On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, James Roper wrote:
> Because any real definition of anarchy means "government by the
> people." Meaning, NOT by the politicians. So how does ecofemenism first,
> dissect out the patricarchy bullshit (since it is so pervasive), and then
> choose a better path? How do we get past our knee-jerk reactions to
> terms like anarchy, which usally were foisted upon us by the patriarchy.
> then, once past those knee-jerk reactions, how do we choose sensible
> alternatives.
>
>
Sorry to sound like a broken record over this one but...
It is not that the patriarchy or the government or the establishment has
twisted the definition of anarchy to mean chaos. The word comes from
Greek, and for the last 2500 years it has had the same meaning. "No
Government." What you are talking about, rule by the people, is what is
called democracy. I appreciate your ideas. I think that the kind of
structure you are describing is important to consider. But what you are
talking about is NOT ANARCHY. It is a system of government from the
bottom up. Again, you will fail to endear yourselves to many would be
supporters of your cause if you continue to call it something which a) it
is not, and b) gives people negative images of chaos. (Anarchy does not
imply chaos at all, but if people think it does you are better off just
chosing a different term rather than trying to beat into all of their
heads what you mean by your ill chosen one).
I think that the general structure you are talking about is not
too far from what Lincoln was illuding to when he talked of government
by, for and of the people. He called it republicanism. Just food for thought.
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 10:56:01 MST 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 11:58:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Election/anarchy
To: Ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, Swarr Amanda Lock wrote:
>
> This gets back to my previous questions re: essentialism. Would your ten
> random people organize because they are part of an "order-loving species" or
> because they have been socialized and culturized to create "order"?
>
> amanda
>
I would have to say the former. Primates in general are social animals,
and chimpanzees are especially so. An argument could be made that the
socialization process that has lead us all (we and the other chimps) to
be so order loving started some 4 or 5 million years ago, but I think
that is a bit silly.
Humans are naturally social critters.
Jon Poppele
Ecology, Evolution and Behavior Undergraduate
University of Minnesota
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 10:58:45 MST 1994
Sat, 12 Nov 94 13:01:43 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 13:01:10 EST
Subject: Re: Anarchy
> Someone wrote a challenge asking what government can do better than individuals
> can.
>
> 1. Uncover and punish criminals.
People do this better themselves in their communities. When cops
enter a neighborhood crime rates tend to go up, not down. We stop
looking out for each other.
> 2. Provide for national defense (if you don't think the U.S. needs any,
> consider Israel.
Any hierarchical state structure is inherently vulnerable to take-
over. To control a whole population, all you have to do is gain
control of the top. Decentralized systems cannot be taken over this
way, since there is no "top."
> 3. Protect intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks).
Who benefits from this protection--people or corporations?
> 4. Provide for "public goods" such as roads, courts.
Witness the european railroad system--very efficient, not
organized by any central authority, but cooperatively BETWEEN
independent states.
> 5. Protect the environment from individual economic actors.
Give one example of the state protecting the environment and I would
bet that anyone on this list could list five examples of the state
trashing the environment. Also, as I mentioned before, people are
very good at challenging polluters. Unfortunately, governments tend
to come in and violently repress our efforts.
> 6. Protect the weak from the strong.
>
Who protects the people from the strength of the state? Who
protected the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the state
recently, the millions in Indochina, the tens of millions killed by
states in WWII? States are fundamentally killing machines.
> Whether a particular government does a good job at any of these things, or does
> too much of them, is not the point. Rather, the point is, how could
> individuals in an anarchy do them at all?
>
People organized anarchistically could not kill tens of millions,
that much should be conceded to the state.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 11:10:11 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 13:13:11 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Brian A. Luke" at Nov 12, 94
10:23:10 am
And this is an important issue, since we all toss around terms like
"anarchy" and "spirituality" in ways that cause knee-jerk reactions in
others. When what we want to cause is the recognition of the truth, or a
better way to do things.
|My understanding of "anarchy" comes from reading self-identified
|anarchist theorists and activists from the 19th and 20th centuries.
|To them, it means opposing capitalism and the state, or more broadly,
|all forms of hierarchical violence because of the oppressive nature
|of such institutions. I would suggest that the dictionary definition
This is the way I have seen it defined too.
|cited above is thoroughly skewed by the governmental propaganda
|concerning what anarchy is about--especially definitions (2) and (3),
|(which are in fact complete reversals of the meaning of anarchy) but
|even definition (1).
