Thanks Piet,
I derive much food for thought from the work of Pierre Clastres
and recommend him.
His insights into the function of low level warfare to prevent
the formation of concentrations of power and states is one
which makes a great deal of sense out of past and present
behaviours for horticulturally based societies.
Like Levi-Strauss and other excellent Western intellectuals
i find they fail to comprehend the Way(s) of First Peoples,
however. But their insights are treasured and appreciated
(by me, at least) as working towards a nu script for life can
only be a collective undertaking.
I will look out for the book by Robert Anton Wilson.
CENTRALISATION/OUTSIDE?
I should have said, in the piece i circulated, that 'decentralisation'
is actually centralisation from this perspective - power is centered
in our socially well formed viscera, not in remote places which
serve as government and administrative 'centres' and render us
as passive processors of 'official' messages which originate
well outside of our communities and our lives.
What calls for comment in this respect is that part of the sales pitch
for constitutional governments is that it ceases to pay attention to
message which originate from "outside". The divine right of kings, and
other sources of messages, are dismissed as being of significance for
the 'modern' age.
But in place of a rejection of messages originating from 'outside' it is
possible to regard the state as one which does not do away with
such messages. It merely substitutes the voices of a particular
group for those which may have once been regarded as coming from
beyond (in one sense or another).
THE GREAT MODERN FALLACY
I find that others have covered some of this ground. H. J. Spiro, writing
the entry on "Constitution and constitutional Government" in the Enc Brit
mentions the work of Jacob Burckhardt:
"It was only in Italy during the Renaissance and in England after the
Reformation that the "great modern fallacy" (as the Swiss historian Jacob
Burckhardt called it) established itself, according to which men could
rationally, deliberately, give themselves a new constitution to meet their
current needs."
And we must ask "Yes, to meet their current needs, but at what price?"
The rights to our own genes, if not our souls?
Bruce
----------
> From: piet bouter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [recoznet2] Re: Consent of the governed - extract
> Somewhat similar tend the thoughts of an in some circles famous writer
these days: Robert Anton Wilson.
>
> A recent book called: "Escaping the 19th century" carries essays about
relations between Fourier, Marx, Nietsche and Proudhon besides many unknown
facts from history topped of with ethnographic speculation... about the
mount builder cultures in what is now known as Wisconsin, roughly for
instance. Throughout he wields a concept called the war machine, adapted
from Pierre Clastres' work (which I had the pleasure to read while in
Australia a few years back).
>
> Underlying it all is a stark, bleak and binary opposition between the
social and capitalism; sharing and fighting woven together by the spirit of
shamanic freedom taking Taussig the anthropologist as lead and inspiration.
>
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
