Who is a burner?

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:50 am

That's fantastic, bob. God, I love products marketed towards those who have no taste.

I saw an angel statue with fiberoptic light wings at the mall, and laughed hysterically at it, wondering who would buy it. Next day, I saw the empty box to one on the front porch of my next door neighbor. Needless to say, we don't interact much.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:07 am

http://seasonalreflections.com/patrioti ... php?id=215

Fiber Optic Lighted American Flag
Logo On Black Baseball Cap.
Show your patriotic spirit with this
great cap!

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:08 am

geekster wrote:
philosopher wrote:P.S. To stay with Isotopia's words a moment longer...can it be said of Burning Man that for some of us it becomes successively more than is actually there through creative participation? And then, wouldn't that "more" have thereby become in some important sense actual?
No. Because if it wasn't what it was when we were sure it wasn't, then it couldn't ever be what it was we thought it isn't.

You know, even though I'm still not sold on quantum mechanics, I think it can be a great source of metaphors about not being sure. That's where I was coming from earlier.

Considering this year's theme as a source for another perspective, can't there be a lot in the psyche about which we are not only not sure, but actually unaware? And what about psychic processes in progress? It almost has to be the case that the psyche exceeds whatever actuality we think we are sure of.

So maybe there is the burner that can be described and the burner that cannot be described. Tiahaar's definition provides a nice way of conceptualizing the former. I would say they are both real, however, if we will let reality be more than what positivism delivers, or if we will let ourselves be more than what we think we are.

This all might seem like a long way to the well, but if one of the purposes of this thread is to develop burner consciousness in a way that conduces to inclusion, then it is worth it for the joy of welcoming home some who might otherwise have missed the porch light on the playa or strangely forgotten about it.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:03 pm

can't there be a lot in the psyche about which we are not only not sure, but actually unaware? And what about psychic processes in progress? It almost has to be the case that the psyche exceeds whatever actuality we think we are sure of

Were that the case then it seems a more appropriate theme for the event might be Faith.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:15 pm

ITYM "Playanetics".

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:54 am

Isotopia wrote:
can't there be a lot in the psyche about which we are not only not sure, but actually unaware? And what about psychic processes in progress? It almost has to be the case that the psyche exceeds whatever actuality we think we are sure of
Were that the case then it seems a more appropriate theme for the event might be Faith.

Apparently we're working from different definitions of "psyche"--I imagine there must be a precedent for that somewhere. I'll place myself with the Jungians on this one.

Anyway, whatever the extent of the psyche or the nominal theme for a year, Faith, especially faith in the community, always seems to be essential to Burning Man. I'll even go so far as to say that this faith looks a lot like some kind of Christian utopian faith to me. A lot closer to that than neo-paganism, which is about as pure an oxymoron as I have ever encountered.

So that leads me to consider the thesis that all burners are Christians. (And, harking back to an earlier point in the thread, not the converse.) I'm not arguing this thesis yet, just considering it.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:42 am

Badger wrote:
if you like burning shit down or blowin shit up...you might be a burner
Or an Iraqi insurgent

or both...

Flag Burner

make that all three.

petrol.....

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:38 am

before you get too far down that track I would recommend you look up definitions for...

faith
christian
pagan
neo
oxymoron

please make sure that your tar brush is self serve only

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:14 pm

faith in the community, always seems to be essential to Burning Man. I'll even go so far as to say that this faith looks a lot like some kind of Christian utopian faith to me. A lot closer to that than neo-paganism, which is about as pure an oxymoron as I have ever encountered.

Far be it from me to check you on your perceptions but I tell ya' there are damn few people I know who see or look at the event from your mountain top. I'm still tryingto figure out the 'neo-paganism' thing BTW. I'm of the opinion that for the most part that term came up by some reporter as a means to lazily describe the event to the readers of Parade magazine.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:15 pm

Damn you, Iso. Now you've reminded me of the existence of Marylin Vos Savant.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:24 pm

happy now, mutha fucka?

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:40 pm

Early sixties, FYI.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:09 pm

neo-paganism, which is about as pure an oxymoron as I have ever encountered

Actually, it's more of a redundancy, since paleo- and mezo- paganism have been completely forgotten.

"We don't really know much about it, so we've just made most of it up."

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:38 am

Isotopia wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out the 'neo-paganism' thing BTW. I'm of the opinion that for the most part that term came up by some reporter as a means to lazily describe the event to the readers of Parade magazine.

