Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Duck Rabbit Duality: Paradox and the Origins of Civilisation
#1
How the divisive mind created the world.

I’m the author — feel free to ask questions.
Reply
#2
Thank you so much for this! It's really great! «‘time and space’, ‘subject and object’, ‘nature and culture’ and other duck-rabbits» would be a great title for an emo 12".

Are you familiar with Krishnamurti? He talks a lot about this image-making you refer to. When you see a mountain, do you *know* the mountain? If you *know* the mountain, you cannot *observe* the mountain. For *knowing* is *re*cognising, which means you, the observer, is in the past, while the mountain is in the present, so there is conflict; you can't see into the future. And if I stand beside you, and I too *know* the mountain, we don't even *know* the same thing — even more conflict. I think you might find him interesting. See: http://anti-civ.org/showthread.php?tid=46

This single point of origin, which Zerzan talks about a lot too, is contested these days in anthropology. See: http://anti-civ.org/showthread.php?tid=4
Reply
#3
Quote:Thank you so much for this! It's really great! «‘time and space’, ‘subject and object’, ‘nature and culture’ and other duck-rabbits» would be a great title for an emo 12".

Hi Alexander — and thanks. The emo 12'' is an excellent idea. I’m putting a band together right now.


Quote:Are you familiar with Krishnamurti? He talks a lot about this image-making you refer to. When you see a mountain, do you *know* the mountain? If you *know* the mountain, you cannot *observe* the mountain. For *knowing* is *re*cognising, which means you, the observer, is in the past, while the mountain is in the present, so there is conflict; you can't see into the future. And if I stand beside you, and I too *know* the mountain, we don't even *know* the same thing — even more conflict. I think you might find him interesting.

Yes very familiar with and deeply influenced by Krishnamurti. Although his insights on sexuality were pretty anaemic, and I think the role emotion has in thought was [unfortunately] not his primary concern, his understanding of the distorting filter of the mind was second-to-none. I still remember my thrill at first encountering him — here, finally, was someone who spoke unambiguously of truth, of an end to suffering, yet didn’t speak in cliches.


Not sure about the comb-over though.


Quote:This single point of origin, which Zerzan talks about a lot too, is contested these days in anthropology. See: http://anti-civ.org/showthread.php?tid=4

Very interesting. I’m also a bit fan of Graeber’s work. This might be of interest to you.
Reply
#4
Have you considered getting this published somewhere? If I were to put out a zine, this kind of writing is *exactly* what I'd put in it! I'm working on an essay myself atm, but have no idea who'd be interested in publishing it.
Reply
#5
(Fri, 12 May 2017 13:37:14 +0000, 01:37 PM)alexander Wrote: Have you considered getting this published somewhere? If I were to put out a zine, this kind of writing is *exactly* what I'd put in it! I'm working on an essay myself atm, but have no idea who'd be interested in publishing it.

Thanks Alexander! It’s actually an adapted extract from my book, The Apocalypedia, which connects it up to everything else.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)