What is wrong with authority?

[coshh]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

[drael]

U need someone to tell u what to do?

Me, im fine thanks. I dont mind education though, like "experts" so long as their not treated also as authorities, in the sense that they are always right, and can tell anyone what to do, or do what they like. U cant learn everything, or do every job, but i see no need at all for authority figures at all, only true guardians and servants of the public.

So whats right with authority? and why do we need them?

[coshh]

U need someone to tell u what to do?In a sense. I need *something* that I can get my roots into without fear that the first rains will wash away the soil.

So whats right with authority? and why do we need them?Well for one, because we need some kind of cultural consensus for society to function peaceably...

Even if there is no truth, society needs to have a concept of "truth" to work with. Even if there is no objective right and wrong society needs guidelines of right and wrong - and its better for us if we agree on these things instead of having them forced on us at the point of the sword, which means we need to trust authority - not necessarily because they know better - but because we need something to arbitrate and say where the boundaries will lie.

[icke_is_right]

Brian: You don't have to take orders!

Centurion: I like orders.

[coshh]

Another good reason for authority is to teach people humility and trust, both rather lacking in our post liberalism civilisation...

[cruise4]

Bit like saying what's wrong with communism. Nothing... if everybody chooses to freely adopt communistic principles, but everything... if dictated. What's wrong with people is the question. That's what's wrong with Authority, in principle.

[coshh]

Bit like saying what's wrong with communism. Nothing... if everybody chooses to freely adopt communistic principles, but everything... if dictated. What's wrong with people is the question. That's what's wrong with Authority, in principle.

Except that authority is rather more inevitable than communism (though when I was a marxist I'd have said communism was the more inevitable lol).

But in every age there has been authority. Its beginnings are detectable in all human interaction. The same is not true of communism.

[cruise4]

But in every age there has been authority. Its beginnings are detectable in all human interaction. The same is not true of communism.

I think there's a fair chance you could invert that snippet. But Authority would overide any initial communistic tendancies which would remain unremarked upon. But it still comes down to immature people wanting a nanny. And defining 'authority' wouldn't go amiss.

"nother good reason for authority is to teach people humility and trust"

Have you been hanging around with Steppewar?

[coshh]

But in every age there has been authority. Its beginnings are detectable in all human interaction. The same is not true of communism.

I think there's a fair chance you could invert that snippet. But Authority would overide any initial communistic tendancies which would remain unremarked upon. But it still comes down to immature people wanting a nanny. And defining 'authority' wouldn't go amiss.
Authority is anything which has the power to define something as correct and in the process define opposing things as incorrect.
For instance if objective truth exists truth is an authority insofar as what it declares IS and what it denies IS NOT.
Human authorities tend to - in the modern day at least - define law rather than facts or moral truths (however some contemporary human authorities attempt to define these as well).

SteppewarDunno. I've never met anyone who agrees with the extent of my opinions on things though. I want to go back to before the french revolution (oh sure there were MANY problems then but we dealt with them in the wrong way imho).

[loderlive]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

Nothing wrong with authority just the people who appease it like you.

[coshh]

Nothing wrong with authority just the people who appease it like you.

Please explain.
Do you believe it immoral then to hold any position other than anarchism?

[cruise4]

Can you give some examples of a good and righteous human authority?

[coshh]

Can you give some examples of a good and righteous human authority?

Well all human activity will be tainted by the fall, so not an entirely good or righteous human authority. However so long as authority keeps within certain bounds, it can be called legitimate. An example from my personal life would be my father. He has never demanded of me I do an immoral thing. He holds a position of authority by virtue of being head of the household and the primary breadwinner. I happily and willingly do as he says (or try to at least).

A slightly less personal example is hard to find because I confess I see the world in very personal terms. I believe until an authority asks you do something immoral then it is legitimate... but we probably disagree on what counts as immoral.

[loderlive]

Please explain.
Do you believe it immoral then to hold any position other than anarchism?

No I said people like you who follow it.

[cruise4]

Enter the word 'Legitimate'. There's a pattern here that ends up with a New World Order! How about we use 'Organiser' and not authority. They do much the same thing but without the legitimate and punishment parts.

[coshh]

No I said people like you who follow it.
So are you saying that because I am not an anarchist that makes me immoral?


