Old English, “ácordan”, to accord, agree, reconcile (to reestablish a close and consistent relationship between).

I recently picked up Stewart Levine’s book, the Book of Agreement, and felt shocked - somebody had actually written about the “culture of agreement” that I’ve worked so hard to encourage in the circles in my life! What a relief. It has inspired me to write about this culture that I value so much.
We have so many traditions, cast aside hither and thither in the mad rush of “progress” to the modern era of abject american cultural poverty (I used to call it “spiritual poverty”…I still don’t feel totally satisfied on how to articulate our peculiar brand of glittery privation, emotional scarcity, and intangible inner destitution). The tradition of making clear, compassionate, wise accords, based on the world we want to create and experience together, falls among them. Instead, in the modern world, we create agreements of protection, those designed to help us experience as little harm as possible.

Relearning to reach an accord through agreements takes us closer to that place, of “oneminded” power/unity. That feeling of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with other adults, who inspire pride in us that we can call them friends, family, kindred.

How many activist movements, families, business, and other modern social groups, fall apart through infighting and politics? How many stay somehow half-alive, teetering on the verge of imploding? How many people do we know, keeping their nose to the grindstone, with a steady muttered refrain of discontent, disconnection, and intermittent despair?

Every single one of us, constantly make and renew agreements, implicit (articulated only on the inside), or explict (discussed out loud between each other). In every generation, we must remake this culture all over again, from scratch. A culture without a new generation, agreeing to its principles, means a culture on its deathbed. It takes tremendous work, tremendous energy inputs, extensive institutions of schools, government, law enforcement, to make this happen for the modern world.

We remake this culture, by assenting to abide by its implict or explict demands for accords. Often, by keeping these accords taboo, unarticulated, and invisible, this culture accomplishes the magician’s trick of having us hand over our souls, heart’s-ease, and life-purpose, for no more than dust, hollow dreams, and fragments of a life worth living. We see the rotten deal only when we can actually, finally, see it.

This stems from the entrapping and complex web of secular puritanism, in which we strive to accomplish a variety of things, trusting that since other people claim to value them (without ever explaining why), we must want them too. That in our rush to achievement we have no time for petty things like our “inconvenient” needs, and “intangible” feelings, since everybody else seems embarrassed by them too. We often can react in jealousy and rage when someone else stands up for what they so desperately need - for why should they get it, “if I can’t have it”. Except who exactly told me I couldn’t?

In order to find ourselves again, we must tug on the tangled strings of our own needs and feelings, finding our way back to heart’s-ease and life purpose, even amidst a natural world under siege. To make room for this work, and to live lives together worth having, we relearn to make accords. In making accords, we discover the deep nature of conflict, that of abundant energy for change and growth.

Instead of fearing conflict, we learn to revel in it as an opportunity to reconcile even deeper, to renew bonds of collaboration, friendship, and family. We plan ahead, and make a place for conflict, knowing that whether we will or no, it will soon arrive. If we welcome it, it will stoke the hearth fire of our community. If we resist it, its flames will burn, smolder, reawaken, blackening the timbers of our lives, house by house, until we finally consent to embrace its message.

I just discovered an excellent test for your Fox-walking skill. In Portland, OR, sunny weather has arrived, and when the sun comes out, the flip-flops go on the feet.

Have you ever wondered why we call them “flip-flops”? Of course not! Everybody knows. They always make that sound, “flip-flop, flip-flop”, when you walk with them on.

Well…

Almost always.

You see, I don’t make the flip-flop sound when I wear flip-flops. I hardly make any sound at all, just the slight scuffing of the soles against the sidewalk.

Question: why don’t I make the flip-flop sound?

Answer: because I don’t push off with my feet. I lift my feet up, rather than pushing against the ground to move forward. I do this in such a low-key way that nobody really notices. It doesn’t look funny, like a Ministry of Silly Walks variation.

(But surprisingly, you will indeed notice that the main character in the sketch, played by John Cleese, does indeed do his own “fox walk” variation much of the time.)

So, see how much you can cancel out the “flip-flop” sound, while wearing flip-flops, without overdoing it. You’ll learn a lot about movement, tension in your foot, and all kinds of good stuff.

Adults hold space for culture, raise children, provide food and shelter for each other, and make decisions together that they follow through on. What does all this mean in a rewilding context? What do rewilding adults look like? I explore this topic with some rather strong opinions, borne of bittersweet experiences. Rewilding Adulthood may just amount to the most challenging, terrifying, and important work we have to do, as people who rewild.

Jake Swamp: http://www.treeofpeace.org
Jon Young: http://www.jonyoung.info
Rewilding: http://www.rewild.info

For the series on rewilding and breaking the spell of the modern culture, look into Breaking the Spell, parts One (Rewilding), Two (Rewilding Your Ability to Reason), Three (Reality Therapy), Four (the Village Philosopher), Five (the College of the Round Table), Six (the Reason for Riddles), and Seven (the Wise Compass).

 

 Rewilding Adulthood: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

What does it mean to pay attention to Needs and Feelings, our own and others? Why do we characterize the most biologically tangible and real aspects of our human nature, as irrelevant and inconvenient? We explore this taboo inner universe in today’s podcast.

