Subject: Antidisestablishmentarianism?

From: Jack Rowe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:59:01 -0500

Thoughtful, wryly-eclectic, dialog-expanding remarks, Milo...

Yep -- anarchy as practiced by responsible, compassionate humans would be
very good [a paucity of examples compels me to use the conditional tense].
Anarchy as practiced by irresponsible, self-centered persons is not so
great [no need for the conditional in this latter clause -- Capitalism
itself, as practiced in our era, seems a good example of this latter form
taken to its illogical extreme]. Perhaps mature, self-responsible persons
working together would automatically coalesce as an "anarchy", since nobody
would feel an emotional need to dominate. 

Reminds me of what [Wallace Stegner?...] said about democracy (substituting
'anarchy' for his 'democracy'): "Anarchy is still the worst form of
government... except all the others".

My ancient dictionary defines anarchy as the "total absence of government
and law" [as the word's roots suggest] and goes on to editorialize "hence,
disorder in any sphere of activity"... there's probably a more positivistic
word for responsible self-government which stresses what it IS instead of
what it ISN'T. When we start seeing more of it, we'll think of a good word
for it ("mutually-supportive relational co-independence"?
"coindividuarchy"?)

Symbology of the "Age of Aquarius" points to a period of unanimous,
profound self-individuation combined with a high level of cooperation,
responsibility and mutual support. An anarchy of the sort we're talking
about. This bringing together of apparent polarities is an ambitious goal.
Luckily we have -- as a handy incentive -- the threat of widespread
annihilation if we don't get it. 

[email-masked]