tomahawks, bows and arrows, atlatls, muzzleloaders, and other loaded weapons.
thar’s hatred in them thar hills!!!!!
Comment by kate — 30 April 2006 @ 3:08 PM
But maaaaaa… we promise to be good!
Comment by Wackymorningdj — 1 May 2006 @ 12:33 AM
I have read your site a little but not commented. I am curious what the big blowup was about but frankly I am drowned in text trying to find out. There’s simply too much other good reading out there taking my attention to devote hours to poring through comments here to try to figure out exactly what happened, and I fear that because stuff was deleted, any picture I could form would be incomplete anyway.
But anyway… the idea of being leaderless I think is a lot better in theory than in practice. I mean, seriously, have you ever worked under a really good leader? I have, and there’s nothing quite like it.
Yes, no leader at all is better than a shitty leader, but it seems you do not see what value a good leader can bring. Nor want to see.
Comment by zeamays — 1 May 2006 @ 6:47 AM
Loved the 1984 translated in AOL. you should do the whole book, and put right next to 30 Theses
Comment by Rory — 1 May 2006 @ 11:29 AM
you know, I’m just being general! I hate you think “general” is useful, but easily taken the wrong way.
hopefully no ahrm, no foul, I was jsut throwing in my two cents about armchair psychology; and hoepfully how that is different from making a character judgement based from experience with a person.
yes, too early for leeks.
but I’m fininding shitloads of morels!
Comment by TonyZ — 1 May 2006 @ 1:58 PM
Too early for leeks???? Gathered about 200 2 weeks ago outside of pittsburgh. Morels and ramps nothin better. Everyone, get out in the fuckin woods more!! (including me too!!) yeah….
Comment by slimmy — 2 May 2006 @ 12:32 AM
I too have noticed that many of Mr Godesky’s responses are immature and sometimes spiteful, an attitude certainly not worthy of someone who wishes to create a stable, long lasting community resiliant to the stresses and constant strife of his envisioned post civilized world. A stable community acts to defuse arguments early rather than fan the flames which would tear it apart. I would strongly suggest that Jason tames his ego and studies more about how to deal with conflict, misunderstandings and differences of opinions. Without such understanding, any tribe will quickly descend into dangerous conflict that could easily become fatal.
Comment by Michael M — 2 May 2006 @ 7:17 AM
Hello all,
It sems that there are a couple of things to consider here.
Leadership:
The best way I can speak to leadership, is to use what I do for a livelyhood, namely, being a conductor of orchestras. I do think, that these principles apply (please note: not the same as) to virtually any leadership position.
One of the unique aspects of conducting is how it exposes an interesting property of leadership: that the leader is not really doing anything. Of course, I do not mean that the leader is not actually doing ANYthing, but that the work (or in this case, play) of what is happening does not come from the leader.
The best way I can illustrate this is through a most likely made up story in the orchestral world:
An orchestra wanted to go on strike because the conductor was very cruel to them. They decided to come to the rehearsal, and show him how they felt, while providing a good lesson for him.
When the orchestra was tuned, and the conductor gave the upbeat to begin, the whole orchestra got up and left - with the exception of the concertmaster, who then said,
“And THAT maestro, is the sound of the baton.”
This story was told to me by my conducting teacher - not by an orchestra member. It shows how an essential aspect of the art is understanding that others are actually producing the music, and not ourselves. If we do not understand this, then we will never be effective as leaders.
In fact, the most effective conducting is when the conductor dissapears, and all you see is the orchestra, and all you hear is the composers music. In this way, the conductor becomes a part of the ensemble - really just a focusing lens, and a source of inspiration, or a guide - and the group has the appearance of “leaderlessness”.
I think this is what Jason was talking about when he spoke of the leaderless tribe.
Here in the U.S., it is difficult to have people make this leap. The age of the wild, egocentric, gesticulating conductor has convinced the general public that a leader who does not grab the orchestra (or the audience, for that matter), and bind them to his/her will, must not be a good conductor. If a conductor doesn’t move very much (showing how little the audience is listening), then the performance is not considered exciting very often.
