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 04:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.054338.4946@news.duc.auburn.edu> singram@eng.auburn.edu writes:
+In article 1@cs.cmu.edu, dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
+>longer exists.  Complete freedom cannot exist for everyone unless it isn't
+>actually exercised, but then it isn't complete (freedom) anymore.
+Well, look at it this way. If you have respect for others, and refuse to
+use violent or non-violent means to coerce/force others to do your will,
+then you are an anarchist. Allowing others to coerce you means you respect
+their absolute freedom to do whatever they wish, although they are not
+anarchists. We anarchists must live with all the rest of you, either by our
+rules or yours. Glenn and I have chosen our rules.

I think we are not communicating here.  What I was trying to point out was
the logical inconsistencies that were pointed out as making a "rights"
doctrine a joke also apply to the "complete freedom" doctrine.  I was not
commenting on either one in any other way.

+We are willing to give everyone their freedom, without any strings attached. It
+is just that people start throwing these expectations on you... they expect
+you to act in any certain manner, and it is against your own personal desires
+or beliefs. They are free to expect this crap, but I am just as free to
+distance myself from these aspects of life that cause me pain and discomfort.
+I tried explaining this to my friends and they simply couldn't see it. I doubt
+that you understand what the big deal is either.

Don't be so sure.  1/2 ;-).  But that wasn't my point anyway.  See my
reply below and to your other message for more on this.

+It is hard to let you know exactly what goes on through my mind, what
+makes me feel and think and do what I do.

Perhaps that is partly why it is hard for you to explain (to others)
your point of view, since you have difficulty articulating your
reasons, feelings, thoughts?  And therefore why they have trouble
understanding you?  (Do not think I am placing blame here, I am not.)

+But I will say, that although your views on Neuromancer and I might
+have some semblance of truth/authenticity, you really don't see exactly
+what it is that makes us the way we are.

That is a rather empty truism.  I have no way of seeing all the forces
that combined to make you the way you are.  That is true for almost any
two people (perhaps, with a minor exception to identical twins, but only
perhaps).  But that really isn't the answer you want to hear, since it is
equally empty (or rather, it contains everything, but the result is the
same).  In this very particular case of you and I, you are right.  I have
very scant information about you, only what I have been able to read on
this newsgroup for the last month or so that I've been reading it.  I'm
sure that amounts to a lot less information than you provide in some of
your three hour conversations.  One other thing occurred to me when I read
your replies to my messages.  We are bandying about the term
"understanding" as if it were a simple term, but which I will now qualify as
"intellectual understanding".  I believe that I have an intellectual
understanding of the complete freedom doctrine.  But there is an emotional
and/or spiritual dimension which is lacking.  Upon reflection, this is the
kind of understanding that you claim to be missing.  My sense from your
messages (including Glenn and probably others), is not that your
friends/acquantences have trouble with the understanding on the
intellectual level, but with the emotional/spiritual (Not to imply they
are necessarily the same) level.  I think that this may be a very
important distinction to be aware of, since while you may the intellectual
resolve to live up to the complete-freedom doctrine, you are, by your own
words, having emotional difficulities doing so.  As you have said, I have
not much, if any, information about you, historicaly or otherwise, that
can inform me as to the why's and how's of how you got to your present
state.  My main point behind these postings has not been in struggling to
understand the intellectual level of complete freedom, but the
emotional/spiritual level.  I think that that is more likely to be harder
to understand and to explain.  I do not think your goal is "wrong" or
should be fixed or changed.  I find it very obvious from my point of view
on your messages that there is an emotional problem (pain, desiring to
avoid pain, desire for fellowship, etc) which is not at all addressed in
the intellectual level of the complete freedom doctrine.  How all these
things interact within you (or Glenn or others), I am not aware, but they
do.  Being aware of these multiple levels might help you to understand why
you are having 3 hour "discussions" that don't seem to generate any
understanding, or any kind of emotional resolution.  I am not saying that
I have your answers, or that you should give up and become like the "might
makes right" rest of us.  I would also like to add a footnote, so to
speak, which is that there may be some people like Glenn and yourself
who seem to connect quickly, there are others (and I count myself in this
group) that are supportive of the same kind of philosophy (I can't say
exactly the same because I am not sure), but perhaps close enough to be
headed in much the same direction.  I think it could be fruitful for all
involved to discuss and explain details (on all three levels).  If
we have differing reasons for attaining the same (or very similar) goals,
should we work together, or take ideological separation and work apart?
(This one _is_ really a rhetorical question, as you can probably guess which
I think is the more appropriate response. ;-) ).

-Doug

-- 
---
email to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us is preferred to From: address but both work.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy