|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Anitah on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 07:29:01 :
In Reply to: anarchy as ideal posted by trablano on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 04:38:10 :
Anarchism is a philosophy, and I think it should be perfectly ok to discuss philosphy on a philosphy board. Philosophy isn't some abstract ideal, it is what we live. How we think and the ideas we attach ourselves to, effects how we choose to react and interract with the world around us, and ultimately ideas manifest in the world. Indeed, ideas make the world. Change the ideas and you change the world. Isn't that the meaning of "enlightenment?"
When Indira says "part of anarchy, is violence, and part is indifference" it tells me that she has a different interpretation of anarchism than I do, and that this reflects is reflected in the temper of the board under her administration. This is what I was pointing to in my post to her. I'm always interested in gettting to the source of why people think and act or reason as they do, what basis they use for their decisions, especially in a conflict situation, and I try to separate between what works and what doesn't work. My view of anarchism, as I said, is rooted in my experience and observation of nature, of natural laws, and I don't think nature is unrealistic or idealistic. Nature works. I think I gave some illustrations in my post of how effective it is in resolving conflicts that have to do with abherent behavior. What is unreal and has been throughout the history of man, is the ideological and philosophical mental constructs we live by and expect others to adhere to. Much of the violence we see is because people have been trapped in environments and been indoctrinated to adjust to unnatural conditions. These conditions amount to social engineering, orchestrated from the top, the power-brokers, who have a stake in seeing that people adopt certain behaviors. But put 5 million people on a crowded freeway and a percentage of them will develop "Road Rage." Oppress a nation and the people will eventually errupt in violence. Put a panther in a cage and he will pace and foam at the mouth until he drops from exhaustion. Empoverish people and they will turn to crime. This is all nature. Cause and effect. I think that's realistic.
I don't think it's realistic to apologize to someone who has been running rough shod over people on this board. Frankly, I think it's absurd and an insult to everyone who posts very intelligently on this board and has to be subjected to the repeated assaults from good 'ol American true blue flag waving Joe here. The whole world is being assaulted by the Joes of America, and this is but one example in microcosm.
And when we speak of violence, I do not consider a cat hunting for food violence, but I do consider people hunting for pleasure violence for its own sake. Only humans do that. They do it because they have grown up in an environment that encourages and sanctions that kind of behavior and attaches notions of manhood to it.
Joe is not the product of nature, he is the product of ideological conditioning. As you rightly pointed out, that ideology is nationalism. The face of nationalism he shows on this board is, indeed, ugly, yet we should be able and willing to look at it and see it for what it is.
: I think it makes a difference whether you perceive anarchy as an ideal positively different from present reality or just look at it as the mere conditions of life. You see the ideal, Indira sees reality, you perhaps live in a rich civilisation, Indira in a poor one, so you have different standards.
: Heck, when I was a kid I was terribly afraid of violence, I couldn't stand it if there were brawls on the schoolground, but there were others, as uninvolved in the actual brawls as me, that enjoyed just looking at it. Some people see nature taking its course if people clash together, even find that inspiring. It doesn't matter if I find that low and disgusting, as long as enough people like it ...
: : Black backgrounds? Huh?
: : : p.s. "all freedoms are protected except .."?
: : : Does that include death penalty?
: : : interesting.
: : The death penalty?
: : Uh no, it includes freedom for all. Freedom for all -except- those who will take freedom. You want to defend the freedom of a Nazi to throw you into a concentration camp?
: : Please.
: : There are limits to freedom. I define those limits as follows:
: : "Your freedom ends where mine begins, and mine ends where yours begins."
: : Anyway, I'll talk to you some other time Indira. Right now I'm in the middle of the holidays with family guests at my home and all this fighting is taking away from my joy.
: : Peace!
: : : Anitah,
: : : if you could possibly read my post again, maybe you could find several reasons not to dismiss it as you have done.
: : : first of all, I do not oppose violence.
: : : why?
: : : because it's natural. I don't oppose similar forces struggling with each other.
: : : I don't dislike violence myself, although none of us can determine when it is applied with justice and when it is not.
: : : that, on the other hand doesn't mean I am not a pacifist, I am, in the sense that I don't believe in the resolution of conflicts by the use of force and violence, be it physical, economical, moral, or scientific.
: : : but violence is as natural as everything else, it's part of us, and I do not blush when someone becomes violent with someone of the same strenght and ability to oppose him.
: : : I do dislike, when someone uses special skills, like a greater physical force, or like a better trained mind, against a weaker, defenseless being.
