From: dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Summary: something salient, shortly stated, sadly seldom satoric
Organization: EIEI-U
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:30:00 GMT

+you boil it down degenerates into might makes "rights".  I believe
+rights lead to contradiction.  Because if someone violates your
+"rights" you seek justice, and so arises the motto 'with Liberty
+and Justice for all.'  To me this motto is a complete joke.

Perhaps.  But your position of complete freedom leads to a contradiction /
joke of at least equal magnitude.  If I have understood your idea of
complete/absolute freedom correctly, then any one must be free to do
anything (within the limits of Physics).  Therefore, anyone can do something
that removes someone else's freedom.  When that happens complete freedom no
longer exists.  Complete freedom cannot exist for everyone unless it isn't
actually exercised, but then it isn't complete (freedom) anymore.

+She is a very private and independent person, distanced from
+her own emotions, and therefore does not feel threatened by my distance.

+[...]It's like I really am some sort of alien from outer space.

Other applicable quotes could be added here.  Perhaps your perception is not
all that incorrect.  After all, someone as devoid of (or distanced from)
emotion as you claim to be is not in the realm of humanity as most people
experience it (both internally and externally).  In that sense, you are
alien to most people's experience.   Perhaps you even feel alienated from
yourself.  You can no more avoid having emotions than you can avoid having
to eat and sleep.  One can repress many things, but that is not very often
in one's own best long-term interest.

+I didn't want to hurt anyone,  I just needed to be alone. [...]
+One time, my 'friends' made the mistake of coming over and picking me
+up even though I told them NO.  I made no attempt to hide my lack of
+enthusiasm.  Boy were they sorry they strong armed me into going
+along.

I won't bother cutting and pasting from your other articles about giving
people their freedom without the condition that they do so to you in
return.  That last sentence quoted directly above sounds like more than
'I just needed to be alone.'

+But perhaps neither of us truly lives the life of no fear, for while
+we do not fear death, emotional pain seems to be something that we
+still fear. [...]  At this point I am just having a real hard time
+dealing with other people's "expectations" of me.  It's easier just
+to avoid people altogether than having to deal with their expectations.

Are you unwilling to give others their (complete) freedom, or is it
that their freedom is conditional, based on their not imposing upon you,
even if only in the form of expectations?  

+I'll probably go back there, but again, explaining to them more than
+likely will do no good.

How does explaining fit in with giving people their freedom?  Is your giving
them their freedom contingent upon their accepting your version of
yourself, or upon their giving up their freedom not hear you lecture about
your view on freedom?  (1/2, but only 1/2, ;-) here).

+It's just so damn wierd why people find it impossible to accept us
+as we are and leave it at that.

See comment above re: alien(ation).

+No, instead they mask their feelings and build up grudges. And like
+what you said, it's impossible to explain to them what's going on.
+They can't even begin to conceive of it.

If it wasn't so sad, that would be hilarious.  From someone who is
self-admittedly distanced/detached from his own emotions, it sounds hollow
to hear you discuss how others are unable to deal with their emotions.  
Your 'position' is differnt, but no less dysfunctional.

+I know that if I could relate to people, (which means they wouldn't
+lay all thier expectations on me), I wouldn't need all this time
+alone.

Doesn't is strike you as significant that your bouts of solitude have not
helped you find a solution to this problem?  One possible interpretation
might be that the "problem" is really you dealing with your emotions, as
stirred up by others.  If so, solitude may provide some relief or respite,
but the "problem" will remain until you actually deal with it.

I am sure there are other possible interpretations as well.  You might
find alt.support posters have other or more salient insights.

+Well met, net-friend.  I apologize for all this incoherent rambling,
+it just seems like you opened up a dam and the words kept on flowing.

Reflect.  What does that phenomina tell you?  What does it tell you
that you are able to more freely relate to people as glowing spots on a
CRT (or dots on ink on paper, etc.) (nice and tidy and at your own
pace) than you are freely able to relate to/interact with people in their
totality, flesh and blood, emotional, logical, inconsistent, reality?
(This is not a question with right or wrong answers.  Your answers are 
personal, and only you can judge how truthfully you are able to answer)

-Doug

P.S.  My version of anarchy (such as it is), is based on complete
compassion.  I may be free (in the physical sense, and maybe according to a
moral code of my own choosing, should I choose it) to kill or harm others,
but that is not a choice I willingly make.  However, like most everyone
else, I am only human and sometimes fail to act in accord with that goal.
-- 
---
email to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us is preferred to From: address but both work.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy