User talk:GabrielAPetrie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk Pages on the account of Gabriel Arthur Petrie.

Contents 1 John Zerzan 2 Granholm and Mulhern 3 WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology 4 WikiProject Backpacking 5 Eugene

[edit] John Zerzan

-Hi Gabriel, why must the "Criticism" section for the article contain more on rebuttals to the criticisms rather than the criticisms themselves? The rest of the article already explains his beliefs at length. Also you wrote its possible that "no suitable wilderness areas can be found to reside in". You can't possibly really believe that right? --Jleon 14:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I made some of the "rebuttals" I thought that I should answer: I would say that the criticism against his use of technology in combination with his critique of technology is unfair since it's creating a straw man. His critique of technology is simply not really about what is implied the article, i.e. the individual use of technology, but rather of technology as an institution in society. And no; although much of his thought are explained in the article, his view on technology is only mentioned among the criticism. 81.216.226.49 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jleon. I don't find that the subparagraph I added amounted to a rebuttle or really a criticism, but simply a matter-of-fact statement as to the possibility of why a person, even a person who seeks to live in the woods, might find it hard or impossible to do so. I myself often try to live in the woods for as long as I can, and otherwise find myself living in homeless shelters. I basically move into the woods and when I run out of food stamps for the month or when I get too nervous around the bandits and such I meet out there, I take off back to the city and try to scope out another site. Granted, Zerzan lives out in the northwest where there is a great deal more wilderness than here in central Michigan where I live, but the problem of disspearing wilderness being more and more inhabited by encroaching city elements is true everywhere. The wildernesses in Montana are now almost exclusively inhabited by fugitives with a few 'hippies' strewn about them probably unawares of the nature of the people they are sharing woodspace with. So, as far as 'beliefs' are concerned, moreover I know that what I wrote was true to an extent; to the extent that what is 'suitable' is still entirely up to and defined by the person whose life is in question, meaning that a person defines for their own self -- autonomously -- what is 'suitable' for them, or not. Zerzan might only find a particular stretch of land with a particular expected population level 'suitable', agreed? And that 'suitable' wildspace might not be available, agreed? GabrielAPetrie 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

But are you sure that bandits in the woods are among the speculations why Zerzan himself doesn't re-wild, as your statement implies, given it's context? What you say might be true, but I've never heard anything about that being a reason for Zerzan. Also, that is certainly not true for every geographical area; here in Sweden, where I live, and especially in the north, there are places where you could find yourself atleast 200 km to the nearest settlement, road or power-line. 81.216.226.49 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Great point, but in a purely speculative paragraph, purely speculating on a subject that is, apparently, pure speculation, I think it's safe to speculate, especially based partially on real information about other things. I am, of course, not against the paragraph containing the words 'incompetence' -- that's really the first thing to come to mind myself when I wonder why he isn't living out in the woods. Maybe he just can't hack it. But, I just wanted to include the (also speculative) possibility that it might be, if not today then perhaps tomorrow (or maybe yesterday but we just aren't aware of it, yet,) due to the lack of 'suitable' woodspace to live in. And as far as what we've heard, I don't think anybody but Zerzan really knows the 'why' of it, but I am enjoying all the speculation and I think all of it really adds to the article. It definitely falls under criticism and "Criticism". As far as why not move to Sweden, I can't say, but I can speculate???? GabrielAPetrie 14:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

