Technically, to speak of "anarchy" is to refer to a state identified as
"an-arche" or, 'without source or origin': this is to say, a situation which is
being actively constructed out of immediate elements rather than being
organized by way of structural parameters that are imposed from outside.
"Laws" are thus 'arche' because they serve as 'sources of authority'; to be
in a state of an-arche with respect to law does not mean to be deficient in
morals or ethics but, rather, to be effecting the application of deterence on a
case-by-case basis through community-based concensus. A good example of this
would be the Native American "Healing Circle", which bring victims together
with the perpetrators of the crime which affected them in a community
gathering. This arrangement gives everybody the chance to speak their piece
concerning the situation, and allows the community to decide how the crime in
question is going to be dealt with, in the best interests of the community, the
victim, and the perpetrator.
Since the research project which I am currently involved with is focused upon
an analysis of certain pre-Columbian artifacts; but, since those artifacts all
came from disturbed sites and thus are of indeterminate origin: the work I am
doing might most aptly be called "anarchaeology".
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
>>>><<<<
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: Anarchy [was: Re: #232]
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:25:21 +1000
Anarchist organisations have constitutions.
They are based on democratic, collective consensus.
They need them.
Repeat - does not mean lawless or imply libertarianism.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 22/07/2007, at 9:03 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> That sounds like a contradiction, Andrew: "anarchist" and "a
> constitution"?
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|