I've run into a fair number of people in BRC who seem to be quite invested in a neo-pagan identity. "Neo-" perhaps because of the absence of that sense of structure that seems to have governed traditional (paleo?) paganism. But without those structures, the world collapses into an inaccessible chaos that supports no magic. That's one reason why it seems to me that ostensible neo-pagans who fit this description are essentially running on Christian culture fumes.

More: Paganism situates itself in a world that biologically supports life. Pagans didn't have much to do with deserts, as far as I know, but Jesus and the early Christians did. The desert enables things to happen in consciousness that are not favored in forests and meadows, which have their own possibilities. I think we all recognize that art on the playa has an impact that almost certainly wouldn't occur in a different ecology. These days, burners are not just on the playa, but of it.

A couple of years ago I wound up in several conversations around BRC with independently operating academics who were pursuing the neo-pagan theme with great seriousness, and another of them who lives nearby has since published a book that I haven't had the chance to read yet. So what may have begun as a quick take on the event has turned into its own sub-culture. Maybe I will understand it differently after I read the book.

Meanwhile (to make use of a few words that are lying around), I think I paint more with a fiberoptic brush than a tar brush. The definitions I am interested in are not the ones you can look up, but the ones that emerge in creative conversation. I'm sure Isotopia is right in saying that most burners don't see things as I do, but my posts would be tres boring if they didn't make a good-faith effort to light the stage a little differently.

Now, where did I put those wings....

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:07 am

Assuming anyone involved with Burning Man is a "burner" is like assuming everyone in San Francisco is a beatnik.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:30 am

Bob wrote:Assuming anyone involved with Burning Man is a "burner" is like assuming everyone in San Francisco is a beatnik.

which brings us back to the 'what's the definition of a burner' question. according to the simplest (not to say the most accurate) definition, ie someone who has been to BM, your analogy is completely false. unless the other definition for beatnik is someone who is in San Fran.

Bob, you've made your point but you've finally stepped away from reason.

don't worry, you'll feel better on Nauru.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:51 am

'definitions that come up in creative conversation' sounds like intellectual backpedalling to me. In order to have a useful dialog folks need to agree on definitions. Your latest post contains a shotgun blast full of unsupported assertions. So, rather than escaping via rhetorical devices, please, define your terms. What do you mean when you say pagan? What do you mean when you say christian? And 'traditional (paleo?) paganism' escapes me. Seems like there were (and are) a massive variety of beliefs that could be defined as pagan. So how do you come with a concept of 'traditional' in that context?

'Pagans didn't have much to do with deserts, as far as I know,' Then I suggest you do a little research. The historical figure of Jesus was just one a several hundred messianic prophets running around looking for cultural revolution in the region. All of whom could be defined as pagan.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:57 am

Bob wrote:Assuming anyone involved with Burning Man is a "burner" is like assuming everyone in San Francisco is a beatnik.

^
beatnik!!!!, how the hell old are you?

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:24 am

I'm older than when "beatnik" was coined. And I stick with the analogy -- it was coined by a hack gossip columnist from Sacramento, writing for the local provincial fishwrap.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:35 am

Bob wrote:I'm older than when "beatnik" was coined. And I stick with the analogy -- it was coined by a hack gossip columnist from Sacramento, writing for the local provincial fishwrap.

^

how about zoot suit?

then again i am on the 70 side of 60

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:43 pm

I'm a Burner, He's a burner, she's a burner They're a burner
would'nt you like to be a Burner too,
be a burner, yeah be a burner.
Be a Burner, yeah be a Burner.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:56 pm

unjonharley wrote:how about zoot suit?

Not quite that old. Anyhow, I thought Burning Man was all about not wanting to be easily characterized.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:04 pm

Bob wrote:I thought Burning Man was all about

i thought you knew better.

gigglesnort · Post by **gigglesnort** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:00 pm

DVD~that has been on the tip of my fingers for days. Thank you, I can rest now.

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:11 am

stuart wrote:'definitions that come up in creative conversation' sounds like intellectual backpedalling to me. In order to have a useful dialog folks need to agree on definitions. Your latest post contains a shotgun blast full of unsupported assertions. So, rather than escaping via rhetorical devices, please, define your terms. What do you mean when you say pagan? What do you mean when you say christian? And 'traditional (paleo?) paganism' escapes me. Seems like there were (and are) a massive variety of beliefs that could be defined as pagan. So how do you come with a concept of 'traditional' in that context?

'Pagans didn't have much to do with deserts, as far as I know,' Then I suggest you do a little research. The historical figure of Jesus was just one a several hundred messianic prophets running around looking for cultural revolution in the region. All of whom could be defined as pagan.

