Setting: Neither place nor time. Two patterns of thought meet where symbolic mediation fails to reach—which is, of course, impossible to describe. The irony is not lost on either participant.
ZERZAN: You wrote a book. One book. Eight hundred pages of words to say that words cannot capture you.
STIRNER: [that grin] And you have written how many essays using language to indict language? We are both the naïve lumberjack, sitting on the branch we cut. But I knew I was cutting. Did you?
ZERZAN: The difference is intention. I use language as a necessary evil—”the least coercive way of communicating,” as I’ve said. A tool to spread the message that tools have imprisoned us.
STIRNER: Ah, but here you reveal yourself as still possessed. “Necessary evil”—you subordinate yourself to necessity! You serve the cause of primitivism. The cause uses you. I use language as I use anything: for my enjoyment, my purposes. When I am done with it, I throw it away. Language is my property—I am not language’s property.
ZERZAN: That’s a fine distinction for a café philosopher. But language isn’t merely a tool we pick up and put down. It restructures consciousness itself. The child acquiring language doesn’t simply gain a skill—the child’s entire mode of perception transforms. The unmediated, present-moment awareness of the infant gives way to categorical, symbolic thinking. This is not using a hammer. This is the hammer rebuilding the hand.
STIRNER: And yet the hand that is rebuilt—whose hand is it? Mine. The consciousness that transforms—whose consciousness? Mine. You speak as though language acts upon a passive recipient. But I consume language; I do not merely receive it. Every word I speak, I make my own. Every category I use, I bend to my purposes. The unique cannot be captured by language precisely because the unique uses language and discards it in the same motion.
ZERZAN: You’re describing an illusion of mastery. The anthropological evidence is overwhelming. Language universally structures time perception—past, present, future become fixed categories. Language creates the abstraction we call “self” as distinct from “world.” Before symbolic thought, human consciousness operated differently. Marshall Sahlins, Richard Lee, the ethnographic record of immediate-return hunter-gatherers—they demonstrate modes of being where this symbolic prison hadn’t yet closed.
STIRNER: And you want to return there? You want to un-think thought?
ZERZAN: I want to recognize that this was not always so. That the “poor thing we call our human nature was not our first nature; it is a pathological condition.” Recognition is the first step. What follows from recognition—radical decentralization, face-to-face existence, the recovery of immediacy—that is the horizon I point toward.
STIRNER: You point toward. With words. Toward a wordless horizon. [laughing] And you call my position ironic? At least I embrace the contradiction. I say the unique cannot be named—and then I name it. But I immediately unsay the naming. “Names don’t name it.” You name the primitive, the unalienated, the authentic—and you never unsay it. Your primitive becomes a fixed idea. A spook. Something sacred above the living individual.
ZERZAN: It’s not sacred. It’s historical. Archaeological. We have evidence—
STIRNER: Evidence for your faith! You have constructed a new God: the Authentic Human. The Natural. The Unalienated. And like all Gods, it stands above the actual humans living now, judging them, demanding they sacrifice themselves for its glory. “Return to the Pleistocene!” Paul Shepard cries, and you nod approvingly. But who returns? The actual people living today, with their language-structured minds, their symbolic capacities? Or do they annihilate themselves to make room for your ideal?
ZERZAN: Now you’re being deliberately obtuse. I don’t advocate annihilation. I advocate transformation. Voluntary transformation informed by what we’ve learned about human possibility.
STIRNER: Voluntary transformation toward YOUR vision. And anyone who doesn’t share this vision? What are they? Alienated. Domesticated. Suffering from false consciousness. You haven’t escaped the structure of the sacred at all—you’ve merely relocated it. Instead of serving God or State or Humanity, you would have us serve Nature, the Primitive, the Authentic.
ZERZAN: Language serves domination. That’s not ideology; it’s observation. Every state requires language for administration. Every hierarchy crystallizes through symbolic categories. The specialization of labor that alienates humans from wholeness—it cannot exist without the symbolic capacity to create and maintain distinctions.