Getting the orchestra to see that they are the main focus is a challenge as well! It is most difficult when they realize they must take responsibility for their performance - they are so used to blaming the conductor.
The best ensembles understand that each person (including the conductor) is responsible for the performance. If one person is out of tune, or not together, the whole group is out of tune, and not together.
Jason said:
The fact that the attack was launced under such an assumption of my “leadership,” and that Mike’s excellent handling of the situation required no input from me until I was available again long after the fact, is the proudest moment in our tribe’s history. It showed that we don’t need leaders, because each and every one of us is the Tribe of Anthropik.
This is what an effective leader does: Inspires others to see what they can do themselves for the group. Provide philosophical direction, and practical suggestions when needed.
There are ways in which this whole thing could have been handled better - this is almost always the case in a crisis. But I do not think you can find fault with Jason’s leadership when another member of the tribe acted as he would have. This is the sign of a most effective leader in my opinion.
I began this by saying there were a couple of things to consider. I will write more later, but I thought I would throw this out for consideration, as it will be what I write about:
How is living in a primitive way going to help us as a civilization when the real problem is ourselves? No matter what system you live under, our pettyness, and jealousies, and general need for competition will bring about that system’s downfall - eventually.
If what we need to do is to focus on our own problems, why do we need primitive living? If we rid ourselves of these personal defects, couldn’t we live happily in ANY system?
Talk amongst youselves…
Comment by Rkainjil — 2 May 2006 @ 8:32 AM
personally, i feel that jason and clan have laid out a very good conceptual plan. where i have fault with them is mainly in their implementation of it. of course the problem with any plan, especially innovative changes to the dynamics of a society, is the implementation. my advice: stop argueing semantics with each other and getting into pissing contests with posters, learn to disagree, and stop taking everything so damned serious. you trot out your education every chance you get to prove you are right, but your actions (and words) show that you are not ready to have a communal lifestyle and work with strangers so that everyone benefits. but we all have problems and things we are working out with our plans. best of luck
Comment by handforged — 2 May 2006 @ 9:53 AM
Hey –
Personally, I find this ‘jump on the bandwagon and dis the tribe to be rather… distasteful. Have you all looked for the plank in your own eye?
Now, onto more productive discussion…
Rkainjil:
Now, this is the sort of the crux of the matter, is it not?
Why do you think that the ‘problems we face’ are caused by our own flaws? If you found a population of birds, driven to the brink of extinction because they only ate a food supply that was dwindling, would you blame the birds for that flaw?
In the same way, how could ANY species eveolve if it was, in fact, fundamentally flawed?
One of the basic premises that many of us here share is the understanding that it is illogical to assume that there is something ‘wrong’ with humankind.
What we can see, however, is that certain lifestyles take those percieved flaws and turn them into natural strenghts… while others, like our current civilization, turn those same traits into monsterous aberrations. So if we wish to find sustainable, happy and healthy ways to live, the first and most important thing we need to do is too look for lifestyles that work with our nature rather than strive against it.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 2 May 2006 @ 10:04 AM
True, a lifestyle that works with our nature rather than constantly being faced with “fear” be it overt or covert, to be part of the system. This doesn’t take into account indvidual differences for freedom, fun, love etc.
But at some level people attempt to view reality out of the prism of their own “picture album of wants and needs in their mind”. The more disparate your album is from a groups/person, the more discord typically comes out of it. Not to say you need to agree on all thing to get along. Ultimately, we continue along life based on needs & beliefs as far as they take us, few people have a revelation in life that allows them to at least minimalize the more petty aspects of being a human.
Comment by Bubba — 2 May 2006 @ 10:10 AM
I’m trying very hard not to lose my temper. It’s not working particularly well, seeing as how you’ve all decided to get together and shit on my fiance. I probably shouldn’t be typing this in the first place. But I will nevertheless.
It’s amusing to me that everyone’s pissing on Jason for not exhibiting “leadership” while at the same time completely ignoring Mike and myself. I’ve noticed this happening again and again in this situation. Mike single-handedly countered Ben’s attacks on this website and on IshCon while Jason and I were out of town. Jason and I penned a response together, and I posted again, on my own. Out of all of us, Jason did the least in this situation. And HE’S the one getting attacked, because he should have been the “leader” of an anarchist tribe devoted to creating a world without leaders.
