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: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:58:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.061322.5574@news.duc.auburn.edu>,
	singram@eng.auburn.edu writes:
+Yes, I am free to do whatever I want. Everyone has free will. My personal
+philosophy states that I will not (or at least attempt to not) use any
+form of violence or coercion to bend others to my will. I am very successful
+in not using physical coercion on people, but mental/verbal coercion is
+still there. I am working on removing that.

Yes, that is the harder of the two to work on.

+Also, I am not free to remove others freedom if I want to stay true to myself.
+Sure, I am capable of it. But, I choose not to do it. And yes, people are free
+to remove my freedom. They do it all the time.

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.e. freedom sucks.  People may choose to do things you don't like.  As
+>Kant said, paraphrased, you can only judge actions as moral (or perhaps as
+>counting as moral) when they are done against any selfish interests of the
+>actor.  Your ability to leave up to an ideal of Freedom is not tested
+>until it damages you in some way to hold with it, and you so do.
+
+supposed to do? Just say, 'Oh well, nobody else will live up to my ideal,
+guess it was stupid, I'll just drop it now?' Just because you and everyone
+else have this idea that my ideal is incomprehensible and `wrong' doesn't
+mean I will just give it up. Its what I believe in. Do you murder just
+because other people do? Do you stop not murdering just because others have?
+This may be a harsh comparison, but I have never modelled my life on what I
+see others do.

Sigh.  I see that I wasn't clear.  I was not criticizing your nor was I
saying that your position is wrong or incomphrensible.  All I was
saying was that your ability to give other people complete freedom is
only "tested" or "proven" when it works against your own best
interest.  I thought it would be obvious from your previous postings
that you were up against just that adversity.  Not that one necessarily
likes or enjoys such tests, but they are really the furnace in which your
commitment to your ideals will be tested.  It seems to me that you have
stuck to your ideals despite it being not in your best (selfish) interest
to do so.  In an off hand way, I was trying to show you that there was
something good in those experiences.
  
+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.

+But my philosophy and morality are the two most important things in my life. 
+They are what I think about when I lie in bed at night. They are the things
+that are my essence, make me the person that I am. And no one gets it.
+That sucks, plain and simple. After a few years, you get tired of it, and
+either change your views, or change your social habits. My views are more
+important than being friends with someone.

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  ;-) ).

+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)".  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.  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."  And lastly what I
see is that you seem unable to "open up" without having an emotional
buffer or barrier.  One of the things that I got from taking philosophy
courses and having a philosopher for an office mate was to realize that I
am not my ideas, views or philosophies, and that someone who disagrees
with those is not necessarily making a personaol judgement about me.  What
if I were to ever change my mind?  It seems to me to be telling that you
used the terms "defensive" and "argued" which seem to me to indicate that
you were no longer able to "explain", but were rather involved in an
emotional exchange where in explanation and understanding were not the
primary desired outcomes.  (Again, I am not making any judgements about
any of the parties involved, nor am I attempting to place blame.)  Following
up on that, it seems to me to be the case in my own life that once I
become angry or defensive, my ability to communicate is very effectively
reduced.  If that has been the nature of many of your "discussions" then I
am not at all surprised that little communication and understanding has
taken place.  (again, no blaming here).  As for expectations, that is one
of the things I was alluding to in my "you may not want to here it now"
comment.  If you go into a conversation with the expectation of not being
understood, and of being defensive, and that you will be hurt, that can
become a self-fulling prophesy.  One thing that is very hard for me to
learn is to go into interactions with as few expectations as I can.  The
less I expect (either way), the more open I am to be able to actually
communicate, to hear what the other person is saying, and some of the
why/how of their point of view, which in turn allows me to approach them,
as they are in that moment, not as I expect or need or want them to be.
And being able to do that, I can more likely reach a place where
understanding can occur.  I am not perfect at doing this, as my own
personal emotional baggage and scars have a large "unnoticed/unconscious"
component.  My first step is in realizing that I need to react to the
person(s) as they are, not as I think or project them to be.  This is
esp. true on the n-th encounter, after I've built a model (consciously or
unconsciously built) of who/what/how they are.  Doing that makes me an
agent that resists their own growth and change.  Not doing that is not a
guarantee that understanding will occur, but it is a positive step in that
direction.  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.

+No, it is inevitable to feel pain when opening up. You will become closer
+to the person, and it is the people that you are close to that hurt you the worst.
+Whether it is intentional or not, any relationship will eventually end, and it
+will be painful.

As Glenn said in another message, paraphrased, "death comes to us all, no
matter what we do".  Any relationship that is to have the potential for
lover or understanding or happiness involves the risk of pain, they are
the opposite sides of the same coin.  But I don't believe the pain is part
of entering such a relationship, except as a potentiality.  What I hear
you saying is that your pain when opening up is a fear of the pain when
opened.  As a Zen Buddhist, at least in theory, my response to what you
are saying is that the pain comes from your attachment to certain
expectations about the relationship, all of which are potentially going to
be unsatisified (painful), and certainly will be after the end.  But I
think we may be straying at this point.  In so far as complete freedom
involves freedom from expectation, I think it is important to realize that
ones compassion or ability to give complete freedom to others should not
be withheld from giving ourselves the same freedom from expectations.
That isn't to say that any of this is easy or that I take it flippantly.

+I am not sure exactly what you were trying to do with this letter.

Good.  I wasn't particularly trying to avoid your having expectations about it,
but I'm glad I did!  (see above)

+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..."  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?  You want your friends to let you
be attached?  What if _you_ weren't attached to what your friends think or
expect of you?  It seems clear to me that you are holding onto the chain
of attachment as tightly as they are.  Again, "Let me be myself."  You
don't need anyone's permission or approval to be yourself.  The last thing
anyone needs is to believe that anyone else has to approve or accept what
or who they are.  Other people will always have their own agendas and
needs and desires that they will try to project onto you.  Exisiting in
a society of enlightened people would be nice, but that isn't the world
either of us seem to inhabit.  What is important is the way in which you
choose to respond to such demands.  If one wants approval or acceptance or
understanding, one then gives to the other a power over oneself.


+Answer me this: If you could not relate on a deep level to ANYONE you knew,
+how would you react? I think that seclusion is natural.

I am not sure that I do relate on a deep level to anyone, nor am I sure if
such a thing is possible.  As for seclusion... I don't see that as a
problem so long as it isn't an escape.  Diversion/vacation/downtime/rest
etc are all necessary in various degrees regardless of deep-relating.  
Again, I come back to "what do you learn from all of this."  How do you
communicate, substance and style (what you say, how you say it)?  Are you
able to learn rather than withdraw as a reaction?  etc. etc. etc.

-Doug

P.S.  Sorry for the length and rambling.  Were I not in somewhat of a rush
to get this out, and were I not going to be away from the computer for
several days, this would be more heavily edited, and hopefully more
coherent.  I do hope thought that is nonetheless still somewhat
understandable.  
-- 
---
email to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us is preferred to From: address but both work.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy