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: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:17:30 GMT

In article 1ds0r8INNodf@uwm.edu, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>From: singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram)
> 
>>How do you explain to people WHAT anarchy is?
 
>You can't.  Just treat them with respect, and you'll show them
>what it is.  Whether or not they see any worth in it is up to
>them.  But you've done all you can do.

I suppose I knew that all along. The whole election thing got some
interesting discussions going though... and I of course was asked
my personal choice for president. Rather than simply name the candidate
I would have liked to see, I opened up this can of worms by telling
everyone I was an anarchist... and then spent the next week trying
to convince these people I wasn't waiting for an excuse to start
rioting and looting.
 
>>Is a society where everyone respects everyone else SO FAR OUT OF
>>TOUCH from the normal intelligent person that it is not even concievable?

>Yep.   You have to distinguish intelligence from wisdom.  Anarchy,
>which is respect, which is love, is something that intelligence will
>never be able to grasp.  Anarchy comes from the heart, not the mind.
>Freedom is a yearning not a concept.

This brings up a very interesting question (for me anyway): Why does
the average human being want someone else to run their life for them?
People are perfectly happy letting others make decisions for them, deciding
what they can and can't do. I just don't understand it. It seems like
everyone would eventually see government (the most obvious form of
coercion in the world at this time) as something that might have been necessary
once, but now has been outgrown by our level of civilization. But I guess that
as long as there are people who will let others take care of them, there
will be people who will be there to do the caretaking.
 
>>In the last two years of my realizing that I was an anarchist, only you
>>(Glenn) and my ex-roomate have shared similar (although not exact)
>>beliefs on what anarchy was. Why is it so hard for people to understand.
>>I have written several times in my journal that I think that it is me,
>>not the rest of the world.

>Ask yourself this question,  Would you sooner be yourself, or would you
>want to be the person who has no ability to grasp anarchy?  It's a mixed
>blessing.  Ignorance is bliss.  Understanding can be pain and alienation.

Myself, of course. But that yearning for bliss comes along every once in a 
while.
 

>>Well. I have just gotten a bit of steam off my chest. Thanks.
>>Orion.
>I've got lots of steam built up myself, as the rest of the readers of
>alt.society.anarchy are well aware of, I'm sure.
> 
>The thing is that Anarchy is about giving, not recieving.  This might
>not have been so brutally obvious if human society was different at
>this point in time.

This is something that disturbs me about `human nature'. It is very much a
`gimme gimme gimme' view rather than a giving view. I am far from the
most caring and giving person in the world, but I understand the need to let
others have free will to do whatever they wish. And while I like to think that
if someone said they were going to kill me, I would not use any force to stop them.
If I can be in that situation and say `Go ahead' then I would have attained 
a `true' anarchistic viewpoint. 

>Anarchy has to start somewhere. It started with you.  You give freedom to
>other people.  Let it awaken on it's own in other people.  Be infinitely
>patient.  ACCEPT the anarchy or lack thereof in other people.  Relish
>the little bit of respect that you can see in others.

`Patience grasshopper. The truth takes time.' Its just that to me anarchy is 
such a wonderful thing. I know how Christians feel trying to get others to see
Christ. The atheist sees Christianity as foolish and will not allow any argument
to breach the logical walls he has created against religion. I think it is
the same with non-anarchists. They cannot comprehend the concept, and will have
to find it `on their own' like most people find religion. But it doesn't stop
me from wanting to convert people. 
 
>I think we both understand that to do the most for anarchy, we simply
>need to give people their freedom.  I think the problem for us is the
>lonliness that arises from not sharing even remotely similar values
>and beliefs with other people.  Generally, I feel alienated.
>This newsgroup has helped ease the pain, but there isn't a heck of a
>lot else that I can think of to help the situation.

Alienation is common for me as well. But it is as much my fault as anyone else's.
I don't attempt to interract with people on a deep emotional level because
they can't understand me on that deep emotional level. But over the years I
have stopped trying... so finding someone who can relate to me will be
difficult to say the least.
 
>I also have a feeling of hopelessness in not being to do anything
>to help other people understand.  This hopelessness is illusory.
>While not using violence and coercion on other people doesn't involve
>much effort, a lifetime of effort can be expended in freeing people
>from physical and emotional need.  If this is fullfilling, you're
>probably on the right track.
> 
>Glenn                                  glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Thanks for the reply. It has helped quite a bit just to read thoughts
remarkably similar to mine. 

Orion.



Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy