-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Calvo Macias [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 1998 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: The Anarch
The dichotomy between the free human being and the anarchist is
important. While the Anarchist seeks only external freedom, the anarch
is free internally, whatever the outer circumstances may be. The
anarchist fits into the system, by trying to weaken it, he instead
strengthens it. Current examples would include Timothy McVeigh and the
Unabomber, neither one of whom managed to do anything but give the US
government an excuse to tighten certain laws. Indeed, I heard an
interesting segment, I think it was on National Public Radio, about how
The "Unabomber Manifesto" has become very popular in anarchist circles.
They recognize one of their own I guess. Unfortunately they do not seem
to see that he accomplished nothing.
GERD
[Roberto Calvo Macias] Gerd, I am completely agree with you. The most
important thing to me is just the internal freedom, Thats the breakpoint: to
know how it is. To look for the answers inside. Again its open the eternal
game, Fate and Liberty, and again the J answer. Its not the point to win or
not- externally, of course, the point is to win inside, the rest its pure
fashion, goverments, a other vanishing things.
A question: Is there a real good ethos?, a valid one?. I mean: what to do in a
critical cuestion?. The ethic side of the anarch seems to me the most difficult
part.
This passage doesn't provide an answer but it does address the point:
"As for the do-gooders, I am familiar with the horrors that were
perpetrated in the name of humanity, Christianity, progress. I have studied
them. I do not know whether I am correctly quoting a Gallic thinker: 'Man is
neither an animal nor an angel; but he becomes a devil when he tries to be an
angel.' "
Eumeswil Page 145
I also find it tough to pin the anarch down on ethical questions. All I could
suggest is that the anarch acts naturally and observes the results and his own
composition until some hypothetical point when he can begin to make a few
limited choices and act on them with some degree of success. I think that the
question of ethical conduct remains theoretical until we actually know where we
have choice and until we can act non-mechanically on the choice. But the point
remains: on what basis does he make the choices? Anyone got any Junger
references to the ethos question?
<<application/ms-tnef>>
