Anarchy
From: bayou.blue
Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:56 am
Subject: Anarchy
Websters Dictionary defines the word Anarchy:
1. A social structure without government or law and order. [bayou.blue,
therefore, does not understand the posting stating to the effect
that anarchy is "common sense."]
Websters further defines the word Anarchy:
2. Utter confusion.
bayou.blue sees this list as composed of a
pathetic group of lost souls wandering haphazardly via e-mail
in this "anarchsophy" medium as defined by Websters
above.
bb
..........................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchy
Why, aren't you sweet? I'd rather be lost
anywhere than be found with you.
Dottie
bayou.blue sees this list as composed of
a pathetic group of lost souls wandering haphazardly via e-mail
in this "anarchsophy" medium as defined by Websters
above.
..........................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchy
At 05:56 13.11.2003, you wrote:
Websters Dictionary defines the word Anarchy:
1. A social structure without government or law and order. [bayou.blue,
therefore, does not understand the posting stating to the effect
that anarchy is "common sense."]
Websters further defines the word Anarchy: 2. Utter confusion.
bayou.blue sees this list as composed of a pathetic group of
lost souls wandering haphazardly via e-mail in this "anarchsophy"
medium as defined by Websters above.
Feels good to be at home, doesn't it? But
you're probably alone about feeling pathetic. Been like that
since childhood?
Tarjei
..........................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchy
bayou.blue wrote:
Websters Dictionary defines the word Anarchy:
1. A social structure without government or law and order. [bayou.blue,
therefore, does not understand the posting stating to the effect
that anarchy is "common sense."]
Websters further defines the word Anarchy: 2. Utter confusion.
bayou.blue sees this list as composed of a pathetic group of
lost souls wandering haphazardly via e-mail in this "anarchsophy"
medium as defined by Websters above.
.... and I knee-jerked:
Feels good to be at home, doesn't it? But
you're probably alone about feeling pathetic. Been like that
since childhood?
I was one my way out the door and out of town,
so I typed this crude response in a hurry. That is not my style,
so although "bayou.blue" has unsubscribed, I will comment
her post in detail:
bayou.blue cites the entry "anarchy"
in Webster's Dictionary, but she does not quote in full. Here
is the complete entry from my 1976 edition:
ANARCHY n [ML *anarchia*, fr. Gk, fr. *anarchos*
having no ruler]
1a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political
disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
1b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence
of govenmental authority
1c: a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government
and who enjoy complete freedom
2: absence of order: disorder
3: anarchism
(This is corroborated by the Merriam-Webster
online at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
.)
We seem to have a case of selective reading
here. For further study of what "anarchy" means according
to definitions 1c and 3 above, I revommend the following links
for starters:
http://a4a.mahost.org/
http://www.infoshop.org/
http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
http://www.zmag.org/AWatch/awatch.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/anaring.htm
I'll go along with the suggestion that the
subscribers to this list are "lost souls" in the sense
"homeless souls." That is the lot of anthroposophists,
and Rudolf Steiner talked about it a few times. He even said
that in order for someone to become an initiate, he or she would
first have to become a homeless soul. This means being primarily
a citizen of the spiritual world and rising above all ties and
prejudices connected to nationality, culture, race, tribe, family
and blood. Goethe was like that. In his lifetime, armies were
marching through Germany this way and the other, but it was of
little concern to him, because he was a citizen of the world.
The opinion that members of this group are
pathetic, deserves no further comment, and it was senseless of
me to mention it at all in my previous post.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
