Jeffrey

This story is fiction and at the same time true for so many people (especially teenagers). Not exactly the same way as in this story here, but in different ways. The end is tragic, but true as well for so many people in our culture. I wish I could say "have fun" or something. But this story just isn't fun at all. First I thought of summarizing the following story. But then I thought that I can't do it. I (or in fact Daniel Quinn, thanks, Daniel for sending it so fast!) cut it a bit, but this is what Ishmael tells (the story can be found on page 196-198 softcover edition of "My Ishmael"):

         "Among her friends in college," Ishmael began, "my benefactor Rachel Sokolow counted a young man named Jeffrey, whose father was an affluent surgeon. Jeffrey became an important person in many lives at this time and later, because he presented people with a problem. He couldn't figure out what to do with himself. He was physically attractive, intelligent, personable, and talented at almost anything he turned his hand to. He could play the guitar well, though he had no interest in a musical career. He could take a good photograph, produce a good sketch, play the lead in a school play, and write an entertaining story or a provocative essay, but he didn't want to be a photographer, an artist, an actor, or a writer. He did well in all his classes but didn't want to be a teacher or a scholar and wasn't interested in following his father's footsteps or in pursuing a career in law, the sciences, mathematics, business, or politics. . . . In spite of all this, he seemed 'well-adjusted,' as it's called. . . .

         "Jeffrey's friends never tired of finding new ideas to present to him in hopes of awakening his interest. Wouldn't he enjoy reviewing films for the local newspaper? Had he ever thought of taking up scrimshaw or jewelry making? Cabinetry was put forward as a soul-satisfying occupation. How about fossil hunting? . . . Jeffrey's father was completely sympathetic with his inability to discover an enthusiasm and ready to support him in whatever exploration he might find worthwhile. If a world tour had any appeal, a travel agent would be put to work on it. If he wanted to try the life of an outdoorsman, equipment would be supplied, gladly. If he wanted to take to the sea, a boat would be made ready. . . . He shrugged it all off, politely, embarrassed to be putting everyone to so much trouble.

         "I don't want to give you the impression he was lazy or spoiled. He was always at the top of his class, always held a part-time job, lived in ordinary student housing, didn't own a car. He just looked at the world that was on offer to him and couldn't see a single thing in it worth having. His friends kept saying to him, 'Look, you can't go on this way. You've got too much going for you. You've just got to get some ambition, got to find something you want to do with your life!'

         "Jeffrey graduated with honors but without a direction. After hanging around his father's house for the summer, he went to visit some college friends who had just gotten married. He took along his knapsack, his guitar, his journal. After a few weeks he set out to visit some other friends, hitch-hiking. He was in no hurry. He stopped along the way, helped some people who were building a barn, earned enough money to keep going, and eventually reached his next destination. Soon it was getting on for winter and he headed home. He and his father had long conversations, played gin rummy, played pool, played tennis, watched football, drank beer, read books, went to movies.

         "When spring came, Jeffrey bought a second-hand car and set out to visit friends in the other direction. People took him in wherever he went. They liked him and felt sorry for him, he was so rootless, so ineffectual, so unfocused. . . .

         "The years drifted by in this way. Jeffrey watched old friends get married, raise children, build careers, build businesses, win a little fame here, a little fortune there  . . . while he went on playing his guitar, writing a poem now and then, and filling one journal after another. Just last spring he celebrated his thirty-first birthday with friends at a vacation cottage on a lake in Wisconsin. In the morning he walked down to the water, wrote a few lines in his journal, then waded into the lake and drowned himself."

Sad story, one would probably say and indeed many people I've told the story to did say it. It seems that something is wrong with Jeffrey. That's what everybody told him. Something was wrong with him. But I'd like to ask the reader of this story a question: Is it true? Is there really something wrong with Jeffrey?
Jeffrey's story is fiction and reality at the same time. There are so many young people committing suicide. Not because they are crazy, but because of their helplessness. Mother Culture tells us that there's something wrong about these peoples.
Jeffrey's story is loosely based on the life of Paul Eppinger. His father Charles published Paul's journal under the title "Restless Mind, Quiet Thoughts". There are also letter exchanges from father and son and Charles also added some explaining lines here and there.

In memory of Daniel Quinn (October 11, 1935 – February 17, 2018)

Two and a half cultures

Dear reader,

there are two big human cultures. One is that of the indigenous people, especially earlier often called "primitive" or "wild". They lived and live ever since they can remember basically the same way without huge changes and above all they live in accordance with the part of the world that's around them. The others call themselves civilised, spread throughout the whole planet and destroy not only the planet. Their lifestyle is so demanding that many of them are sick and probably destroy themselves that way, too. Many are so desperate that in fact they kill themselves. Mind you, not every death can be traced back to that unusual lifestyle.

In his book „Ishmael“ Daniel Quinn uses a different pair of words for those two cultures. Even though he describes one culture as destructive, he still wants to move away from the generally loaded with prejudices words of civiliced and primitive or even wild. Based on the saying „take it or leave it“, he chose “Takers” for the civilised and “Leavers” for the indigenous people. One can argue about whether or not it makes much sense to use a new pair of words. Like so many other things that are simply renamed because of the bad image. Daniel Quinn himself has since gone back to writing about civilised and indigenous people. His books, not just Ishmael, are quite well known. Maybe he moved away from his pair again, because in the end it doesn't matter what you call those two cultures.