Of course, using the frequently occurring view of Jews, Christians, and Moslems that pagans are anyone who is not one of them, the set of pagans would be huge, and so diverse as to have no positive, uniquely defining characteristic that I can think of.

When I refer to pagans, I have in mind cultures whose beliefs about existence are closely identified with the particularities of their physical circumstances. I'm aware that this is a controversial definition, not least because it implicitly recognizes Islam's claim to be the concluding point of a progression away from paganism.

How this understanding of "pagan" relates to my definition of "Christian" is suggested in the admonition of the undeservedly obscure 18th century missionary leader, Nicholaus von Zinzendorf, who cautioned missionaries approaching Indian settlements to make sure the inhabitants were not already better Christians than the missionaries themselves before commencing to preach. More detail would belong in a separate thread.

One clarification about "pagan": I didn't mean to suggest earlier that there wouldn't be any desert-dwelling pagans. By my definition above, you'd expect them to focus their attention more on the life in/of their desert neighborhood than on what is encouraged by the desert's desertedness, as I think burners do for a week each year. (And, to respond to Bob, recall my support for Tiahaar's definition of "burner"; whatever "burner" may mean, I would never say that the term can meaningfully include, for example, people who have shown up in BRC and have nothing but contempt for what is happening. Some are good, thoughtful people and some are yahoos, but none of them seem to be burners.)

About "traditional": I meant only to refer to groups that are ultimately committed to their own traditions, whatever they might be. Definitiely not suggesting the existence of any unified tradition of paganism. My definition of paganism actually makes this an impossibility.

If I read him right, stuart has twice now raised a larger issue about how orthodoxy and creativity relate to definitions. It may already be too late for me to avoid being tedious in this thread, but bear with me for a moment more. While it is good to agree on definitions for purposes of avoiding equivocations, much productive dialog can occur on the way to shared understanding. This is the way the hermeneutic circle works; you just jump in unprepared and get the hang of nuancing. Or think Wittgenstein: it's through participating in the language game that one comes to understand the language game and develop one's ability to participate. There's no sustainable foundation in definitions. Just, as they say, turtles all the way down. And, I would add, all the way up.

So, I hope the question of who is a burner isn't about arriving at a final unequivocal definition, but about keeping the question open to multiple, evolving definitions that are most useful in their (perpetually) provisional forms.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:27 am

try a little heidegger on for size

For this process of self-creation, Time is crucial. What we are at present matters less than what we are becoming, through the dynamic temporal process that constitutes our personal histories. There is no abstract essence of human nature; there are only individual human beings unfolding themselves historically. In the end, this is the answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

a bizarre twist on this might be that there are not really burners, there are only non-burners.

there are better, already in circulation, definitions for what you are labeling as pagan

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:18 pm

stuart wrote:try a little heidegger on for size...

...there are better, already in circulation, definitions for what you are labeling as pagan

Could you state one or two of those definitions and give us a hint about the nature of their superiority? Could be especially illuminating with regard to the burner/pagan question, but that would depend on the definitions you like. Thanks in advance.

P.S. As I read Heidegger, while the future is always with us as an existentiale, giving oneself over to the futural ek-stasis is a modality of fallenness, a way of not letting beings be as they are. And because the future is so much about our plans and projections, falling into the future disposes us to relate to people and things in terms of their usefulness as means to an end. In my experience, Burning Man shines as a way of focusing burners on the (pragmatically useless) possibilities of surprise and delight in the present moment.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:42 am

pagan is a catch all and as such can not be linked to any tradition. The word pagan in no way defines a set of beliefs or practices.
try druidic or some such if you want to talk about folks spirituality relating to the earth.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:43 am

focusing burners on the (pragmatically useless) possibilities of surprise and delight in the present moment.

this practice will get you into big trouble if you are running a theme camp

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:36 pm

stuart wrote:pagan is a catch all and as such can not be linked to any tradition. The word pagan in no way defines a set of beliefs or practices.
try druidic or some such if you want to talk about folks spirituality relating to the earth.

This doesn't begin to deliver on the better definition of "pagan" you claimed to have further above, much less explain why whatever you have in mind is better.

About "druidic": most people would expect you to be talking about something Celtic in that connection. Why would using that term for any other reference be an improvement on anything I wrote?

Like the vague and ambiguous claims about "pagan", the cryptic potshot about running a theme camp (just above) doesn't seem to move the thread forward in any definite way. Just what is the problem with surprise and delight? Don't knock it until you've tried it!