From: singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Reply-To: singram@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:00:38 GMT

In article 1@cs.cmu.edu, dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.061322.5574@news.duc.auburn.edu>,
>	singram@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>One of my points in bringing this up was to see if you understood that in
>order for anarchy to be distinguishable from chaos, many, nay, most if not
>all of the members of an anarchistic society must in fact refrain from
>exercising their complete freedom.  If they do not so refrain, then chaos
>is the result.  If they do, then they aren't really completely free.  It
>doesn't matter where that restraint comes from, whether it comes from
>within themselves, or whether it is imposed from outside.  If they do not
>really have the option to create chaos, then they do not really have
>complete freedom.  It is a matter of the logical form of the proposition.

I think that you are missing my point. I don't so much care about
society coming around to my way of thinking. Whether or not
anarchy or chaos would ensue from people taking my personal stance
is irrelevant. Yes, I would never choose to do certain things. This doesn't
mean I'm not an anarchist. I do not `stop myself' from doing things. There
is nothing I want to do that some outside moral code keeps me from doing.
I argue that if you follow your OWN morality, and not an imposed one,
then you are not restraining yourself. 

>+Yes, my friends are completely comfortable with having me around. That is
>+the problem. I NEED understanding, or at the very least, respect. A few
>+of my friends respect my views, but none understand them. Do you enjoy
>+talking to your friends about things important to you? Its what I want to
>+talk about. And when these friends talk to me about the important things
>+in their life, I understand (usually) where they are coming from.
>
>This paragraph, more than any other that you have written highlights to me
>the lack of an emotional/spiritual compontent to your philosophy.  And one
>that you are struggling to work out.  Perhaps you were aware of the
>different levels from the start, but if so it wasn't blatantly obvious to
>this observer.  But I think this kind of problem is common to m/any
>non-mainstream life philosophy/ies, and perhaps it is in this area in which
>mutual communication (or attempts at it) can be the most beneficial, to
>all participants.

I think that I should qualify my statement above `I NEED understanding...
This is not a need I have on a base level. It is that I need understanding
to be able to relate and have an emotional connection with someone. The
emotional connection is something I would not MIND having, but not something
I need. But I still occasionally make the effort.


>I asked this of Glenn, and I'll ask it of you directly.  What have you
>learned from your years of trying to explain?  How has your content and
>style of communication changed?  Has it become clearer, or just different?
>Yeah, it sucks that because you are different, the burden of explaining
>and clarifying falls on you.  And that no matter how much you try, if you
>are unable to articulate your views in a manner understandable to
>"mainstreamers", no matter how often, you'll just get frustrated.  (My
>favorite analogy for this is the tourist in a foriegn country who tries to
>get a native speaker to understand by saying the same things over and
>over, and who thinks if they just spoke a bit louder each time the message
>would finally get through  ;-) ).


Well, initially I just didn't try to explain at all past a simple ideology.
But then I started using examples of what I would do in certain hypothetical
situations, and now I just try to explain what it is that I believe in. Its
almost impossible to put it in writing without having a one-on-one. I, by
nature, do not do well in supporting my statements. I have to have them
attacked, then I defend the point that was attacked. I react, rather than
put it all up front. This comes from the fact that I, in general, do not
initiate anything. Like I saud before, I accept what goes on around me.
Only when I am asked direct questions can I reply with what I would do.
I cannot teach my beliefs. I see them as self-evident, so it is hard to 
clarify.

>+I understand that meaningless small talk is expected. I also would like to
>+think that people understand that I am a reserved, shy, private, quiet
>+person. And when these people get angry with me and proceed to bitch at me
>+for three hours about what I am doing and why it is wrong and what I
>+should do and `at least show some common courtesy' then I see it as people
>+who I have nothing against, like actually, but who don't know anything
>+about me even though they think they do. Ok, maybe they did what they were
>+trying to. I got put on the defensive and argued my views and actually
>+talked to these people.  But for what? For me to open up my soul and get
>+it stepped on yet again.  But I don't expect anything different, I knew it
>+would happen.
>
>I'll try to point out some things that I am reading in that paragraph, and
>parhaps you can tell me if I'm understanding you, or if my interpretation
>makes any sense to you.  First thing that I hear is that you "would like
>to think that people understand..." which really sounds to me like "I
>expect that other people understand (or try to)". 

