Hello all, Thomas Friese wrote: > So the anarch rules his own interior kingdom and deals with the external world according to his > personal "foreign policy" - finding allies, trading, going to war occassionally, negotiating > treaties. His freedom derives from the control he has over domestic matters and is not > dependent on the actions of external powers.Yet if he is not dependent on these externals, he > certainly must take them into account. A foreign invasion of his territory would greatly > decrease his autonomy. I believe that most of us are in fact at this stage - the enemy is > entrenched on our land and we are often even unaware of his presence and the control he exerts > on our internal affairs. Friedrich Baroh is in this position - he must either elimimate the > invader, society, from his being or be removed by society from society. The later would be > equivalent to the exile of a monarch. In my opinion becoming aware of the extent of the enemy's > encroachment into our rightful domain is the first step towards eventually becoming free > anarchs. It is a question of individual sovereignty, definitely. This sovereignty has been consistently undermined by society, especially in the age of psychology, where our minds are seen as something to be studied, plundered and manipulated, of course, always with the "common good" in mind. In the current consumer society, psychological manipulation reaches its ultimate pinnacle in advertising. While a few unfortunates are directly and brutally manipulated in the context of mental health facilities, it is in advertising where the psychologists' encroachment on our inner being is the most prevalent, and the most subtle. We are given all sorts of messages as to what is good and bad, and what we should like or dislike. This is also to be seen in government propaganda, education, etc. Of course, not all education, or propaganda, or psychological manipulation, or advertising even, is necessarily bad, but as you say above, each of us has a sort of personal "foreign policy," the problem is that for most people, it is a very nebulous policy at best, and a lot is encroaching on their sovereignty that either they do not realize is negative, or that they do not even know is there. I may have over-emphasized the anarch's independence from external factors. His freedom is not dependent on them in as much as he does not need a specific set of external factors to be free, however, his actions must be in accordance with external factors. > Again, is the anarch entirely independent of external factors? Taken at its face value, that > statement could be interpreted as part of a Buddhistic world-denying philosophy, and the anarch > is anything but world-denying. In fact, we know that the anarch actually requires external > factors. He requires the lawful structure of a society in order to operate. He requires > experiences with people and powers to enjoy himself and to pursue his studies. And Manuel > certainly seems to require the services of a woman! Indeed, Manuel Venator needs these things for his own pursuits, but do all anarchs? Venator was preparing himself to leave such things behind temporarily should things ever become difficult. However, there obviously was something that attracted him to society. I am not so certain the anarch is incapable of operating in a less ordered society, however. There is the possibility, though, that disorder makes it more difficult to maintain necessary distance. When in the middle of social strife, after all, getting shot at or whatever, those borders that keep you internally sovereign are likely to breakdown. Next thing you know you are fanatically devoted to one side or the other, or at least acting like it, which would be a major mistake. > In truth, he could escape to the forest and > become unattached to many of these factors, but then he wouldn't really be an anarch anymore, > he would be a forest fleer. I only make this point because in my own life's experience I have > vainly pursued an ideal of perfect independence. But it seems that interaction with the > external world is inevitable and indeed highly desirable. Question: is the anarch not better > descibed as having an interdependent relationship with the world? I think that interdependence is a bit too strong a word. I don't think the anarch is dependent in the outer world, at least not very dependent. He does not deny the world, not by any means, but neither does he get too caught up in it, he does not let it rule him. He is capable of independence from society when necessary, but does not seek it as an end, merely as a means to maintain his internal sovereignty when existing in society would tend to endanger it. GERD GERD
Markup © John King, 2012. Web archive generated Thu, 20th May 2010.