Yeah, and read about history in mainstream books. They still say that in
Chile, Allende in 1973, was overthrown by popular rebellion and that he
killed himself. We all know that is blatantly false.
|> I am not trying to tell anyone what it is they believe in, I'm just
|> trying to point out to you that the use or your terms is misleading. You
I recommend, for more information about anarchy, Howard Zinn's _A
People's History of the United States_.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 11:21:12 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: More on Nature Shows
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 13:24:15 -0500 (EST)
natalie proclaims:
|
|recorders and other "intrusive" devices out into the wild so we can all see
|how zebras copulate! Until I heard this other viewpoint, I had never really
Gee, I missed that episode. But I did watch an elephant masturbate once
when I worked at a zoo. He was going through adolescence. I told him to
stop that, or he'd grow hair on his trunk. Turns out he already had it
there.
|by human devices or other such ills and thinking to myself, "why don't those
|camera people help the animals?"
This comes to mind when watching the films in Somalia too, only those
animals are people.
|I think something to think about, for me at least, is why do human beings feel
|an insatiable need to "discover" everything that exists, to explain everything
|that occurs, and to "understand" each minute detail of every thinkable thing?
In short (I'll save elaboration for later), it is because people want
power. to know soemthing is a form of power. they suffer from the
illusion that all is knowable. And they are afraid of their own
finitude. So, knowledge provides power provides control hides mortality
for a while. I think this is a male thing. :-)
|invasive? Has anything really changed because we know the migration patterns
|of Penguins or examined the stomach contents of Northern Pike or have docu-
|mented how many eggs a Red Cockaded Woodpecker lies? Not really, in my
Well, what about the thrill of knowing and observing how life works? I
am an ecologist and I study nesting birds and the animals that eat 90% of
all the eggs they lay. Esoteric perhaps, but fascinating. And by
knowing how those knowable parts of nature work, we might learn how to
leave nature alone. I hope anyway.
|opinion. Now, I know the first argument will be that if we know these things
|we can better protect these creatures. My response would be that we know
|enough right now to cease the *human-caused* extinction of any living thing.
We do know all of this. Yet, what teh world wants to know is how we can
still have a great life with nature, and still have a growing population,
social injustice, few rich, many poor.
|seen, heard, and talked to people about, they did have an incredible respect
|for all living things and for the Earth. They knew a lot of things about this
|natural world without "sophisticated" scientific technology.
Yeah, but...when population densities of native peoples anywhere reached
too high levels, they also damaged the environment, often driving
themselves extinct as social entities.
|By the way, if anyone knows why we have this incredible need to know everything
|about everything, please let me know. It's driving me crazy. :)
Okay, maybe it is a woman thing too. I like your humor.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 11:25:38 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Election/anarchy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 13:28:39 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Jonathan M
Poppele" at Nov 12, 94 10:57:19 am
|I would have to say the former. Primates in general are social animals,
|and chimpanzees are especially so. An argument could be made that the
Not really. If you say that a social group is MORE than a mere family
unit, then most primates are NOT social. Chimpanzees are, true.
|Humans are naturally social critters.
So are all ants, most bees and wasps, termites, many rodents, some
birds. What does this tell us?
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 11:39:40 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 13:42:43 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" at Nov
11, 94 11:48:58 pm
|With all due respect, that is not what "teleological" means...teleological
|means `ends oriented'...i.e., as those who believe nature or human life (or
|etc.) have an end or final design they are moving towards. Perhaps you mean
|"tautological" which is the classical circular argument (as in proving "the
|ocean is blue" by defining blue as "the color of the ocean").
| In fact, my argument was neither.
