Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Tue, 31 Dec 96 11:43:08 GMT

M. Traynor wrote:

> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'd go with that. We seem to be moving closer to an agreed definition.
> >> >All I've been driving at is that it cannot last long without degenerating
> >> >into some form of society.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't call that degeneration.
> >
> >I used the word "degeneration" purely because if Anarchy is the aim, and thus
> >the "higher" then any deviation from that means that the object has not been
> >attained, and thus the "higher" "degenerates" (appologies for the excessive use
> >of "quotes" :)
> But I don't think society is a deviation from anarchy. Your definition
> of anarchy seems to preclude any kind of order, mine does not. Anarchy,
> as you are using the term, won't supply the stable yet dynamic society
> that you seek.

Correct, that's why I argue that it's not worth trying to attain. But again,
it all comes down to language and definition.

> I have no argument with that and I'd like to untangle
> myself from the impression that I do.

Successfully completed task.

> Ideally I'd offer another term to
> describe what I'm trying to outline but nothing springs to mind as being
> more suitable.

Indeed. Anarchy is a popularly mis-interpreted word. I'm not even sure of
the real definition. Even Wade's dictionary diefinition offered 3
possibilities, none of which were compatible with eachother.

> How about if you do a mental search-and-replace on our
> discussion and everytime I use the word 'anarchy', switch it for
> something which carries less baggage for you.

Yup, OK, so what you're looking for is a minimalist state, where freewill
is the governing feature. Is that closer? Does your state have any kind of
government or law?

> >> Quite the reverse in fact. I think a
> >> stable society *would* evolve, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
> >> It just needn't be one based around coercion.
> >
> >The question, therefore, is: How would such a society (state?) evolve.
> >That's what I think we need to look at.
> I wouldn't even go so far as to say it *would* evolve. It is one of a
> number of possibilities.

Sorry, that was an error on my part. I meant to ask how your state would
be put together, WRT to the various important parts of society (Liberty,
Equality etc...). When this arrived on the list I realised that I'd used
the word "evolve" when I hadn't meant to, sorry :)

Richard Jones "We are the New Breed We are the Future."