Well, I don't expect people to understand me. I would like them to.
If they understood me, then it would be easier for me to relate to
them. If I could relate to them, then I could build an emotional bond.
An emotional bond could become something special. If I expected people
to understand me, then I would pe preaching my views to the masses and
converting them to what I see as the only sane way of interacting
with society.

> From my position as an
>observer to your view of your encounters, I find it hard to make a
>distinction between that expection you are imposing on others and the
>expectations you feel are improperly made upon yourself. 

Expectations are not improperly made on me. Expectations that do not
mesh with who I am annoy me. They cause me to want to no longer
interact with that person. They can expect me to jump off a cliff,
but this expectation does not cause me to jump.

> I can see a
>difference in the content of the expectations, but I cannot see a
>qualitative difference.  Next I see a great desire (with a very large, but
>not solely emotional component) to be understood, as evidenced by your
>willingness to undergoe three hours of "discussion." 

I am willing to discuss my views so long as the person wants to.
In that particular case, I was leaving when the couple said that they
wanted to talk to me about how I had been acting recently. They wanted to 
talk, and I gave in to thier desire to talk and did so. They, to
put it bluntly, forced me to stay there and talk with them until we had
come to a conclusion where they said that the discussion was over.

I am just as willing to let a bank robber take me as a hostage and
put a bullet in my head.

[Much about how to go into a discussion deleted]
>I find that I am better able to do that if I can stay away
>from getting angry or defensive, so that I can choose my response, instead
>of just reacting and escalating the emotional interference to
>communication.  As a result, I do not feel hurt (or as hurt) if an
>understanding does not come about.  I do not have the let down of failed
>expectations (this person will understand, and that will make me happier),
>nor do I have the emotional need which can more easily lead me to become
>defensive or angry.  Does any of this apply to you?  Have I come to a
>closer understanding with you?  You tell me, this could all just be
>projection on my part.
>
Ok, it is true that I do not expect people to understand me. This is
a defense mechanism, because if I start opening up, there will either
be understanding or there won't.

As to anger... I do not get angry easily. I have not been angry for quite
some time. Anger is very alien to me. I do not understand it, and have
to be really pressed to feel even a glimmer of anger. But you could replace
the word anger for any other emotion and that paragraph would still be
somewhat accurate.

And as to being defensive. When I am on the defensive is when my mind
works the best. If you attack my stance, and I can clearly and concisely
rebut your claim, then I `win'. I do not argue well if I am not put on the 
defensive, because I do not feel the need to back up a statement until
a supposed flaw is pointed out.

>+I believe that you are sincerely trying to help me to `deal with my
>+problem'. But I don't see myself as having any problems that I need to fix.
>+I want to be emotionally detached from society. My friends do not want me to
>+be detached.  This is where the problem lies, my friends expectations of
>+what I should do.  If they would let me be myself, instead of imposing these
>+thisngs on me, then I would be fine. But the things they expect of me, these
>+`social commodities' that I am lacking, make me appear to be some mutant or
>+something. No I don't fit the norm, but the last thing I need is people
>+telling me what I should do.  (I am not speaking about you here, but my
>+`real-life' acquaintances.)
>
>Here is another very clear to me contradiction: "I don't see myself as
>having any problems...This is where the problem lies...Let me be
>myself..." 
You are misinterpreting what I said. I don't feel I have a problem.
I feel that my friend's desire to interact with me is a problem.
This is a problem with my friends, not with me. If they would let me
be myself, then they would not be causing a problem.

> In the end, you can never have your freedom to be yourself
>given to you by any external agent.  To do so makes your freedom a
>hostaget to that agent.  Only you can make yourself free.  What is it that
>is preventing your from being detached? 

Nothing is preventing me. I am getting more detached every day. But my
friends' desire to not see me detached causes anxiety. I desire to be alone,
but I don't enjoy hurting anyone, least of all my friends.

If they did not show this desire for me to be closer to them, then it would be
much simpler. But I am drifting away regardless of their desires and
expectations. Karma, neh?

Orion.