Can anarchy be achieved if we still used the same concepts and terminology as the ones we wish to break away from?

Question

Are the issues actually what we define by the way we look at the world.  Ownership, property, money, and government all really exist because that is how we were taught to see the world.  The most valuable commodity on the planet is water. yet because of how we define value it is among the least, whereas gold which has limited uses and not really necessary to survive is one of the most valuable.  

The concept of property still exists only in our own minds.  So we see the solution as to take property away from others.  Yet is having property or not the real issue.  The issue is really when there is conflict of interest.  For the most part our solutions for conflicts is determined mostly by control, so much of our terminology and even social and personal interaction is actually definitions of control.  

There is also an effort of controlling thoughts and ideas.  Rather than to investigate, examine, and explore thoughts and ideas, pressure is placed to achieve conformity. or to debate endless over matters of that distract from finding answers.   People have determined what is right and desire to place their ideas on others.  

Anarchy is the only condition by which all control is nullified.  So new terminology and definitions not based on control are needed for anarchy to actually exist rather than to be defined by the terms that deal with control.

Comments

you might be headed in a direction here that is interesting.
i think that our perspectives and the world are in a reciprocal relationship, so both things need to change in order for anarchy to exist.
but i think that "answers" are in abundance (and are what lead to "conformity" in your question here), and we don't need more of them.

Answer 1

When I think of everyday life, my thoughts never turn toward the government, laws, or money.  I think in many ways the most effective way to overcome these forms is to realize their true non-existence.  Laws, governments, and money, these exist no where but with the mind and have no real life or contributing function.

Perhaps certain terminology just reinforces their status within our minds and the minds of others.  Just because something is a word does not mean that such a thing exists.  

If that is the case than what defines what exists?  Maybe the determining aspects that really exists in our lives are: Physical usage, direct or mutual cooperative manifestations, and self-will.  Yet somehow we insert money, government, and laws which actually work against the flow of the former REAL functions.

Comments

how odd and confusing AFW.
your question implies that there are ways that the world creates us that are not open to our conscious, willing control (ie, we can't just reject them). but your answer seems to deny that.
your answer seems to be materialist (?i guess), while your question at least nods in the direction of more than just the boot in the face...
anyway, hard to know how to respond to this, but i think it deserves response.

---

this is fucked up -- but in a good way.

this gets to the annoying detail that Laws, States, Corporations, Currency, etc, are ALL figments of a mass delusion.  There is no reason for any of them to exist except that (almost) everyone believes they do; (ok, there is the small matter of the guys with uniforms and guns, but they are every bit as self-delusional).  When someone starts to wake up and question a particular figment - then the herd mind tramples him/her back into conformity.  

Yet if most people woke up tomorrow and saw their prison for what it was -- 95% of the 'indispensible institutions' of the world would evaporate, leaving only the naked violence of the state.  (and then there'd be more of us than them.)