--But both of you are talking about wilderness areas within westernized countries. Even in these places, you will still inadvertently receive many benefits of the surrounding industrial society. It seems to me that John Zerzan should consider places in the world that exsist wholly removed from these luxuries. I mean why doesn't he live in a true hunter-gatherer society if that is what is really ideal? --Jleon 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I can asure you of that it's not as simple as it may sound to move away from everyone you know (or at least most of them, as you may bring a few friends or family members with you), to a foreign place with a completely alien geography and culture (like if you move in with the !Kung for example). Also, such an endeavour would require extensive capital, which I'm afraid Z doesn't have to his disposal, given his income (~0). I think that if there are to be any "future primitives," be that Zerzan, me, you, gabriel or whoever, those people's societies has to be formed by the neo-primitives themselves, possibly with inspiration from existing (or formelry existing) primitive hunter gatherer cultures (mainly the means of subsistence). You can't cimply hijack another culture, like the american indians or whatever and think that you will fit in, especially not after 60 years (like Z, although I think 20 years, like me, is hard enough) of civilized life. You have to do it with people that's in the same boat as you. Besides, it might be the case that Z want to fight civilization and not simple flee from it. Maybe the constant threat from the surrounding industrial expansion never would give him the peaceful existance he is searching, and he would end up like the unabomber. Also, if you live 200 kms from the nearest settlement, you won't benefit from the industrial society. There are, however, other problems, like the restrictions on fishing and hunting here in sweden and other shit. You'd have to become a criminal in order to subsist. 81.216.226.49 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, while living in the woods, you often face situations that are in microcosm the same as situations faced throughout agriculturally industrialized society. For example, most of the people (with two exceptions, one a retired veteran and the other a new friend,) in the woods I stayed at most recently had no inclination to preserve or to share the wildspace we had available. In a few weeks' time, there were probably half a dozen axe-felled saplings (for firewood,) despite the presence in the periphery of the woods of several large piles of deadfall that could have made sufficient fire for us all over the next two or three years, especially counting in the deadfall yet to be produced by the colder seasons. And, too, there was a trend of making fires for light (not a fan of that) and to 'keep away bugs' (keeping the excitement and agitation level toned down helps enough, no need for building fire against 'bugs') and when done for cooking (my favorite purpose), it was still overdone and overcostly in terms of wood. That's just the tip of the iceburg. I don't doubt that Zerzan can muster the competance and strength to live without overusing or misusing resources (building a permanent home such as a wigwam, lodge, or house is a no-no, unsustainable and unhealthy,) but there are still all of the other problems which come from the encroaching agriculturally industrialized civilization. Eventually, you lose your primitive resources and society to the takeover caused by agriculture. It must seem like a worthwhile trade-off for Zerzan to not go primitive right now but to use civilization's technological amenities for the purpose of warning them against the wrongs they are doing to the planet that could otherwise sustain a good number of them. I don't have any more time to discuss right now, I will be back later. GabrielAPetrie 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think he should write an essay about why he hasn't met the highest possible ideal. I agree, what gives? GabrielAPetrie 14:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Granholm and Mulhern

Hello,

Two things, first, it is common practice on Wikipedia for articles on people to be at the name by which they are most commonly known, rather than their full name.

That's a sad replacement for things being done fully and properly, but ok.

Second, if there does happen to be a good reason to move an article to a different name, please use the "move" funtion at the top of each page rather than cutting and pasting the contents. Cut and paste moves obscure the article's edit history, which is a very important aspect of the GFDL. Cheers. older≠wiser 23:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page. Although there has been much discussion about it, there is a fairly strong support for using the most common name to title an article -- it is not just my whim. As for licensing your wiki contributions, I'm not sure what you mean. At the bottom of every edit page is a notice that "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License". So your contributions already are licensed under GFDL. Some people release their contributions under additional licences, such as Creative Commons, but that is an individual decision. Bkonrad (posting anonymously from work while on hold)

Well, I personally don't actually have any "suitable use" for the CC-SA license. User:Ram-Man asked if I would (I guess because I have made a lot of contributions to articles on places, which he has also contributed heavily to via his bot, Rambot. I didn't see any reason not to do so, and so I did). He has an FAQ about multi-licensing that you might find helpful. Regarding "proper" names, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think it makes Wikipedia easier to use and less intimidating to edit. Personally, I'd hate to see it degrade into some sort of ho-hum grind. And I don't think that means it can' also have a high quality of reliability and verifiability as well as being accessible. older≠wiser 22:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Since you are interested in flags and emblems I would like to inform you that the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology has just been created. Why not take a look? I hope you can join. Inge 19:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Backpacking

You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!

[edit] Eugene

Hey. Thanks for adding the information under "anarchism" to the Eugene page. Unfortunately none of the information you added was sourced, and so it was removed. If you can cite sources for the information you'd like to add, please do so. Thanks pinotgris 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)