Julie Cramer: http://www.thebalancepoint.org

Morihei Ueshiba, Founder of Aikido: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morihei_Ueshiba

Nonviolent Communication (communcation centered on nonjudgemental observations of Needs and Feelings): http://www.cnvc.org/

 

 Needs and Feelings of the Human Animal: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Thanks to the current round of donations (Thank you again, Tony and Kate!), I’ve just switched over from a free podcasting host service that bogged down my site and gave a lot of error messages, on to a paid hosting service, Liberated Syndication.

I went back and edited the Odeo links out of all the podcasts, and replaced them with the new hosting service, as hyperlinks to the title of the particular podcast.

Thanks for your patience and ongoing support. Now that I have a new monthly archive bill added on to the other payments of domain hosting, equipment, and computer repair (don’t ask), I continue to really benefit from your donations.

In the future, I hope to podcast or post video of upcoming riddle workshops, dream interview circles, story jam roundtables, and such. If you’d like to see/hear these things, you know how to help!

As we move further along the path of personal clarity and rewilding, we may discover things that hold us back, such as concepts of ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’. In this episode I talk about finding better measures for evaluating the feedback the world gives us, to improve our relationships in real ways. I also talk about implications of making these changes, of abandoning judgement as a primary tool of relating, and how this will change the way we communicate.

 

 the Grave of Right and Wrong: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I don’t know if the following will make any sense to anybody. I’ve begun to put some pieces together for myself, but I might not yet articulate it well enough for others. On the off chance that it clicks for someone, I’ll go ahead and take the risk.

I want to underscore a point I made in the last article concerning disgust at civilization. To articulate an argument against something insane, means that you can encompass it in your logical system. That means that you dignify it as one of the reasoned choices available to a member of your culture, however much you argue against it. By arguing against it, you say a reasonable person may choose it - because, you want to change this person’s mind by using a reasoned argument. You see?

Even now, culturally, we have things that you “just don’t do”, no explanation needed, and we have things that we haven’t made our minds up about.

Furthermore, a sane and life-affirming choice needs no logical support - you can feel the evidence with your body’s senses. Only abstractions need logical support. The more removed the abstraction, the more support needed.

Once you’ve exposed a life-denying choice for all to see, to argue further in the face of someone choosing it means you consider their choice reasonable. Which means that you leave the door open for you to choose it, someday, as a reasonable thing.

To reject something, without explanation or articulation, marks a step into a world where you can move directly into remedy, if you yourself end up choosing it. At that point, everyone in your micro-culture knows you “just don’t do that”. And in rewilding, everyone knows that punishment doesn’t address the actual issues at stake. So everyone moves directly into remedy.

The more of your rewilding culture that, once accepted on the basis of life-affirming evidence, you no longer articulate in a reasoned argument, the stronger it becomes. It, in fact, exits the vulnerable arena of american secular puritanism, a mental battlezone where your values and choices lay open to constant debate on whether they qualify as a “one right way”, amidst personal accusations of hypocrisy and so on.

As long as you engage in debate about the “personhood” of a tree, for example, you leave open the notion that a sane person could see the “itness” of a tree.

If you live a good life, people in search of a good life will flock to it. If you argue for a good life, people in search of an argument about what makes a good life will flock to it.

[I wrote this over at rewild.info, a forum I help moderate, that deals with rewilding.]

The more I learn about the successful “survivance” of tribal cultures, in the midst of civilization, the more I think that the basic human toolkit of confident disgust really works. In fact, I have a theory…

You have three kinds of people who need protection from the destructive influence of civilized culture.

1) Adults immersed in civilization.
2) Adults newly immersed in a culture dwelling beyond civilization.
3) Children

For #1, these people need explanations and articulations to reveal the dark side of civilization (at least, in so far as they ask for help and support to make sense of why this culture doesn’t satisfy their needs). They need it brought to light, so they can make a conscious choice about it.

For #2 and #3, articulating things makes acculturation more difficult. We just need to act in disgust and revulsion towards things that do not affirm life. Body language, and simple statements, lead the way.

As, in “yuck! gross! weird!”. With that Mr. Yuk face.

Nobody needs to explain to a child who sees Mr. Yuk what will happen if they taste the contents of a bottle with his face on it.

We all know, at this point, that civilization had to work overtime to fool anybody that it made even the least bit of sense. In fact, civilization created a “yuck!” response for abandonment.

Tribal cultures, the world over, have used gossip, and social pressure (otherwise known as “guilt” and “shaming”) to keep their cultures intact and humming along.

Guilt and Shame impact us rewilders so powerfully, that we have to tread incredibly lightly in rewilding these concepts. They have caused enormous amounts of pain in myself, and my friends, and even now haunt me a little. Such power they have! In using them, we can easily regress into civilized modes of virtue and purity, exactly what we want to escape.

But, as a community, I think we’ve reached a point where we can begin to talk about them, and begin to consider what it means to feel “shame” that one has made a life-denying choice.