FUCK THAT.
I’m sick of hearing about how it’s all JASON’S fault for not creating a good community; how it’s JASON’S fault for not knowing how to handle conflict; how it’s JASON’S fault for not knowing how to get along with people. Don’t you dare preach at my fiance about creating community while completely ignoring the community of which Jason is only a part. If you want someone to attack, attack ME. If anyone said immature things in response to Ben and Miranda, it was ME, because Jason barely said anything at all. So stop being such goddamn chickenshits, beating a man whom you KNOW is already down, and say what you want to say to ME.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 2 May 2006 @ 10:15 AM
hey. janene and guili.
i was not dissing the tribe. i was not dissing jason as a person. i was dismayed that he posted and brought the whole thing up again, with links to all the relevent threads. my comment referred to a specific post of his, not his character, his tribe, his morals, NOTHING but his judgement on this ONE POST.
chickenshit, my ass.
Comment by kate — 2 May 2006 @ 11:05 AM
I have to take the time out of reading to applaud guiliannna. Defense of her soon to be husband is commendable.
There are other things I wish to say, though. Not as an attack, as some might say, but as an observation and curiosity.
I’ve read through the links and had many different reactions to everything that was written. Firstly, the first post seemed down and out, depressed, not evil. Did anyone talk to her behind the scenes before the attack on her character came into play? I did notice the post in question was up for a while before anyone came out and attacked, so there certainly would have been time to do so. If not, that would have been the first place to divert whatever disaster this turned out to be. Secondly, jason’s response, mostly I noticed the play by play between Mike, Ben, and Miranda, in which someone came in, took a shot at Ben while Ben had nothing to do with this conversation, Ben came in and said “attack me or don’t” and then Mike basically called him a whiny child for coming in and saying that. Miranda came in for defense, which caused attacks on both of them which ended in the post being closed. Interesting interactions going on there. Clearly Mike did not like Ben and did not like Miranda, and the vice versa iseems true as well.
I then read Ben’s response on ishcon, which while maybe including email in the text was not the best of ideas, I can certainly understand it if the things that were said were indeed said. This site is a respected site, and I know a great many people come in here because of what is done here. That’s a good thing. But things like orders, espeically in the manner that they were given, is not. Stating that feelings do not matter because you do not belong to this specific club yet seems off to me. So, Ben’s response did not seem mean, rather, an observation of everything that went on. Things beyond that, as “Reports of our demise have been greatly exagerrated” confused me. What reports? I searched and searched and could find none. So that is still confusing me. I wouldn’t have brought any of this up, as I thought most of this was dead or dying, but it hasn’t seemed to be let go yet, so I decided to anyway.
I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, though I’d be confused if it did, like I said, observing what I see, nothing more.
Anyway, defense of our loved ones is a wonderful character trait, don’t ever lose that.
Sadly, it is that defense, that seemed to blow this up higher than it otherwise would have been.
Comment by Margo T. — 2 May 2006 @ 11:11 AM
Hey –
Kate, I know that I was not directing my comments at you… and I doubt Giuli was either.
What I have noticed is a whole bunch of ’strangers’ coming out of the woodwork to dis the tribe (and particularily Jason) after never having had ANYTHING else to say about anything…
You know, sort of the difference between internal squabbles and know-it-all busy-bodies…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 2 May 2006 @ 11:12 AM
Chickenshit is pretty useful for growing some things, but really not the best manure type.
I hope everyone is doing well, and looking at the current gas prices/oil & beginning to amp up the preparations. It takes some time to develop the skills/mindset to really be pretty self-sufficient, even with a group of folks. This is particularly hard trying to keep one foot in the system (working 40hrs+) and then with the little time left, spending it on learning things that aren’t really relevant right now. Proactive activity is one of the benefits of the human prefrontal cortex, but its still something that few people do much of.
I hope that all these odd blog posting die off soon. Groups of people will always have issues, and many groups will deal with them differently…there is not right and wrong way, there is only the way.