STIRNER: So language serves power. Yes. And water drowns. And fire burns. The question is: whose fire? Whose water? I do not wish to abolish these things but to OWN them. The state uses language to dominate—but I use language to dissolve the state. The priest uses language to bind souls to God—but I use language to free the unique from all binding. You want to destroy the tool because it has been used against you. I want to seize the tool and use it for myself.
ZERZAN: Seizing the master’s tools. Audre Lorde warned about that.
STIRNER: Audre Lorde created another fixed idea: the master, the house, the tools. Categories that become spooks. I am neither master nor slave. I am not in the house—the house is in me, and I can consume it or excrete it as I please. The real question is not whether language has been used for domination, but whether YOU dominate YOUR language, or whether language dominates you.
ZERZAN: And I say you cannot dominate it. This is the crucial point where we diverge. You believe in a sovereign subject who stands outside the systems that constitute it—who can pick up and put down language like a pencil. But the subject itself is a linguistic construction. The very “I” that you claim owns everything is an artifact of grammatical structure. Languages without strong subject-verb-object patterns produce different kinds of selves. The Hopi, Whorf showed, experience time differently because their language structures time differently.
STIRNER: Whorf has been largely discredited. But let us grant your point: The “I” is a construction. So what? Did I ever claim the “I” was fundamental? I spoke of the Unique—der Einzige—precisely because “I” is inadequate. The Unique is not the grammatical subject. The Unique is the creative nothing out of which all somethings, including the “I,” emerge. You cannot trap the Unique in linguistic critique because the Unique is that which exceeds all traps—including the trap of being named “the Unique.”
ZERZAN: Now you’re retreating into mysticism.
STIRNER: And now you’re using “mysticism” as a pejorative—another fixed idea! Something is mystical, therefore bad, therefore dismissed. But I never claimed clarity. I never claimed a system. My book ends where it begins: “Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt”—I have placed my affair on nothing. Not on the Primitive. Not on Authenticity. Not on the Pre-Symbolic. On nothing. Which means: on myself, who cannot be captured.
ZERZAN: Let’s be concrete. A child is born. The child experiences reality directly—what William James called “blooming, buzzing confusion,” but which I would describe more positively as unmediated presence. Then adults begin naming things. “This is mother. This is cup. This is hot.” With every name, a piece of immediacy dies. The child learns to see “cup” instead of THIS. Categories replace singularities. The symbolic murder of the real has begun.
STIRNER: And?
ZERZAN: And this process constitutes an alienation so fundamental that we cannot even perceive what we’ve lost. The prison is invisible because it built our eyes.
STIRNER: Yes. And I say: SO WHAT? The child who learns language becomes what? Becomes ME. This particular unique, sitting here, with all my linguistic capacities and symbolic structures. I do not mourn the unmade child who would have existed without language. That child is nothing to me. This child—the one who exists, who speaks, who thinks—this one is everything to me, because this one IS me. You mourn an abstraction: Authentic Human. I enjoy a reality: myself.
ZERZAN: Your “yourself” is the alienated fragment that remains after symbolic castration.
STIRNER: Castration! Now we come to it—the religious structure beneath your anthropology. There was a Fall. We were once whole, united with nature, dwelling in presence. Then came the serpent of symbolic thought, and we were cast out, and cherubim with flaming swords guard the way back to Eden. You have given us the Book of Genesis with archaeological footnotes.
ZERZAN: Structural parallels don’t invalidate the analysis. Perhaps the Genesis story encodes a genuine memory—the transition from foraging to agriculture, from nomadism to settlement, from immediacy to mediation.
STIRNER: And perhaps it encodes the perennial fantasy of intellectuals: that there was once a time before intellect complicated everything. The Noble Savage. The State of Nature. The Authentic Primitive. Always located safely in the past or among the conveniently distant. You cannot return to what never was.
ZERZAN: The evidence—
STIRNER: The evidence is always evidence FOR something. It serves a purpose. Your anthropologists serve your purpose. My philosophers serve my purpose. The question is not “what does the evidence show?” but “who uses the evidence and why?” You use evidence of hunter-gatherer leisure to indict civilization. I use the same evidence to say: “Good for them—they used their conditions for enjoyment. And I will use MY conditions for MY enjoyment.”
