hey all,
>Elliot to DMB:
>I understand your very anti-athoritarian, but your view of intellect is
>surprisingly elitist. How can you be very anti-athoritarian if Galileo was
>right and christainty wrong? If galileo needed some help from an athority,
>would you give it to him. Also, i think a true understanding of
>un-athoritarianism is to accept there are no athorities who know what is
>right and no sheep who believe what is wrong.
>DMB SAYS:
>Elliot is confusing two different meanings of the word "authority". The
>first one, anti-authoritarian, describes a political view, one that could
>just as accurately be call libertarian. Its a position on matters of the
>distribution of political power. It favors individual freedom and
>individual rights over the obedience and subjegation of individuals by the
>state.
>
>The second meaning refers to moral and/or intellectual expertise,
>persuasive abilities, substantiated views and such. And so Elliot's
>question and his assertion about "un-authoritarianism", which isn't even a
>word, make no sense and can't really be answered.
>
Elliot:
Im not confusing two different things, both athorities are part of the same
idea, we use the same word for a reason. When anyone submitts their
personal perceptions of Quality to an athoritity, Political, intellectual or
religious, this is a step away from the progress of the intellectual level.
If i accept what a political athority says without questioning, or if i
accept what an "intellectual" athority says without thinking, then i have
rejected part of my humanity, my exsistance in the intellectual level. An
intellectual athority, someone who isnt ever questioned, is different from a
specialist, who ideally can explian his ideas well enough so that others may
think about it themselves and verify those truths through their own
experience. Perception of Quality is primary. The intellectual athorities
are much more a problem in education than in adult life i think, whereas
political athorities are a problem all the time.
And i used the word "un-athoritarian" which is not really a word to get away
from the idea of the athorities and those against the athorities,
conflicting. to an anti-athoritarian, athorities exsist and should be
terminated in some respect (some resort to violence), to an un-athoritarian,
the notion of athority is not recognized, athority is not a legitimate idea,
and thus there are really no athorities, only guys with guns who push others
around. bullies are not the same as athorities, athorities have some claim
to legitimacy. i used "un" instead of "a" because aathroitarian looks
really odd.
As an anarchist (i shudder to use a word with such connotations) i believe
freddom from subjegation must extend to all realms of life, not just the
political arena. If ideas are controlled by athority, then the originator
of these ideas will always have some power in influencing masses of people,
and thus some sort of power similar to political.
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:19 BST