Chaz Bender

Sorry for being scarce. Life has recently brought me a partner.

Hello all. Thought I'd make another attempt.

I'm interested in finding partnership and a potential loving relationship. I love anything pertaining to health and self-development. I am a bit of an intellectual at times; sociology, philosophy, behavioral science, etc. I love to keep constructive, creative, healthy and calm. Music, arts, artisan skills, food culture, herbology and ethnopharmacology, etc. I consider myself empathetic, trustworthy, diligent and steadfast. Perhaps there's a women out there that has similar aspirations and will appreciate the support, interpersonal connection and collaboration.

I did my PDC at Geoff Lawtons PRI and stayed for a couple years. I've taken part in many projects from scratch. Turned a lot of compost and planted many edible-forest-gardens. I've been practicing, learning and teaching regenerative agriculture and Permaculture for some 8 years now. Currently collaborating with Limestone Permaculture. I've dedicated my life to learning the life skills I view as necessary to cultivate, especially for our progeny. I want my own queen to co-create with and reap the fruits with. Life is best shared.

Here's my ethos taken by some friends about 3 years ago:  



Feel welcome to ask anything?

https://imgur.com/a/KXYZw78

Trace Oswald wrote:

Chaz Bender wrote: our inherent role is custodianship of Earth, animals and one another

I would like it very much if that were true, but I've never seen any evidence of it.  Quite the opposite.

Currently we're not very successful caretakers because of these man-made 'psychological pathogens' that have us self-destruct. I won't go into my perspective on this now because I don't want to hijack or digress from topic too much... For whatever reason, volition, our impressionability, subjugation, negligence, ignorance, indifference, etc., enables us to act discordantly harming ourselves and everything/one else... The chain-of-life operates within an equilibrium, building resiliency and profusion manifesting itself as more and more complex iterations of itself - all building resiliency... Humans are the only organism that can and do often override and defile this magnificent, adaptive harmony that is nature. No matter how much we've wavered from this - we're still part of this macro-organism that is nature; thus, we should be in harmony with it, bolstering and optimising it as custodians. I can't unequivocally prove this.

If I may, and Chaz can correct me if I'm wrong, I think the point is that humans are uniquely positioned to fill the niche of being custodians of ecosystems, intentionally using our amazing reasoning capabilities to steer the biosphere to its most fecund, abundant, and life-giving. Obviously humans have not done this, but the point is we can. We're a bit like "weeds" - good plants in the wrong place. We have a niche to fill, and we need to learn how to fill it, not overrun the yard, so to speak.

Yes George - I feel the same.

Asthely Rayson - some very good pointers and experience there. Thank you.

Greg Mamishian wrote:

Chaz Bender wrote:

Children by default embrace this duty of care because it's an innate thing to respond well to.

Chaz, do you mean children innately take on the duty of caring for others?
If you do... my experience of children is different in that they are innately careless.
Choosing to assume the personal responsibility of caring for others is an acquired adult trait.

When children are young they may be careless in an innocent, playful self-absorption. However, as they grow, imparting skills and obligation with the principles of care and responsibility is something they respond well to. They generally take it on because they sense their purpose... I know of communities that home-school -- with this one community in mind their children were so vibrant, respectful, responsible and developed. They'd mostly all found their forte by their teens and all (even very young) were partaking in the essential duties required to keep the community functional. Most of the examples I know of with degenerate/troubled/disabled kids/adults that've been through 'correctional' facilities, start to develop once they've been offered opportunities that foster a nurturing responsibility and this 'duty of care'. So the answer is yes - if the environment is that of care and autonomous full-responsibility, children embrace it and respond well to it naturally because our inherent role is custodianship of Earth, animals and one another. The other is that of the superordination/subordination's imposition of undue obligation... Like the dominant culture, children don't have a sense of purpose and responsibility and their development is highly stifled... We end up traumatised and irresponsible where most struggle to extricate themselves -- hence the predicament we're in...

One cannot build ones community through and live by the logic of private property and supreme ownership, then expect to suddenly be able to psychologically and physically transition to communal ownership.

Agreed. I feel ownership is one of the most erroneous premises so fundamental to 'rise and fall' civilisations. Possessiveness and acquiring the 'right' of ownership is the reason so much of the human species is so badly displaced. Custodianship and assigning space through consensus is a vastly different mentality. The real conundrum is how, when we're compromised appeasing our corporate overlords, does one transition to such a state? I would love to remediate the land building watery edible-forest-landscapes for my community; however, because of the possessiveness and illusion we superimpose over one another/reality, the most immoral and irresponsible get access and free reign over the land. Sooner or later something has to give... His-story and the ruins across Earth usually indicates our lives will...