Barrell of oil is 74$, hurricans haven’t even begun, and the peak consumptions months are still not upon us, this bodes poorly for many personal budgets. But its getting people talking…even if they are talking about notions, that most of us have been studying for many years now.
Comment by Bubba — 2 May 2006 @ 11:17 AM
Rob — I’m afraid time we spend making small posts now is time we’re not spending on the work we have to do for our … “re-emergence”? So, it’s going to be quiet here for some time to come.
Kate — It’s difficult to say where we’ve been for all those who’ve been concerned by our silence, without mentioning the events that led to such a hiatus. Not everyone follows events here so closely, and it’s always been my policy to allow the record stand for itself, and let people come to their own conclusions about it. Hence, the links–those who don’t know what I’m talking about can see it for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. It wasn’t my attempt to raise the issue again, but it did happen, it is relevant to where we are now, and trying to pretend otherwise simply seems dishonest to me. Ironically enough, it seems to me that you pointing it out has done more to dredge it back up than anything I mentioned. I, too, would like to move on and leave this in the past where it belongs, but that doesn’t mean pretending it didn’t happen, or that its consequences aren’t still rippling through our lives.
Tosspot — I’d hope I’d like you, too, if I met you! People tell me my online persona and my real personality are like night-and-day. Mercury in fish, heck, everything’s poisoned these days, isn’t it? Still have to eat something.
Tony — Quite right. The flip-side of an open source culture is that all our problems are open-source, too. You get to see our fights, our ugly moments, the things that most people don’t see or would be embarrassed of. It’s a price worth paying, in my opinion. Maybe people think lowly of me because they can see my clay feet–all the better to keep me from ever becoming a leader. More importantly, the problems we face in creating our community provide data for others. What problems did we encounter? How did we handle them? What can you learn from our experience? That’s why I’m willing to do this all in public, as painful as it may be for me. If the effort is not appreciated, that’s fine–I hope only that it’s useful. More than anything at the moment, we lack for contemporary examples.
Michael M, handforged, etc. — I’m afraid there’s nothing I can really say to that. You have your opinion of me; others have theirs. A discussion of my “maturity” isn’t likely to go anywhere but down, and very, very quickly.
“Rkainjil” — Your story reminds me of the Shoshone, who would go on massive rabbit hunts. These required precision, teamwork, and timing. There was no time to debate the issue, and so, rabbit hunts had “leaders.” But I notice that, like a good conductor, there were less “leaders” than they were good organizers. They play their role, and it is a role no more or less important than any other. I’ve noted for quite some time that whenever people describe a good leader, they invariably describe someone who, to the greatest extent possible, strips himself of his own leadership! “That leader is best who leads least”? In other words, what we’re talking about is an organizer–and I’d agree, an organizer is often required. Symphonies, rabbit hunts and large software projects need someone who can organize the whole. Where I think we cross the line from organizer to leader, is when we attach to that position a mythology of superiority–in other words, precisely the moment when they cease to be “a good leader.”
As for primitive living, you’re right–the Buddha would be at peace, even in Hell, and if men were angels, all of this would be moot. I do not believe that humans are the problem. We have a certain bell curve of our own fulfillment and happiness, a bell curve well-suited to primitive living where only the most wretched of us are unhappy. Placed in our modern context, however, that same population reserves contentment only for the most Zen-like. It is true, when your life is out of accord with who you are, you can find balance again either by changing your life, or by changing who you are. Our lives as they are, are very destructive, but I see no problem with what we are. Personally, I’d prefer the easier project of changing the way we live, than that project of “raising consciousness” that every religious leader in 10,000 years has tried his hands at without success.
Giuli — Calm down, love. I was down before, but I got back up weeks ago. They have their opinions of me, and that’s fine. I don’t put much value in them, though–certainly nothing worth so much as to warrant such anger.
Bubba — Once again, I couldn’t agree more:
I just wanted to let people know where we are, and that we’ll be back soon. I certainly didn’t want to open up the whole issue again, but so la vie.
