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

Search this site powered by FreeFind