Per my last para, I doubt that is possible in any real group. Looking at groups I have known, boards, clubs, teams... I'd say the in all of them less than 1/3 of the members actually actively contribute in a standardized fashion. - Rufus

Yes. I agree. Pretty much all 'Men's clubs', groups, churches, fraternities, organisations/institutions, etc., etc., all fall under the same dynamic. The overbearing, officious and self-appointed rise and the withdrawn, less assertive types disappear or get used. As I stated earlier... We keep the structure of the 'system' we're programmed into and wonder why things falter. Ultimately so much of it comes down to our own self-development and amelioration - which is a process that's ineffable and rough. We have to purge the erroneous concepts we constructed our lives and personas out of and start again 'reborn'. I'm forever stunned finding core beliefs I hold that are false... Projecting and walking into our projections - reaffirming falsehoods. I'm seeing my hypocrisies. So I can't see it working without a core group that haven't humility, discipline, concordance, diligence... As covered earlier, most of us are kept in an infantile state looking to 3rd parties and authority figures and authoritarian structures to rectify our situation - failing to realise we're the one's responsible.

"You are not responsible for your programming as a child. However, you're 100% responsible for rectifying it as an adult."

"People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls. they will practise Indian yoga and all its exercises, observe a strict regimen of diet, learn theosophy by heart, or mechanically repeat mystic texts from the literature of the whole world - all because they cannot get on with themselves and have not the slightest faith that anything useful could ever come out of their own souls." - Carl Jung

Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people.
- Carl Jung

Greg Mamishian wrote:

Chris Kott wrote:Governance is necessary not because of any kind of widespread personal failure...

Chris, yours is the overwhelmingly dominant popular collective cultural view...

...so the society we have today is a perfectly natural result of millions of other folks who share your belief.

This is why, for things to not get usurped by the egocentric types, the communities constituents must all know and uphold this full-responsibility and duty of care... Which to me is the opposite of the 'Government', subordinate/subject dynamic... If necessary reiterate the ethos and intentions to maintain the focus -- to help stop the vacillation... We vacillate because we're use to being lone-wolfs and inundated with nonsense. There's so much distorted rhetoric, media, academia and weaponized 'entertainment' foistered on us we automatically take self-determination/''anarchy'' as some Madmax scenario.

Children by default embrace this duty of care because it's an innate thing to respond well to. This duty of care; in one of it's hardest forms is confrontation - acknowledging people have their unique idiosyncrasies, passions, complexes and traumas to deal with. All need their space; however, we don't allow people to harbour bad energy and stew - showing up sometimes as being aloof and insular, hypersensitive, over-driven to prove themselves, or defensive where no defence is necessary... It takes so many forms. Mostly your senses have to be honed to pick up on it. I've seen sincere confrontation scare most away because we're coddled to run from someone who speaks vehemently/passionately and raises their voice. These arguments, if the intentions are sincere, build respect, rapport and trust. Unfortunately, usually people throw their arms in the air and leave in despondency.

The dominant empire today has perfected it's methods creating subservience and ingratiation. 'Education' today inculcates and instils worthless knowledge, false senses of entitlement, superiority/inferiority, etc., all creating distorted perceptions of self... Mostly, trauma is required and takes many forms, fracturing personalities - from this you get blind-spots, inferiority/superiority complexes, toxic egos and degenerative addictions. It creates often a broken confidence or undeserving, excessive self-importance. Most are looking to be led, even place figureheads on pedestals; consequently, they are malleable, credulous and generally taken advantage of.

We shouldn't indoctrinate children, only lead by example - let them figure it out instead of trying to standardise their beliefs. We'd only ever try program and indoctrinate because we doubt and fear...

I know of many religious communities that fall apart, if not have a very horrific dynamic. The tenets may keep them together, but it's no healthy relationship. I know of a huge one now that's loosing many families because the head of the group is extremely overbearing, covetous and manipulative. This is as much the followers fault for being so weak willed, indifferent, wilfully ignorant, fawning, even sycophantic in adulating narcissists into power.      

Trace Oswald wrote:

Chaz Bender wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:

Chaz Bender wrote:
Authority is illusory and functions entirely from consent...

I think this is a nice theory.  I've never seen it in practice.  In practice, it's no illusion that the penalty for ignoring authority under the best circumstances may be fines or banishment.  Worse developments include imprisonment or death.  I live under many, many laws I didn't consent to, except by virtue of being born here.

