Thought I would shift these conversations into a third gear,
It’s a lovely collection of assertions, I’ll hand the author that much.
From anti authoritarian punk, to anti authoritarian gentlemen. When folks ask me why I don’t persue supervisory positions, I usually tell them, and feel, tellin’ folks what to do is stinky. I feel a good leader would let his producers to go about their optimal production. Encourage productivity with medals/toys/whatever, I want them helping each other and doing volunteerally competition for kudos-producer. This is as opposed to the paper pusher that does not respect real labour. I despise lapdog loving managers. I know I shouldn’t say all folks in X catagory are of this way, but what if you could say a person who is this way plus something like a misanthrope. My new boss is a misandrist for instance(I’ll be canned soon I know it). If she is both a pecil-pushing-lapdog-loving, and a person hater, what kinds of things can be said of people who behave this way. It was a repair shop full of men, and this total cook, is fast turning it into a man hatin’ paridiso. I’m am soo f’d, long run! I’ve been there eight years, and when I started it was a great tech enviroment. My first boss loved jackin’ with folks, and I think he most loved being told off. My second boss is a man up to par with a fifteen year old, an average one, no a dumb one. He was too stupid to jack everything up not to say that nearly everything he does isn’t a ball up. Well, I go on ballin’ up too. Differance: when I do(goof) I want to know what I did and how I can improve, when the afformentioned despot-in-backstabbing-ladder-climbing-etc’s was hired by the moron, they made him a director, than a V.P.( or Viseral Parisite), goofs, no body better mention it, or “off with their heads”.*
OOps! so when I was a kid I thought ‘take what you can get’ and ‘revenge is fine and should be bloody’ I’m an adult and really regret my former nihilistic actions. It was all stuff that got at the state, as it should be. In fact if you know taggers tell em to get taggin’ on the banks for their bad imperialism. I’m trying to become a person that wants to be his own person, and therefore wishes to follow logic, but really doesn’t like to be called nice things, or anything. I’ve decided to go with ‘I am person for the principle of self rule.’
- that is horrid grammer. so what.
I like;
Every form of life is archistic. “An archist is one who seeks to establish, maintain, and protect by the strongest weapons at his disposal, the law of his own interest.”
But;
All growing life-forms are aggressive: "aggressive is what growing means. Each fights for its own place, and to enlarge it, and enlarging it is a growth. And because life-forms are gregarious there are myriads of claims to lay exclusive hold on any place.
I don’t follow. I think life is diverse and works well naturally with other lives for it’s own good, a natural division of labour. Instead of big fish eats little, a coral reef is a nice model.
I hope I didn’t drop the transmission.
It seems to be a nice little page full of mental masturbations & assertions; I second such.
Skimming through some of it, especially the quotes concerning “all life-forms are aggressive”, which I guess was supposed to be some brilliant way of upholding social-darwinism, reminds me why I wary the day I try and write anything in possible categories of philosophy, for fear of coming across as have a single-minded & self-pointed importance based upon my own bias regarding the very assertions I might make. C’est la vie?
Also, BankRun, again, some of your posts have nice, morning coffee gems in them, particularly: “My second boss is a man up to par with a fifteen year old, an average one, no a dumb one.” Imo, I think if you started a blog of some sorts, it would be nothing short of interesting to read, lol.
Note that mutualistic relations can be the result of aggressive parties. We can look at these mutually beneficial relationships not as two parties who had the profound realization that they should work together, but as two parties who wished to make the other a means to their own ends, but either didn’t have the ability or sufficient desire to subjugate the other.
This is why egoism and anarchy are not mutually exclusive. All actors can (or as some egoists would say, all actors necessarily) attempt to impose their will, to fulfill their values at the expense of anothers, ultimately attempt to dominate, yet with an eye on the costs and threats of such attempts avoid such attempts, and even find cooperative interaction the most beneficial.
Note that Stirner proposed that we “should” ignore all but what is our own (his egoism was more descriptive than normative), but he went a step further and stated that when people did, a “union of egoists” would form, as people would naturally band together to protect their interests rather than lashing out to further them.
I do not believe such a union would be necessary, with peaceful exchange being a far more profitable interaction than aggression and invasion. I oppose aggression, but I find the litany of moral arguments against it to be little more than the chorus of a carnival barker. The real challenge to the anarchist is not in teaching people to avoid domination, but in teaching people that they are their own. If the relevation pervades society, peace and anarchy will follow, moral arguments be damned.
Oh but it gets the blood boiling still doesnt it? (or maybe thats just my short fuse showing again [:P])
Still, you offered no counter, you Limey sombitch [;)]
I can be short-fused too sometimes, but this is not one of those things that’d ignite it. [:P]
Why counter assertion with assertion? I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s mostly correct on Stirner. I’d like to see him actually engage an anarchist text rather than just bash anarchism.
I really hate the tendency of some secular peoples to paint any sort of ethic as religous. Those dang Stirnerites almost speak as if man ought to be a robot.