For the past 10,000 years, our culture has grown through violence and devastation, but that way is ending. Violence and devastation will not be viable strategies for the future. If we are to survive, we need to retrace our steps, and learn how to live without them. We must outgrow our need for leaders–we must rediscover our egalitarian heritage. That’s what we’re trying to do with the Tribe of Anthropik. I never said it would be pretty; I never said it would conform to the ideals you’ve been programmed with by our hierarchical culture; I never said it would be a utopia. But it will be, above all, human. We do it in public, so that you can benefit from our experiences, and learn from our mistakes. Take what you will from this–we certainly have. We hope that the pain we’ve experienced can help you, as you try to form communities of your own.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 May 2006 @ 11:36 AM
oh, okay. i see it now! it WAS my fault, jason! the bitter irony of it….how it was I who brought it all back up… sorry.
Comment by kate — 2 May 2006 @ 12:49 PM
I am taking the fact that Jason put my handle in quotes to mean that I aught to introduce myself for full disclosure, and as I am happy to, I will.
My name is Gabriel, and I am Giuli’s 1st cousin. Her mother is my father’s sister. I have known Giuli all her life, and I have to say, that I never saw a display like that post when you were growing up! Frankly, I am impressed -way to defend your man!
I promise I won’t bring up your potty mouth at family gatherings - I think the next one is your wedding.
ANYWAY, it seems I do not need to write much - as you will see, Jason makes a point that really defuses quite a bit, here.
Janene said:
Now, this is the sort of the crux of the matter, is it not?
Why do you think that the ‘problems we face’ are caused by our own flaws? If you found a population of birds, driven to the brink of extinction because they only ate a food supply that was dwindling, would you blame the birds for that flaw?
In the same way, how could ANY species eveolve if it was, in fact, fundamentally flawed?
Agreed, Janene- it is the crux. Please note, however, that I do not think of these things as flaws, but rather aspects of personality that come from (but not actually are) our evolutionary instincts. Giuli’s primal reaction is a great example of this.
Birds do not know any better. They will eat the food supply and then die, or in desparation, find something else (birds drinking blood when water becomes unavailable is a good example). They won’t hold meetings,they won’t think about it, they may not even see that their food supply is dwindling. When the supply runs out, they will either come upon something else, transform, or die. That is one way they evolve.
We evolve in many ways, but mostly we now evolve sociologically. We hardly need to evolve physically, because we can pretty much think our way to survival in almost any situation. We CAN see these things. We CAN talk about it, and rearrange the situation. The key to our survival rests in our minds - this is the reason why we make cultures, and social experiments - such as this site.
The rub then becomes a kind of chicken and egg question. Is it the society that will transform the people, or vice-versa?
Jason said:
As for primitive living, you’re right–the Buddha would be at peace, even in Hell, and if men were angels, all of this would be moot. I do not believe that humans are the problem. We have a certain bell curve of our own fulfillment and happiness, a bell curve well-suited to primitive living where only the most wretched of us are unhappy. Placed in our modern context, however, that same population reserves contentment only for the most Zen-like. It is true, when your life is out of accord with who you are, you can find balance again either by changing your life, or by changing who you are. Our lives as they are, are very destructive, but I see no problem with what we are. Personally, I’d prefer the easier project of changing the way we live, than that project of “raising consciousness” that every religious leader in 10,000 years has tried his hands at without success
Please note that he concedes that if “men were all angels”, or if we have rasied our level of conciousness to a level that needs no social reforms, then we would not need this.
I will also concede, however that we have not succeeded yet on either front. Although I will point out that it has only been about 3000 years (first, the Jews, but then the time when Buddah was around - 1500 years ago - he was only one of many “consciousness raising” religions to form over the next 1000 years )since we started to think this way.
Maybe it might be easier to work in the large sociological context, but I wonder if it would be a simple case of the roots not being strong for the tree?
Or put another way, why not work towards everyone being “Zen-like”, rather than live primitively?
Comment by Rkainjil — 2 May 2006 @ 1:55 PM
Yes, that is a strange phenomenon. We’ve also noticed a sharp increase in traffic from Frostburg, Maryland, which seems to perfectly coincide with this sudden glut of strangers with strong opinions on Jason’s character and only Jason’s character (no comments on primitivism, peak oil, etc.). What a bizarre coincidence.
Hey, thanks.
