On 13/01/15 05:15 PM, Alfie John wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015, at 08:08 AM, grarpamp wrote: >> Many people have a need to identify with, participate in, and derive >> support from, a formal structure or at least a well defined meme... >> before they can independantly or collectively deal with issues. Even >> if what they follow ends up being Invisible Discordia. > Isn't this antithesis to idea of cypherpunks in general? Once there is a > formal structure, it can be controlled.
A religion is not necessarily a structure. Look at the Eastern religions for example. Or at Quakerism. > >> Who are its priests? What are its idols? > Priests can be discredited and marginalised leading to abandonment by > the followers. That's why Anonymous has it right - with nobody at the > top to take down, you can't collapse the group. Their power comes from > shared idealism, not a dogmatic religion. > > Alfie It would have no need for priests ... better to call them "philosophers" anyway. As an example, a Socratic question: what is the difference according to you between a "shared idealism" and a "dogma"? Can you explain with examples?
