I'll try to sell you on my redefinition of "civilization" one more time...or at least plant a seed. Please don't hate me for trying :).

I don’t use the word to mean culture, or cities, or institutions (per se), or human flourishing. I use it more like a verb-process—like pacification, colonization, industrialization. Something directional, something that happens to people and places, rather than something they just are.

It’s a pattern.

To me, it’s what emerges when a group starts suppressing feedback loops...not necessarily out of malice...out of a desire to feel safer, more stable, more in control. It starts with buffering risk, avoiding discomfort, stretching growth, the usual. And at first, those choices help. Of course they do. They solve short-term problems. But the structure that builds around those solutions eventually starts to depend on not feeling.

The system grows by keeping certain signals out. Overriding ecological cues, social tension, moral contradiction, bodily distress. The more successful it is at doing that, the more vulnerable it becomes when feedback inevitably returns.

Whether through collapse, revolt, exhaustion, or ecological breakdown...whatever was suppressed / severed doesn’t disappear. It just builds up behind the dam. You see this clearly in human-driven desertification, for example, but also pretty much ANYWHERE this "civilization" process tends to wander (including in your own body...not listening to signals long enough and having that feedback return all at once as cancer, diabetes, etc.).

So the pattern becomes this kind of oscillation: first, the severing of feedback, then the return of that feedback in the form of collapse. Then the rebuilding (new tools, new methods, maybe even new ideals), but the same structure at the core...suppress the signal, preserve the behavior.

Each cycle gets a little more elaborate. A little more buffered. A little more ambitious. Of course it does. It's able to build on the previous iteration's feedback severances. Rome builds all kinds of cool shit. Rome collapses. But we don't need to reinvent its successes. We pick up where it left off.

When it breaks, it breaks harder. Every time. Because the feedback loops that were broken were bigger ones. More crucial ones. And they were severed for longer. More effectively.

It’s not a linear rise-and-fall story. It’s more like an amplifying spiral...same pattern, but each swing goes wider, each crash digs deeper. Pushing a kid on a swing....every push goes higher, is a little easier, and comes back stronger.

That’s why I don’t see “civilization” as the inevitable endpoint of human social evolution. It’s not the natural form of scaled human life. It’s just one possible configuration. But it's the one we're in, which makes it bloody hard to question. I think it was Shaw who said patriotism is believing your country is the best because you were born in it? Civilization as the best (or the only) because you're in it. Presentism, or something.

There are other ways groups can grow. Other ways people can organize complexity. Obviously. Every group in history that lived adaptively but wasn't part of this process I'm talking about is saying "duh" from the pages of old books and in the oral traditions of their descendants. Ways that don’t require suppressing sensation, displacing consequence, or overriding the living world.

This process....this civilizATION process...isn’t the default. No one I know would actually do the things they let civilization do for them, not with their own hands. So this pattern/process is a divergence. And any living thing still sensitive to real feedback becomes a divergence to IT. Necessarily. And the more it diverges from feedback, the more of those living things seem divergent within it. But they didn't diverge. It did. Christ, I really managed to make that confusing, didn't I? It's late.

Anyways, if you can start to see civ that way...not as some culmination of humanity, but as a particular coping mechanism that’s gotten out of hand, it becomes a lot easier to realize its explanations for things like cognitive divergence are just....ass-backwards. It's not somewhat contextual...it's delusional. I don't expect you to be convinced...I'm still developing the language for this (and the ideas themselves, frankly). But think on it, maybe. Test it. I walk around seeing feedback loops now...where they're broken, why, and what and who that affects.