Oops. It sort of was the latter, which is what I meant to say (and I
should've known better.).
| You state a distinct viewpoint about the non-*teleological* nature of
|evolution...i.e., its not moving towards any end...I guess I'm not sure about
|this. Certainly many, many mythologies, philosophies, religions and beef
|systems from around the globe and across the reaches of recorded history would
|disagree. I just don't think the human mind is anywhere near broad or deep
Let me clarify. Natural selection, genetic drift, evolution, and similar
biological processes are not goal oriented, and this can be shown a
variety of ways. Human social systems ( I htink due to language) CAN
certainly be goal oriented.
|>In any event, this "nature" is NOT a moral agent. We must base our
|>judgements on what is right, NOT on what nature might do.
|
|Again, many would argue this...first thing that pops to mind is Aristotle's
|ethics, which are grounded in the notion that all beings have a natural end to
|which they strive, and that the "good" is defined as that which most
|facilitates that end.
Aristotle also believed in "forms" as did Plato. We know much more about
nature now than he did. He had mistaken ideas about goal-oreinted
nature, and it was due to the fact that he knew nothing about genes,
natural selection, or evolution. when you look at life as critically as
he did, but without the insisghts that these pieces provide, you see
nature as goal directed, as organizing, etc.
As for humans as getting moral lessons from nature, no way. Otherwise we
could go for siblicide, cannibalism, patricide, incest, thievery, etc.,
you name it, it happens in nature. We CAN use the desire to have nature
around drive moral decisions, but that is a different problem.
|The statement also implies that we are somehow seperate from nature, as though
|the "right" can be *opposed* to the natural. If anarchy must be *imposed* on
|people who resist it, is it really any better than a fundamentalism of any
|other sort?
We are separate from nature, yet part of it at the same time. That is
the problem. Back to anarch. In anarchist philosophy, if I am not
mistaken, they do not want to impose a belief system on anybody. Rather,
they want to show by its self-evident nature, that the systems in power
today are destructive of those things we cherish most. With the added
hoope that people will learn to recognize a system that does support the
people.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 14:06:08 MST 1994
MR-Received: by mta ORION; Relayed; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:09:31 -0800
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:09:31 -0800
From: Ani Mareck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hop-count: 1
On Nov. 11 Jayne asked:
>So, simplicity of lifestyle is connected with spirituality. Lots of us are
willing to talk about the >former. But, few are willing to talk about
>the latter. What gives?
The way I think about this conflict is that spirituality is a much more risky
topic to discuss. Intellectual precepts are, in many ways, easier to defend.
One can go to a library or bookstore and find hard support for one's point of
view. Spirituality is more difficult. First, as many have mentioned, the word
itself is ambiguous, which then of necessity lends itself to misinterpretation
depending on one's personal experience with religion. Of course the two are
not synonymous, but in common usage, they seem to be frequently confused. When
a person talks about an intellectual precept, they are relatively emotionally
safe. On a very basic level, intellectual constructs have no real meaning
since they are only in the mind, thus the perpetuator is taking little
emotional risk.
Spirituality is different. Spirituality is seated in the body. When a person
chooses to share on a spiritual level, they are putting their personal
understanding of existence on the line. As far as being a woman and
understanding spirituality, the road is difficult and complex. Women grew up
in a society that gives a male definition to spiritual precepts. Whatever a
true feminine, or female concept of spirituality is being laboriously
discovered by women across the planet. This discovery is not, and can never be
an intellectual one. It is a quiet process of listening to the rhythem of
life. It is a deep emotional awareness of our place as humans in the cosmos.
The human race is in trouble because we have chosen not to listen to the deeper
rhythem of truth around us.
This is the general understanding I have for where ecofeminism interfaces with
spirituality. Human beings have managed to get out of sync with our natural
world. To come back into tune with it is, at this point, a difficult and
somewhat alien process. To intellectualize about it is difficult, because the
very basis for our intellectual processes are based on an atomistic view of
creation.
Any thoughts on this?
Ani