I want to call your attention to one other aspect regardless of that. Daniel Quinn stresses the point that there is no one right way to live for humanity. Although the civilised spread out and with that also spread the very thought of just that. Namely that their lifestyle is the right way and desirable for all people. On the other hand it's obvious that the lifestyle of the indigenous people is by far calmer and less demanding for the immediate environment of the people living that lifestyle. If the civilised are so destructive with their lifestyle, wouldn't it be better to destroy this culture and lifestyle. Particularly since the destruction of the Earth by man will stop with that, too. (Whether with the climate change will stop, too and the Earth will be more “stable” all together, is another doubtful subject.) I assume that indigenous people would most certainly rather fight to defend themselves, but not to actually attack the civilised. They are, as history has shown, far more powerful anyway. A dismantling of the civilisation to save the Earth would more likely happen from within. By people, who are unhappy with that lifestyle and want to put it to an end. But if civilisation is most likely to be dismantled by civilised people, would those fighters not in the end fight themselves? Maybe they'd be something in between those two cultures. Half a culture?

Besides, what if civilisation with all its flaws is just a intermediate stage for humanity to the next stage? Much like a toddler clumsily learning how to walk, very uncertain at first, before they actually walk and run like the grown-ups. How would we know whether civilisation is more like a virus that should better be destroyed to protect all the others or whether it's a clumsy intermediate stage towards something far better?

In any case: more and more young native americans show more interest in their own culture again and overall there is a greater interest in self supplying, how to make fire and other related subjects. I don't know how much those things will actually be useful in the end. At least the knowledge about those kind of things doesn't get lost with interested people like that. Does that really help the Earth in some way? Could the civilised, who showed interest in such things so far actually live like that when civilisation is broken down? No idea. Maybe time will tell when it actually happens.

Until next blog,
sara

M&M: Instinct

Dear reader,

the movie “Instinct” was released in 1998 and is based on the idea of the novel “Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn. They truly don't have much in common than the idea really. Those who know the book, will certainly be disappointed about how much of it can be found in that movie, which is precious little. I still think it's good to know both - the book and the movie. Here's the story of the movie:

Dr. Ethan Powell is a famous anthropologist. Before he got missing in the African jungle for several years, he was studying gorillas. When they find him, he hurts some and also kills one of the men. He's send in jail in Rwanda. He doesn't speak a word to anybody. They get him back to America, where the young, engaged psychiatrist Dr. Theo Caulder feels he'd get more popular if he can get Powell speak again.

But when Powell starts talking to Caulder, something strange happens: everybody thought that Powell was the patient and Caulder the doctor, but when Powell begins to talk, he becomes a teacher, a guide to Caulder, who now is a kind of student. Powell doesn't only guide to the last two years in the jungle, but also gives him a different way of seeing the world and shows him that what we think is the truth, may not be quite right. In the end Caulder didn't only lost a couple of things, but - and even more important - found interesting ones also.

Director was John Turteltaub, maybe best known for his movie "While you were sleeping". Dr. Ethan Powell is played by Sir Anthony Hopkins, who's most famous role was as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. He got his first Oscar for his Dr. Hannibal Lecter in "The silence of the lambs". Dr. Theo Caulder was played by Cuba Gooding, jr, who also got an Oscar (supporting act), for his play in "Jerry Maguire". Composer of the score was Danny Elfman, who also did the film score for movies like "Spider man" or "Men In Black".

On his homepage Daniel Quinn answers questions from interested people and fans. Here is his answer regarding his reaction to “Instinct”:

http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=420

Here you can read his thoughts on common elements between “Instinct“ and “Ishmael“:

http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=433

Until next blog,
sarah

  

Memes

Dear reader,

in his book “The Egoistic Gene“ evolution biologist Richard Dawkins describes that genes aren't the only particles, which a person can pass on to another person. Genes are only particles on a biological level of a human. Culture can be passed on as well. Songs, stories, dances, traditions, ideas and much more is passed on in one culture. Unlike genes, culture particles can not only be passed on from older people to youngsters and don't necessarily stay in just one family. A song for example can also be passed on from a student to a teacher and a boy can tell his girlfriend a joke. Of course parents also pass on loads of things to their kids as well. With books and especially the internet ideas and thoughts can go anywhere. But not every song, joke, story, traditions or ideas are a culture particle as such. Two things are important:

1. A person has to remember something.
2. What is remembered by that person must be passed on to another person.

Only then this culture particle is interesting for scientists. Only then this particle that was remembered and passed on is truly a culture particle. Dawkins thought about how he could name this culture particle, in order to not call it for example culture particle all the time. He wanted a shot word, much like “gene” effectively is a short word for a biology particle.To remember something is the key: memory. Culture is something active, to mime something. So that's how Dawkins came up with “meme” for the culture particles. Somewhat resembling the spelling of “genes”.

The author Daniel Quinn follows that idea of memes and writes in his book “Beyond Civilization” that memes aren't all positive. There are deadly memes, too. Much like some combination of genes can lead to a shorter life of a creature. As an example he mentions the “Heaven's Gate” cult, which was based on the idea that suicide would get its members into heaven. Sad for the people killing themselves, but this deadly idea is only limited to the members of the cult. According to Daniel Quinn civilisation is based on two main ideas:

1. that the way of living of its members is the only one right way for all humans of the whole world to live
2. that food has to be under lock and key and only be given to those who work.

This way of life is unknown in the animal world and also unknown in any other society among humans, other than those calling themselves civilised. We can see the result of these two ideas combined on a daily basis. More on Daniel Quinn's ideas in following blog entries.

To those of you, who are interested in memes, you might want to check out “The Meme Machine” by Susan Blackmore. In this book she describes different aspects of memes, their relevance and how they are passed on.

Until next blog,
sarah