Illich, Zerzan:
One becomes a thing in order to master things.
The televisual order, objectification, reification, abstraction and alienation are all related to commodification, the concentration of lived value into frozen forms (images, money, commodity-and at the end of the day are not all three interchangeable?).
But what if this predates capitalism and if the latter is only highlighting and accentuating tendencies that have already existed for ten thousand years (since the beginning of agriculture, to be precise)? Or maybe even further back: weren't the first cave paintings, after all, a sign that what was once present could only now be re-presented? Culture, art, language are not simply compensations for a lost presence, a necessary illusion; they in some sense preclude our recovery of a direct, unmediated and whole experience of reality. The letter killeth, but the spirit...
Inherent in reification is a sense of loss, then. But also violence and separation. Is it the case, then, that religion, as a system of thought, sets up all kinds of distinctions, introducing the possibility of violence (this is an old theme, going back to Hume? Polytheism is more peaceable).
But what of the God of the desert? Or, as the orthodox tradition has it: God is not a concept.
Never trust a god who doesn't dance.
The primacy of vision and its complicity with abstraction. Do you see what I'm saying? Is it any wonder (is there any wonder?) that the sensual is devalued in favour of the intellectual? Intelligence is really just seeing things correctly, in the right light or order. Taste, once associated with judgement, has become the dumbest and most undifferentiating of our senses (in theory and in practice).
But taste, smell and touch are the senses most associated with love. (Is that true? Don't we fall in love when we see the face of the loved one?).
These wonderful lines from Running on Emptiness really struck me:
It has been said that the Mbuti of southern Africa believe that "by correct fulfillment of the present, the past and the future will take care of themselves."
Zerzan's writing is direct, simple and sometimes startling. His critique of technology and a technology-infatuated society will resonate with some; for most, though, you suspect he'll be accused of "primitivism".
Illich, the most perceptive of thinkers, has always been a model of what an intellectual might be: committed, engaged, generous, and humane. A far cry from the gamers and schemers in academia.
He clearly saw how a technological society was crippling people's abilities to organize their own lives. The freedom of the market actually ushered in an ever-growing dependency on commodities and the state. Real autonomy, Illich would argue, depended on first understanding how technology was leading to internalities- technology's failure to deliver the goods (worse: to block and hamper organically developed ways of human flourishing and dwelling). And these commodities had to have their own missionaries, the experts and bureaucrats, to flog them off to the "poor". Everyone has to buy into the dream (so much for freedom, so much for the much vaunted pluralism!).