The failure of symbolic thought

No doubt the cover caught my eye - against a black background (because it is night) an elevated inner city highway is outlined only by the impressionist dots of cars' lights as they cover an inverted 'S', with colour variation for their lights reduced to a singular neon yellow. There are hints of buildings beyond and below the elevated neon circuit, nothing more. "Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization" the title explains, by "John Zerzan". Further below a commentator called Derrick Jensen is quoted as saying that "John Zerzan is the most important philosopher of our time". Funny, I've never heard of him. And then "All the rest of us are building on his foundation".

To outline my ignorance, a quick link to Derrick Jensen's web site tells me that "us" might refer to a subcultural movement I haven't really been acquainted with, but which has some roots in environmentalism and includes figures like Lewis Mumford. I am suitably sceptical. Are these guys lobbying for some idealistic cause whose ideals will outlive anyone's ability to execute them, or ... well, maybe there is no or. So I started reading, at least without a truly alternative preconception.

The Failure of Symbolic Thought

The paradox of Zerzan's thought (in the essay The Failure of Symbolic Thought) is that he uses an impressive array of symbolic information to argue his "thesis that the extent to which thought and emotion are tied to symbolism is the measure by which absence fills the inner world and destroys the outer world" (p. 2). He states the preferred option of knowing through direct sensory perception - something I interpret as animism via mystery religion, a.k.a. romanticism: "It is our fall from a simplicity and fullness of life directly experienced, from the sensuous moment of knowing, which leaves a gap that the symbolic can never bridge." (p. 4) I can hear Wordsworth ecstatically dictating a lyrical poem from his creaking dusty crate.

Fearing that I sound slightly cynical, let me begin by explaining where I am in complete accord with the essay (even at this entirely premature stage - like Huggy Bear, while others run the course I head straight for the finish line). The discontents of society are well-known - to name but a few there is alienation, abuse of one human being by another, violence, disrespect for the environment (which includes other people), and the oppressive poverty and disease and death that continues on the peripheries of, and sometimes in the shadows cast by, wealth and comfort. The list is much longer, but the more conscientious among the affluent minorities tend to agree that this is not alright and if there is something to be done then let it be done. Now it shouldn't interfere with business as usual, but one should at least endorse it after the inexhaustible set of other pseudo-needs have been satisfied. Which occurs only when in the ensuing moments of boredom the mind has tired of the ever-increasing menu of entertaining time killers available - once in a leap year, that is. Great. Which via a small alleyway leads us to the first problem: the existence of time.

In transcending the "natural" umwelt, perhaps around the time that consciousness, language and tools developed, a symbolic world started to assert its power in order to replace a more "natural" world. We find ourselves today in a highly sophisticated world full of symbolic realms where a few heavyweight contenders such as science, technology, and capitalist self interest collude to strengthen the strong and leave the weak with few options. Take Ilbury and Sunter's "The Mind of a Fox" as an example. It appeals entirely to the reader's self interest (there is neither aesthetic nor even analytical pleasure in reading it, but a little in analysing it in turn) and promises to sharpen the reader's skills when summoning that other ally of capitalism: The Future.

Specifically, Ilbury and Sunter's scenario's are possible futures, i.e. symbolically mediated realities that may or may not be released into the present (at some future point in time - always). Depends if you choose the right scenario, or your present (at some future point in time) will simply be in service to somebody else's (read: another self-interested player) scenario. But usually a mixture. And so on. Scenario's as symbolic realities include what we know about the business environment, consumer forces, and our own goals. Knock away these two props (Self Interest and The Future) and you are left with a person (who wouldn't care to read "The Mind of a Fox") wandering around with a warm fuzzy feeling but unable to make ends meet for long within the framework already outlined - a framework where the bottom line is usually money (or an exchangeable currency - even beauty counts) and power (which is an expression of the need to possess the currency as an object).

Why is this happy person unable to make ends meet for long? Because this person must make a pact with the "unnatural" (cultured) natural environment - which already demands some kind of allegiance through the sacrifice of non-time. Whether the environment was once a purely natural world I have yet to be convinced of, but right now I know at least that life is mediated, in varying degrees, by a symbolic environment in which a future orientation is dominant. Our fuzzy feelinged happy person, as long as the pact remains in place, will remain on an even keel for a while or, if he or she wins the lottery or inherits big time, for as long as the exchangeable currency lasts. That is the price of the pact. There are probably genuine alternatives, and some people who even manage them, but what is of interest to me, and may be what justifies Zerzan's use of symbolic thought for the purpose of demonstrating the failure of symbolic thought, is that this is the inherited environment. And since it's what we understand it should be employed ingeniously in the service of finding a way out. A simple thought. Now before I get too far ahead of myself (and I have indeed rambled largely along my own tracks in the last 4 paragraphs), I plan to read more because Zerzan seems to have his ideas well practiced and I reckon that they may just be important.