RE: The Anarch

[Thomas Friese <tfriese@eumeswil.org>]

-----Original Message-----
From:	Gerd Groenewold [SMTP:venator@win.bright.net]
Sent:	Tuesday, March 03, 1998 6:30 PM
To:	Ernst Juenger List
Subject:	Re: The Anarch

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?  
[Thomas Friese]  As humans, we require other humans, which means we requires society. I cannot see us escaping this fate - as we say about the opposite sex, can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. So it is with other humans. Unless of course we seek to go beyond humanness and achieve a perfect detachment from everything, unless we are yogis, that is. (Or not?  I think about Manuel's exercises in front of the mirror, his preparations for the Great Hunt ... here he seems to indeed be preparing himself for a final parting of sorts. But this is another topic.)

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.  

[Thomas Friese]  Actually I did not intend to stress the lawfulness of the society but rather the structure. I am sure he is able to operate in a less ordered society. (Sometimes here in Canada I long for a little less order. Or a lot more - to the point of a "strict regime" that hones the anarch's intelligence. The pleasant, odorless and invisible order we have here is particularly difficult to get a handle on. It cheates one into thinking that life is easy, that everything is O.K in one's own inner domain. The enemy is present, but invisible. One forgets he is there - another day, another week, another year in one's comfortable life passes and one has forgotten that there is a battle to fight, that full-stomached drowsiness has made one sleep through a crucial, perhaps unique moment, that yet another corner has been stolen from one's soul. This is the danger here. But I have digressed..)
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.
[Thomas Friese]  I suppose this is true but I cannot personally imagine finding a worthwhile social cause in the present situation. Or acting. Better to flee at that point, right?   
> 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.
[Thomas Friese]  Agreed. 
GERD




<<< application/ms-tnef: EXCLUDED >>>