Heh. I have some controversial opinions on the English language - namely that there is no such thing as a “bad” word. I’m not ashamed to use strong language when strong language gets the point across best. (The point being in this case, “Don’t mess with my man.”) But I do realize that I’m in the minority on this issue. Don’t worry, I won’t be tossing around four-letter words at the wedding. Unless our monogrammed napkins end up being a different shade of robin’s egg blue than the bridesmaids’ shoes. Then there will be heck to pay. Heck, I tells ya!!!
Why not work towards both goals simultaneously?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 2 May 2006 @ 2:49 PM
Just wasn’t sure if you were concerned about being “outted.” I have a friend here who posts under an assumed name, “in case [he] ever tries to get a government job.” I hope I’m already in the woods by the time it comes to that….
Giuli and I are agreed on this–there are no bad words, just bad speakers.
Interesting how the same reasoning can come to divergent conclusions, isn’t it? For my own self, the very fact that humans do evolve and adapt culturally first is why we should see to adapting our culture to suit us, rather than adapting ourselves to suit our culture. People forget that culture is an adaptation itself–it’s something we invented to make our lives easier. If it ceases to make our lives easier, it has ceased to fulfill its very reason for being. At that point, is it not best to discard it in favor of some other culture, which may do better at its intended task? That is what primitivism means to me–a rejection of a culture that has failed to fulfill its purpose, and the intent to create a new culture which fulfills its purpose more effectively.
I disagree with Quinn on many things, but this one has stuck with me: any “utopian” project is doomed to failure, because they expect people to be nicer, smarter, or in some way “better” than they’ve ever been before. People are people, and that will only change on the evolutionary timeline of millennia. Culture exists precisely so that we can make faster adaptations. Right now, people are mismatched to their culture. We can fit people to the culture in a few million years, or we can fit culture to the people right now. Do we shave down the square peg so we can put it in the round hole, or shouldn’t we rather just put it in the equally good square hole, where it fits?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 May 2006 @ 3:29 PM
Jason, you left out that Zen masters are very rarely angelic. They smoke,fight each other, argue, are notorious assholes, love the wrong females, become crimelords, become assasins, become kings and beggars, and sit in contemplative peace on the mountain very rarely. just like the rest of us “unenlightened” humans.
i feel sorry for humans who have the belief that humans are inherently wicked and corrupt. how horrible it must be, to think that every human one sees is an evil monster, that any altruistic act must have an ulterior motive, that humans are scum. What upsets me the most is that when one calls them out on it, and says “do you think i am human trash?” none of them have the courage of their convictions to answer in the affirmative.
Comment by Rory — 2 May 2006 @ 3:52 PM
Giuli said:
Why not work towards both goals simultaneously?
I like this idea! How would this work in a practical way?
How about this:
Zen masters create a society of sorts when they build temples, and have students in them. Just about every aspect of the temple is built to hold a lesson for the student. For instance, all their gardens have different trees that shed leaves at different times of year, creating the neccesity to rake leaves on a constant basis. This would make most garden-keepers heads shake in confusion, but the point is to have a specific lesson on hand (about raking leaves) whenever a student first walks in - no matter what time of year it is.
So in the same way, you can build your primitive society that has specific values teach specific lessons, but without the extreme physical and psycological rigors of becoming a Zen master. You would have your society, and in 5-6 generations, a well educated one that would be free to do what they wanted.
If the society survives that long, that is. How many generations has our country existed?
Hmmmmmm - might be on to something here…
Comment by Rkainjil — 2 May 2006 @ 4:06 PM
Rory,
As you said, Zen Masters are human like the rest of us.
You said:
i feel sorry for humans who have the belief that humans are inherently wicked and corrupt. how horrible it must be, to think that every human one sees is an evil monster, that any altruistic act must have an ulterior motive, that humans are scum. What upsets me the most is that when one calls them out on it, and says “do you think i am human trash?” none of them have the courage of their convictions to answer in the affirmative
Saying that one has the belief that humans have greed, jealousy, pettyness, and a host of other character traits, is NOT saying that humans are inherently corrupt, or trash for that matter. We also have love, altruism, friendship, loyalty, and many other things. We have all these tendencies within all of us, and we can either ignore them, or give in to them. I do not think Zen masters really rid themselves of these “evil” feelings. On the contrary, I think they are keenly aware of them, and strive to rise above them through practice.
