years ago a good friend picked up a young (early 20s) woman and her dog, hitch-hiking. the woman seemed particularly smart, critical, mellow, open... especially for someone so young. she pronounced her name "jee-OH-dee". i figured some hippie/new-ager jhodhi or something. she spelled it g-o-d.
actually, i guess that dog was sharing god with an anarchist.
Thank you for your comments ... (you) disagree that sharing is "by nature" invasive ... (you) also disagree that it is necessarily passive >>> i interpret "share god" to mean an "offer" of one's god (belief) to another ... i deem it invasive because the offer of god comes unsolicited ... an unsolicited offer is invasive because it comes extrinsic to the offeree ... an offer of a god (belief) can be nothing less than an invasion when it is founded upon the presupposition that the offeree's god(s) is wanting ... that the offeree's god is wanting is embodied in the sharer's offer of his god > absent a wanting god there is no need for a new god ... a sharing must be passive ... a sharing's passivity is what distinguishes it from an offer that an offeree is bound to accept > generally institutionally sponsored offers .... SPIRITUALITY comes easy to the soul of an individualistic anarchist ... with the exercise of self determination comes a spiritual belief ... there is no causality dilemma for one that attains a life of individualistic anarchy so attains the spirituality intrinsic to an unadulterated belief ... in individualistic anarchy you need no introduction to or sharing of another's god ... in individualistic anarchy you are your own god and you exist at the mercy of that god and only that god >>> i hope this enlightens
jp: i must have misunderstood you. first you said sharing one's god is invasive, then you said sharing is by nature invasive. i took the latter to be referring to any kind of sharing in general being invasive, and that is what i was disagreeing with.
sharing one's god i can easily see as invasive, and usually is imo.
i still don't agree about passivity, but at least now i think i understand how you are using it.
and i surely don't get why you are defining "individualist anarchy" for anyone other than yourself - especially using the term "god". do you seriously hope to enlighten me (or anybody)? your religious terminology kind of baffles me, but i'm sure you are using it in some abstract way that i don't get.
Anarchy as a political philosophy is little more than a prayer and a little less than a dream ... to seek a non hierarchial state with laws not buttressed by force is quixotic ... nowhere can one point to evidence that leaderless packs are capable of even limited perpeptualization ... leaderlessness is contra organizational ... systemic hierarchies are the natural result of organization ... organizations are populated by the socio/political man ...Individualistic anarchy is non complementary to anarcho-syndalcalism ... individualistic anarchy is asymmetric to organizational concepts ... an individualistic anarchist stands distinct from the wants of the socio/political man ... this distinction is that HIS belief (spirit) is transformative >> "I teach you the overman. (socio/political) Man is something that shall be overcome. ... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss ... what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end." > nietsche's zarathusra ... it is in nietsche's overman that individualistic anarchy is tethered to spirituality ... the individualistic anarchist's (anarcho-individualist) asymmetry to the socio/political man magnifies his existence ... in this magnified man can be found the purpose of existence ... in this purpose for existence there is the spiritualality that the church/state falsely offer ... that this purpose for existence is spiritual merely acknowledges the heightened levels of acuity that come within the realm of self determination ... the enlightenment i offer is that of a candle in an unlit concert hall ... it is a nondirectional enlightening and not meant to affect a preferred darkness ... so in myself i shall mingle with the gods of others both far and about