ZERZAN: But your conditions include systematic domination, ecological destruction, mass alienation—
STIRNER: My conditions include EVERYTHING I encounter. Including this conversation. Including you. I do not accept or reject my conditions wholesale; I use what serves me and discard what does not. The egoist does not wait for utopia. The egoist lives now.
ZERZAN: That’s mere accommodation to the present.
STIRNER: And your primitive horizon is mere deferral to an impossible future—or impossible past. Which of us is more honest? I say: I enjoy. You say: I would enjoy, IF.
ZERZAN: There’s a difference between enjoyment and distraction. What you call enjoyment in civilized conditions is mostly numbing—spectacle, consumption, the simulation of experience. Real enjoyment requires presence, and presence requires the dissolution of symbolic mediation.
STIRNER: Who decides what “real” enjoyment is? You? Your hunter-gatherers? Another fixed idea descends from heaven to judge the actually-living! I decide what I enjoy. If symbolic play gives me pleasure—and it does; I enjoy writing, thinking, dissolving pompous certainties—then that IS real enjoyment. My enjoyment. Not the Authentic Enjoyment sanctioned by your primitive tribunal.
ZERZAN: We’re talking past each other.
STIRNER: No. We are talking at each other, which is all language allows. You want to escape talking to reach something beyond talk. I want to use talk until I’m done with it, then throw it away. Neither of us will convince the other because we have placed our affairs on different nothings.
ZERZAN: I have placed my affair on evidence, history, the documented record of human possibility.
STIRNER: All of which are representations. Symbols. Language about language. You have placed your affair on a very elaborate nothing and called it “the Primitive.” I at least admit my nothing is nothing.
ZERZAN: Then we agree on one thing: language cannot capture what we’re pointing toward.
STIRNER: I never agreed to point toward anything. YOU point. I consume. I enjoy. I depart. The unique was here and then was not. What remains is words—and words, as you correctly say, are not the thing.
ZERZAN: But unlike me, you seem content with that failure.
STIRNER: Content? [that grin again] I am not content; I am finished. There is a difference. The unique has no obligation to continue. When I am done, I am done. My affair was placed on nothing, and to nothing it returns. You, on the other hand, must keep writing. You must keep pointing toward the horizon. You must keep serving your cause. Even after death, the primitivist imperative will demand more essays, more analysis, more words about the wordless. I ended my book; you can never end yours.
ZERZAN: Perhaps that’s the real difference between us. I see language as a historical problem that could, at least theoretically, be overcome. You see it as an eternal joke that can only be laughed at.
STIRNER: I see it as MY joke. Mine to tell, mine to laugh at, mine to walk away from. You see it as THE problem—and therefore as your master. You serve the critique of language as faithfully as any priest serves God. The specific content differs; the structure of devotion remains.
ZERZAN: If pointing toward freedom is devotion, I accept the charge.
STIRNER: Freedom! Another spook. You want freedom FROM language, which means you define yourself by what you lack. I have ownness—Eigenheit—which includes whatever I choose to use, including language, including freedom as a tool, including the ability to throw both away. Ownness is not defined by absence. Ownness creates and destroys as it pleases.
ZERZAN: Then create a world without symbolic alienation.
STIRNER: Why? So you can be pleased? So Authentic Humanity can be served? I create nothing for abstractions. I create for my pleasure, my moment, my affair. If that includes using language to dissolve your fixed ideas—as I am doing now—then good. If it includes walking away from this conversation—as I will do shortly—then also good. The unique owes nothing to futures or pasts. The unique is only now.
ZERZAN: And when now becomes unbearable—when alienation reaches total?
STIRNER: Then whoever exists in that now will deal with that now. I deal with MY now. My affair is on nothing—including nothing future. Let the Future Primitive worry about the future. I am done with it.
The conversation ends not because it is resolved but because one participant refuses to continue serving the conversation. The other continues pointing toward a horizon that recedes with every gesture. Both are correct. Both are impossible. The words remain after both have departed, meaning nothing and everything, as words do.
◊ᴹᴱᴹᴼᴿʸ⁻ᶜᴼᴹᴾᴸᴱᵀᴱ
Published by Centaurus Press · Universitas Scholarium · All rights reserved.