people that disagree can get along, but mostly they don't seem to. and i see no reason why they have to. as long as nobody is imposing their shit on me and those i care about, i don't care what they think or do.
the idea "can't we all just get along?" seems naive and utopian to me. voluntary association (and disassociation) is a core tenet of my anarchy, and that concept goes a long way.
i have no desire to "get along" with some labeled group. i will choose what individuals i care to get along with based on circumstances and context.
" Its impossible to have a democracy or an anarchy if nobody knows the meaning of the damn words. "
i don't agree. people's behavior does not require words/labels to define it. folks can absolutely act anarchically without knowing what the word "anarchy" means (as if there were a single, accepted definition).
" If acting spontaneously is synonymous with anarchy..."
i did not say that, nor mean to imply it. one could act spontaneously like a fascist dictator. and one does not need to know the definition of "fascist" or "dictator" to either behave that way, or know how they feel about - and respond to - such behavior. those are simply labels humans use to describe something that we associate with (define) that behavior (and the thinking behind it, perhaps).
acting spontaneously says absolutely nothing about the type of activity, other than it was not "planned" (or something like that). so i don't see how acting spontaneously is in any way synonymous with anarchy; though again, the spontaneous behavior may well be what i describe as "anarchic".
Anarchy means without rulers, and acting spontaneously is by definition to have no rulers. Hence, although we might refer to a dictator as acting spontaneously in some situations, the word only has demonstrable meaning in specific contexts and, in broader contexts, it is as meaningless to call a dictator spontaneous as it is to refer to them as anarchists. The issue is how specific the context is rather than any specific definition of the term. That's why words have more than one definition.
"Anarchy means without rulers, and acting spontaneously is by definition to have no rulers."but as funky already pointed out, authorities can certainly act spontaneously, acting spontaneously has nothing to do with anarchism/anarchy. Under anarchy, individuals would both plan things and act spontaneously as they already do. The difference between this and non-anarchy is how people would suffer the consequences of their own actions: under anarchy, everyone must suffer the consequences for their actions, in non-anarchy, some people are protected by either an institutional or bureaucratic framework, while other people are punished by those protected by the institutional/bureaucratic framework on a regular basis.Your answer seems to imply that people need to be "educated" in order to live properly. Well, people are educated by "knowledge", and look at the world today....
Splitting semantic hairs is merely debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Authorities can also act anarchistically, such as violating the very laws they are supposed to defend.
Until the white man came, the !Kung of South Africa had no words for greed or guilt and are estimated to have had one serious murder, rape, or theft every four hundred years. Of course, they lived in small family groups in the middle of the dessert. Like our words, their behavior was dependent upon the context and once they were herded onto reservations everything changed.
i agree with nihilist here:
"Your answer seems to imply that people need to be "educated" in order to live properly. "
and i would add that i find "educated" people, far too often, to be far too subservient to words. not to mention, they use too fucking many of them when trying to express themselves. i value conciseness and clarity. which is obviously subjective.
wuliheron, if you want to declare "anarchy" and "sponteneity" to be synonymous, go for it. they are not so to me.
"Until the white man came, the !Kung of South Africa had no words for greed or guilt and are estimated to have had one serious murder, rape, or theft every four hundred years. Of course, they lived in small family groups in the middle of the dessert. Like our words, their behavior was dependent upon the context and once they were herded onto reservations everything changed."right, they had no words for greed because they didn't have a mass of material posessions like we do. One thing that bothers me about a lot of anarchists/radical thinkers these days (not saying you are making this mistake, but if you are...) is they try to control other people's word usage, and shame/scare people into not using words deemed "sexist" "racist" ect., but they don't tend to real that language comes out of conditions and trying to change the words other people use is completely pointless
like many other binary distinctions, i see the "spontaneous" vs. "planned" distinction as not very useful.
wuliheron: "Socrates said, knowledge is the only good and, I would add, ignorance is the only evil because knowledge without awareness is an oxymoron. "
and who defines "knowledge", or "the truth"?
for me to live (in a moment) anarchically, i only need to disregard the concept of authority in the way i relate.