I don't consent to the whimsical legislation and dictations of a corporatocracy. I've lived my entire life dissenting and ignoring 'authority'... Until it came with fines - so I renounced the corporate/legal entity. No one has a higher standing then you and no one has the right to practice a right of ownership over you - if someone is, it's because you've been conned into consenting/acquiescing to it. This doesn't mean one can get about exploiting and harming without consequence; as the basis of true law, supposedly, is Do No Harm... If there's no injured person, party or property then there's no crime; thus, I'm answerable to no Wo/Man until I harm. I consider it a moral obligation to disregard unjust laws and legislation. This comes with pros and cons. 'Authorities' coercive power (in this context) is with intimidation and other forms of manipulation like you stated banishment... We shouldn't capitulate/acquiesce to terrorism. I accept banishment but only that of the commercial paradigm. I still live among living Men and Women and exchange goods and services.    

Maybe Australia, or the part you live in, is much different than here.  It would be very easy to test your assertions here.  I could simply drive my car 100 miles per hour through the nearest town, being very careful not to hit anyone or anything.  I would very quickly be pulled over by police, where I could assert my "right to travel" and explain to them that I have no need of a driver's license, license plates, insurance, or any of the other things forced upon me by the tyrannical government, and that I am answerable to no one until I harm.  At that point I would be arrested, locked in jail, given a number of very significant fines, and probably psychological testing.  I, of course, would continue to express myself and the fact that those government entities hold no sway over me, as is my moral obligation.  I would refuse to pay their unconstitutional fines.  Of course, I would be thrown in jail for doing so...

That's why it's important to know where to select your battles, so to speak. I don't drive because I know the roads are laden with corporate thugs that'll drag me off because I don't comply renting licenses and permits of ownership, nor do I want to go through the process contending the matter, knowing full well it may end with me being dragged to prison... Many do drive without number plates, etc. and know legislation/law well enough, and have the competence to contend it successfully... In this, obviously, means accountability and where the debate about putting others at unnecessary risk is also relevant. In saying that, where is the line drawn? Do we agree with keeping hefty fines over minute infringements that cause no harm? Who is profiteering from this rule of law? Who to we delegate a status of power to, to oversee order? Who oversees culpability within the echelons of ''authority''... Before you know it you have strata after strata of bureaucracies - potentially colluding. What's the circumstances? Does Governance protect you now or do you protect the Government? You see, I don't debate law enFORCEment has to deal with dangerous fools and irresponsible people... I more consider this degree of irresponsibility a symptom...

Before this relevant digression; I was addressing the extremes, psychology and dynamics of officialdom and different iterations of what we call hierarchy and how they're established/maintained. I come back to one of the major points I was trying to make; that law/legislation, ownership, law en-force-ment, liberties/prerogatives, etc. prescribed by the state or/and 'communtiy', no matter how rigorous and seemingly agreeable, often end on the trajectory to bureaucratic plutocracy -- like all rise and fall civilisations. To me they're largely, if not entirely rooted in/advertently, in doubt, fear, uncertainties, even malign intent. We wonder why our 'alternative' eco-communities often falter, overlooking the fact we've taken the base models of the 'system' and re-applied them, and usually end up defaulting back to the 'system'... We've undergone years of intensive programming/indoctrination only to create new modus operandis refined from the original. We have to distinguish to the subtle fallacies/flaws in them.

There's other iterations of human 'hierarchy', outside of 'rise and fall' civilisations... Like that of the Kogi Indians in Columbia, that evidently have maintained great harmony with their surrounding ecology, have existed predating colonialism... I don't romanticise their model (which I have only superficial comprehension of) as being perfect. However, there's outstanding indicators of it's success that can't be invalidated... Yet there's no written rule of law. Interesting.  

Trace Oswald wrote:

Chaz Bender wrote:
Authority is illusory and functions entirely from consent...

I think this is a nice theory.  I've never seen it in practice.  In practice, it's no illusion that the penalty for ignoring authority under the best circumstances may be fines or banishment.  Worse developments include imprisonment or death.  I live under many, many laws I didn't consent to, except by virtue of being born here.

I don't consent to the whimsical legislation and dictations of a corporatocracy. I've lived my entire life dissenting and ignoring 'authority'... Until it came with fines - so I renounced the corporate/legal entity. No one has a higher standing then you and no one has the right to practice a right of ownership over you - if someone is, it's because you've been conned into consenting/acquiescing to it. This doesn't mean one can get about exploiting and harming without consequence; as the basis of true law, supposedly, is Do No Harm... If there's no injured person, party or property then there's no crime; thus, I'm answerable to no Wo/Man until I harm. I consider it a moral obligation to disregard unjust laws and legislation. This comes with pros and cons. 'Authorities' coercive power (in this context) is with intimidation and other forms of manipulation like you stated banishment... We shouldn't capitulate/acquiesce to terrorism. I accept banishment but only that of the commercial paradigm. I still live among living Men and Women and exchange goods and services.