: : : but on the other hand, there are games that are played by two. there are calls for action and reaction that are heard, and followed, and the results of those games, are always negative.
: : : what I mean is, when two people, who hang out together, everytime they are in public, raise an argument on something, no matter if that is world wealth, or black shoes, and that argument always leads to nowhere, and it's all about provocative reactions, I get tired, and get away from it.
: : : the result of it, most of the times, as I have said in my post, is irrelevance.
: : : everything becomes irrelevant, but them.
: : : the other people there, the original subject, the place, and what remains from it, is a frustrating feeling of having spent time in nothing.
: : : Let's not confuse violence, with violent games, and not confuse freedom with peace and welfare.
: : : they have always been different subjects that suppose different and vast treatment, all of them.
: : : If you have a definition of anarchy, that presuposes welfare and peace, fine for you.
: : : but I don't.
: : : anarchy is for me FREEDOM.
: : : to do, say, think, and be whatever one is able to, and feels like.
: : : and inside of that freedom, we do get hurt and unprotected.
: : : if you want protection on the internet, that's fine. I am not the one who¿s going to judge anyone's attitudes.
: : : If you read my post again, you will find out I kindly asked for a little respect and tranquillity for the rest of the people that come here, to both of them, because I think they have both their reasons to act the way they do, that could be valid, if it was not for the overall result.
: : : It woudl be very easy for me to ban joe, if I wanted to, but I would never do that.
: : : there are a hundreth discussion boards, where you can have peace and a license agreements.
: : : Not here.
: : : I believe in freedom, for both sides, as long as we are talking about individuals and not institutions. Violence and chaos are both sources of inspiration and thought, but none of them are nice pictures hanging on walls, they do come from the inside, and feel awful.
: : : this is what I have done out of this place, and it is not joe or denso who will make me change my mind. I will not stop this place from being free, for a couple of people who might misuse it, or dismiss it.
: : : and I will not refrain from it, because a couple of guys don't know how to address people. there are a million ways of violence, that are not discussed here, and should be, and that do have an influence on the way we live, to spend time and Kbytes with joe and denso. if something gets out of my hands, I might take some action to prevent this place from dying again, but I will not tranform it to make it confortable for anyone.
: : : And of course I know what other sites have done in order to prevent spam and the like.
: : : Ok for them, but no need to teach me as if I was a newcomer to the internet. My name ain't yahoo, I don't make a dime out of this, and I do it out of personal enjoyment and happiness. I do not have a 3200 html pages hand coded to get a life out of it, or to make it feel like some other place. this is how I feel, and the way I feel confortable in life, and what I can give to some other people who might find it ok too. it started as a personal experiment, but life is unpredictable sometimes, and it got me a job and quite a lot of mental blow outs from time to time.
: : : this is what I give. take it or leave it, no offence, but please, anitah, don't aim at me for not being at the height of your expectations.
: : : this is NOT america, it is NOT hosted there, it does not respond to your american laws, and it can be turned off with my left foot in a second and formatted 120 times in 30 seconds. it's so easy to be free..
: : : about your analogy with god, well, no, this is not a shinny beach, but a black html, or a damn fucking hole, I ain't god, but a poor bastard doing my best to be happy and survive, and if people stop making love for this guy..well.. I don't know..obviously this guy had his reasons to do this, and you're proving him right. If he's stronger than your will and your pleasure, then, there's nothing I can do about it, and on the other hand, if I were god, which I'm not, and no webpage would ever make me feel like that of course, well, I would have either made mankind all alike, or bare the consequences of free will. but, since I'm not god, and cannot undo the world, then, I do bare the consequences of free will and black shoes, and kindly ask for respect.
: : : to finish this post, there is something that bothers me, it is to argue about anything. for example, black backgrounds. are they ok? are they wrong? should I consider mankind and make it a white background with black text? should I use arabic font instead of arial?
: : : My previous post was about telling sprat and joe to stop the yes no argument please. not intended to tell who was right, and who had the right to complain. You answer me, about my unability to properly define anarchy. to me, a definition of anarchy is total and complete freedom, no buts, no ifs, no in case this and that. don't I have the right and the duty to make a web site with a discussion board who follows that statement, given that everyday life is miles away from anarchy, and every act of our lives is regulated and recorded? should I change that, because of Joe? is he SO important, is he worth me giving up?
: : : c'mon, I don't think so.
: : : p.s. "all freedoms are protected except .."?
: : : Does that include death penalty?
: : : interesting.
Post a Followup