"Socrates said, knowledge is the only good and, I would add, ignorance is the only evil "
ah, another moralist.
notwithstanding ba@'s point about defining "knowledge":
i have knowledge of: how to gas thousands of jews; how to rape a woman an get away with it; how to kill anyone i disagree with; ...
but knowledge is "good". i won't even go into the other side of that binary.
my guess is that the word "knowledge" will be redefined to fit.
"quoting Socrates does not make me a moralist"
no, it is the actual content of the statement that i referred to, not the fact that it came from socrates. knowledge = good, ignorance = evil. that - if in fact you believe it - is what would make you a moralist to me. i find good and evil, like morality itself, to be words that are only useful for control over others.
i guess it's time for me to express my voluntary disassociation.
In more abstract terms, there are many lesser truths and, then, there is the One Greater Truth of Socrates which he called the memory of God that none can remember in all its glory. The greater truth being the eternal truth which is never mere content to be to be debated, but the greater context that justifies itself and determines the identity of everything. Statistics, for example, can be considered a lesser truth which can be perceived as either a context in which we might perform meaningful calculations or merely content as in "a statistic of one" where the context of "one" transforms the identity of statistics into the contents of an oxymoron. The whole may only become greater than the sum of its parts at the cost of diminishing their individual impact and, the other way around, the influence of any individual part may only increase by diminishing their collective synergy. In each case, the eternal truth that none can see in all its glory is what makes the difference.
" I'm a Warrior of the Rainbow or tribal hippie"
oh, that explains it - you're probably one of the "high holies". some of the most condescending, self-important, passive-aggressive authoritarians i have ever met. not to mention delusional, magical thinkers. i've never talked with a single one whose "anarchist" critique - much less "way of life" - was anything but shallow regurgitation of the social anarchist/hippie ethos. despite aggressive attempts at "appropriating" american indian culture, you all don't (or didn't) even talk with the local indian tribes before inviting 10-20,000 of your best friends to their neck of the woods. and oh yeah, a friend and myself once investigated "the bank" at a gathering (at the request of 3 different kitchens), and looking at the "books" from a couple years made it pretty clear that lotsa money was disappearing.
yeah, you all have had it fully figured out for 12,000 years. ROFLMAO!!!!
Hmmmm....so from your previous comments I've gathered two things: 1. You want to write a book 2. That book you write is based off what NOT to write....
That is a very ambitious goal! There are about an infinite/gazillion combinations of things not to write, but there is only one way to write a book (not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7), so best of luck with that!
but when I read books where the author is proclaiming to know something about this "reality" we live in, I like to actually know what they mean, which means you gotta look words up in the dictionary. The reality books are read now adays, I read like 10 pages of it then just move on to something else cuz I can't stand it when I start thinking
"I'm a Warrior of the Rainbow or tribal hippie. Unlike most so-called anarchists we can trace our traditions back 12,000 years and anarchy is a way of life for us rather than merely a political or philosophical stance."
The Warriors of the Rainbow or Rainbow Warriors. You're a follower of these evangelicals and their "Warriors of the Rainbow" evangelical screed that attacks Native American cultures and attempts to evangelize them, all the while trying to convince them that y'all are just trying to fulfill "the Native American prophecy" about the second coming of Jesus. Y'alls "traditions" dates back the early 1960s, not 12,000 years ago. I was wondering what you're dealio was, but now I know and I no longer have to wonder.
I have to say, y'all Rainbow people are pretty big douche-bags. The shit y'all pulled at Black Hills and other places indicates y'alls douche-baggery has no bounds. Especially, the part when y'all ran to the state when the Lakota said y'alls shit wouldn't be tolerated at Black Hills.