At this point, civilization has done so much damage to human and other people, that the burden lies with it to explain itself. I reject it utterly in every aspect as a gruesome joke, an anti-life and anti-human endeavor. I need no more explanation, no more books like “Culture of Make Believe”. A cruel and laughable enterprise, Civilization makes a mockery of those who engage in it, and deserves no more substantive rebuttal than Mr. Yuk:

In balance to that, then you can celebrate the life-affirming side. Talking to plants and animals with your children, treasuring family connections and making them stronger, etc. etc.

I believe that we over-explain things to our children, and to each other. Children, and other adults, look to our faces, our body language, the tone of our voice, for direction on what affirms life, and what doesn’t. If we act from a strong center with disgust or joy, we embody the world we want.

I’ve spent some time lately burning through a book called “Gypsy Law“, edited by Walter Weyrauch. I’ve had revelation after revelation, and so many things have crystallized regarding my ongoing quest to “piece the invisible technologies back together”, without cultural appropriation, or the pick-and-choose consumerist paradigm.

Perhaps (concerning what I’ll write in a moment, here) I knew this already, but I didn’t KNOW it, if you get my drift. It sounds really simple, but I challenge you: do you really hear what it means, deeply? Apparently, I didn’t. To wit:

An intact rewilding culture, one based on the primacy of family and land relationships, maintains itself owing to a pool of constantly maturing adults who have the capacity to understand, make, and back up commitments to each other.

A maturing adult, according to this view, can make commitments not because they “just do it”, but because they understand their own surpluses and limitations. They do not agree to things that they cannot back up.

To understand one’s own ability to “back up” commitments, means exactly to understand the needs and feelings that drive human people, most of all, your own person.

This means that domesticated folks, beginning rewilding, will likely spend most of their time saying “No” to proposed commitments, as a default. They would do this, I suggest, because they do not understand what it means to honestly commit to something out of a natural capacity to back it up.

The status quo for modern domesticated folks has people saying “Yes, yes, yes” to requests, constantly breaking them and flaking out, blaming others for asking in the first place, overcommitting and out of balance. Or, worst of all, burning the candle at both ends in the “martyr syndrome”: never turning down or breaking a commitment, and slowly depleting one’s own health and vitality until…personal crisis or death.

* * *

Once a rewilding adult really understands this point of view, and puts it into action, I feel strongly that they make a quantum leap in trustworthiness and reliability. An intact rewilding culture means a group of people you can rely on, correct?

Current popular perceptions of rewilding may overly focus on the initial state of one-who-rewilds, that of reclaiming childhood passions, freedoms, and self-care, in order to come back into balance as a fully rewilding person. However, this initial state merely creates the foundation for one’s future reliability as a maturing adult, borne out of the self-knowledge that fruits from one’s reinvestment in self.

If I ask you to make a commitment to me, and you do any of the following things:

1) Say “yes”, even though you don’t want to, but you say it because of what you think I want to hear, meaning you eventually “flake out” on the commitment.

2) Say “yes”, because you want to make the commitment, but in honest reflection you know you don’t have the health and energy to back it up, and following through will further undermine your health reserves. You then eventually either “flake out” on the commitment to save yourself, or you follow through and have even less capacity to support your community.

If you respond these ways, how can I trust you? I need to know that you will only agree to things that affirm life, yours, mine, and everyone in our micro-culture.

This means that a maturing adult in a rewilding culture can not collaborate or rely on (though certainly they could support, befriend, play and eat together) any person who does not sufficiently understand their own needs and feelings.

No matter how much that other person wants to enter the world of “maturing adults”, no matter how much they will sacrifice to do it, an honest rewilding adult cannot support it, if they don’t share a common insight into the needs and feelings of human animals. As the saying goes, “we pave the road to hell with good intentions”. It refers exactly to this kind of situation, a lack of understanding of oneself and others.

Of course, you will see no clear line between someone who understands their needs, and someone who doesn’t - it runs in an unbroken continuum, from one end to the other. So all of this looks more like, “collaborating with those of a common level of understanding their needs and feelings”. Flock together with birds of a feather.

* * *

Now we get to the good part. Once you have a certain ability to make realistic commitments and back them up, and you associate with a group of adults with similar capacity, you have what the Mohawk call “Kashastensera”, translatable as both Power, and Unity.

You see, this points to one of those pieces of the Invisible Treasury that we lost. The ability to reach “one mind”, to act in accord with a group of rock-solid reliable adults, and change the world as a single organismal body when needed.

Once I understand myself, and don’t fear my needs or feelings, you can finally trust me. Once we trust each other in a real way, we can do anything together. One person, in accord with another person, have more than the power of the sum of two people. They have ten times the power. Ten people fully in accord with each other, have a thousand times the power of ten people not in accord.

Unity means we have the ability to conflict and disagree with each other, safely, because we no longer fear, or feel inconvenienced by, our needs and feelings, but rely on them to keep us true to course. This can look like arguments, mellow chatting, raucous laughter, whatever. It doesn’t mean we act like a bunch of monks at a buddhist monastery (or, our false image of even such a place).

It means we act like fully empowered adults. And we rock our world together.