dot: "i don't think it's especially revealing to talk about how we're different. syrphant pretty much came on here already clear on being quite different."
perhaps. but i often feel compelled to respond to "happiness is" and "that is not important" and other absolute type of statements, especially when my experience varies greatly.
ok - here are some things that i responded to, since we're going there.
you don't like arrogance, which is cool, but you talk about people being "led to anarchy." as i have said before, this gets to one of the crucial issues with anarchy for me at least, which is that i believe in autonomy and that people know themselves best, and i also think that i know a better way to be in the world. those two things don't go together. yet here i am.
next point: there are people who claim urges similar to the ones you describe, but in the name of themselves and their own joy, rather than in the name of morality or duty. you seem to take empowerment from your frame of this as something universal, rather than personal. which seems like the religious part to me (i think F@ probably already said that, but sometimes different words are helpful?). i for one am suspicious of people thinking that they know the way i should live. see my first point...
ps:i really sympathize with looking for people who know how to say things i already think.
pps: f@, i was just complaining about the brief expressions of only disagreement. going into the particulars is more interesting, although i continue to think that head on is easiest but not necessarily the most educational.
i definitely appreciate your serious attempts at explaining yourself. and i definitely understand the difficulties of finding words to express your thoughts/feelings/etc.
i do think i understand where you are coming from, at least to a reasonable extent. your perspective simply does not resonate with me at all. i think there was a time that i probably would have been less critical of it. but since you originally asked about where your views fit in an overall anarchist perspective, that is the basis from which i critique it. i find much of your perspective contrary to what i think of as anarchy.
the fact that you make it clear that "value" (based on "labor" etc) is your defining aspect of life and freedom (i'm short-cutting there), combined with your continued assertion that absolute morality and higher duty are the driving forces (by your account, for all of life), confirm that i have not misunderstood you - at least not by too far. your acceptance and submission to external forces (morality and duty, at minimum) - and your idea that one overarching set of ideas apply to all of life equally - are primarily where i find an irreconcilable difference with anything i can think of as anarchy.
i have no doubt your various ideas have a consistency for you. from my own anarchistic perspective, while they may well hold a consistency within the sphere of your world where they exist, they do not seem consistent with my own anarchy. but again i point out - that is just my own thinking. i speak for nobody but myself.
i give you props for your efforts in this discussion. but it is unlikely we will ever agree. i am fine with that. i have no illusions about some single, "consistent" worldview being correct for everyone. perhaps others here (or passing through) will engage with you more meaningfully. i don't think i will be able to do so any more than i already have.
I have prepared and uploaded this schematic diagram of my worldview in hopes of getting some good discussion out of you. This is pretty much my whole entire worldview -- the way things are. All my more practical ideas flow from this. Would really enjoy a vigorous attack on this diagram.
syrphant, that diagram is completely repetitive (even within itself), and provides exactly nothing new on your perspective from what you have expressed here in words. it simply reiterates your views that i already find problematic:
property, labor (especially as equal to life), products, exchange, value, specialization, etc. a perspective completely rooted in (mass-based) economics. i want no part of it.