And as you said, they are human like the rest of us.
Comment by Rkainjil — 2 May 2006 @ 4:19 PM
You seem to be under the impression that a society that lives simply must also lack knowledge. I don’t think that’s the case at all; that was precisely the myth I tried to discredit in theses 23-24. I expect my own primitive society to be bursting with art, knowledge and wisdom.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 May 2006 @ 4:24 PM
The values intrinsic to primitivism would be easily taught. Why build temples, when you don’t need stone walls to obtain knowledge or wisdom? Why plant trees when the trees reproduce themselves? Why rake leaves, when they provide such excellent fertilizer for the soil? The overarching lesson - one that far too many people in this culture, including me, need to learn - is that you don’t have to do everything yourself. You don’t have to create a classroom in order to learn; you just have to know where to look.
Philosophical traditions of all stripes are rich and vibrant in primitive societies, and no one has to spend any time raking up leaves.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 2 May 2006 @ 4:49 PM
Regarding Zen Masters vs. primitive…
I think that perhaps a better model to emulate would be Daoist Master, in which case, there is no “vs. primitive”. The Way (which, of course, can not be spoken of
is primitive.
- roebuck
Comment by roebuck — 2 May 2006 @ 5:18 PM
Which is one of the reasons I tend to get along with Taoists more than Buddhists.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 May 2006 @ 5:21 PM
I suppose I am one of those that came out of the woodwork that had rarely posted before. I think that all of the hissy fits and drama are burying the key issue, namely the nature of the collapse. I get the impression that there is an attempted academic tour de force here to establish that either we have society as it currently exists, or 99% of the population must be eliminated. I sense we are being set up for a TINA by a false dichotomy. Some of us have been patient, but now that your thirty thesis have been presented it is time to defend them without resorting to dancing bears and cute animated gifs.
Comment by ov — 2 May 2006 @ 9:45 PM
Oh noes! More dancing bears!
So… what exactly are we supposed to be defending again?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 May 2006 @ 10:06 PM
The 99%, for starters.
Comment by ov — 2 May 2006 @ 11:41 PM
That’s been pretty thoroughly explained already. In the thread you linked to, in fact. If you have a specific objection to some part of that explanation that doesn’t involve conspiracy theories about the Academy™, we’d be more than happy to consider them. But I see no reason to go through the whole thing again just because you deem us to be “resorting to dancing bears,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Especially since, as far as I can tell, you’re the one who’s setting up a false dichotomy. When you say things like, “I get the impression that there is an attempted academic tour de force here to establish that either we have society as it currently exists, or 99% of the population must be eliminated,” you seem to be implying a value judgment where none exists. Again, we come back to the ever prevalent is-ought problem. The 99% die-off theory doesn’t say anything about what should happen. It deals solely with what will happen.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 3 May 2006 @ 12:25 AM
Sounds more like a death wish than a theory. The entire credibility of this site depends on you backing this up with some hard data.
Comment by ov — 3 May 2006 @ 1:41 AM
We already have, and you’re the only one–anywhere–who isn’t satisfied with it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 May 2006 @ 9:03 AM
To OV,
Is it an invalid theory to suggest that 99% people who are close proximity to a raging fire, get burnt..or is that a “death wish” theory? Perhaps you can argue the 99% number, but its hard to come up with a reasonable theory based on the current situation that doesn’t involve a mass-die off, even if that percentage would happen to be 70%??
Hard Data for an event yet to happen, would be difficult at this point. Maybe in 10years, you can walk down your street and see the Theory, become Quantifiable, but sadly it would be a bit too late.
I think its irrelevant to argue this number, If you can predicate your future actions on a 70% number, does it make a big difference? I tend to think 10% might be a more accurate number, but that would depend on more folks being horticulturalists, and civilization collapsing quicker, rather than later.
The longer it goes, under the current situation, the harder the fall.
Comment by Bubba — 3 May 2006 @ 10:00 AM
Just