Cruise4. As a staunch believer in subsidiarity why would I favour the "new world order" which is a neo-liberal globalist construct designed to disenfranchise legitimate authorities in order for a centralised inefficient beauracratic mess to homogenise the world? What has legitimacy got to do with any of that. The Internationalists want the whole world to be the same, they want to take away power from authorities which legitimately hold it and give it to mechanical things like "the market".
Organise doesn't mean the same thing. Arbiter sort of does though...

[cruise4]

I'm now disagreeing with almost everything so I'll leave you to it.

[coshh]

I'm now disagreeing with almost everything so I'll leave you to it.

:/
Well I wish you'd explain your position first so I can try and understand it.

[loderlive]

So are you saying that because I am not an anarchist that makes me immoral?


Cruise4. As a staunch believer in subsidiarity why would I favour the "new world order" which is a neo-liberal globalist construct designed to disenfranchise legitimate authorities in order for a centralised inefficient beauracratic mess to homogenise the world? What has legitimacy got to do with any of that. The Internationalists want the whole world to be the same, they want to take away power from authorities which legitimately hold it and give it to mechanical things like "the market".
Organise doesn't mean the same thing. Arbiter sort of does though...

No i'm saying it only exists because of people like you.

[cruise4]

My position is, authority is another... what is satanism or what is religion. It's a meaningless discussion. The diversity of interpretation is too wide.

[steevo]

Please explain.
Do you believe it immoral then to hold any position other than anarchism?

So are you saying that because I am not an anarchist that makes me immoral?



Why do you try to label people just because they disagreed with your question ? I mean you didnt even define what you meant by "authority" and yet from the answer that loderlive gave you decide to label him as an anarchist. He never even mentioned that word (as far as I am aware).

[oceanwave]

"The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." ~ Stanley Milgram

[loderlive]

:/
Well I wish you'd explain your position first so I can try and understand it.

You are free to follow authority, we have not the time or inclination to explain ourselves to authoritarian wannabe Christians.

[esse]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

When I met the man that was better than me,
it was like daybreak
at first I didn't believe it
a revelation...
such a person existed, like a Noble King...
with so much to teach. So very much to give.
Generosity - I gladly swallowed every morsel
Selflessness... I wondered at a Jewel so rare...
Scratched my head, turned the almost anomoly over in my mind
till it dawned on me
it was real.
It was in my heart and nature...
Here was my better, someone I could trust and follow
I learned the joy of following
natural order
if this is authority... sign me up

I think of what it would mean to be the wisest person in the world
and wow - what a responsibility... and how lonely...
I'm glad I'm not the one at the summit...
what strength it would take to stand in such a place
so if one can reach it -
we naturally look up.

[coshh]

Why do you try to label people just because they disagreed with your question ? I mean you didnt even define what you meant by "authority" and yet from the answer that loderlive gave you decide to label him as an anarchist. He never even mentioned that word (as far as I am aware).

Anarchism means no law.
Law is a form of authority.
So to be without authority is also to be without law and thus a state of anarchy.

Although you can have anarchy with authority.

I didn't label anyone but myself (as a non anarchist). I made no assumptions as to his position I merely sought clarification by making a statement in the hope of gaining either affirmation or negation. I certainly never said anyone was an anarchist.

You are free to follow authority, we have not the time or inclination to explain ourselves to authoritarian wannabe Christians.Meh. I assure you I mean you no ill will.

"The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." ~ Stanley MilgramQuite untrue. In choosing to submit to an authority you take on full responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Both freedom and responsibility are inescapable.

[esse]

nice last line... love it!

it's easy to come to detest authority in this world where it has been abused so tremendously,

but authority exists in nature, natural leaders -

try living in nature, the stronger people with the greater capabilities are so valuable to all. This is what makes someone important - what gives them real authority, how valuable they are to others.

[coshh]

nice last line... love it!

it's easy to come to detest authority in this world where it has been abused so tremendously,

but authority exists in nature, natural leaders -

try living in nature, the stronger people with the greater capabilities are so valuable to all. This is what makes someone important - what gives them real authority, how valuable they are to others.

Not only abused but diminished, instead of having people with real power and real responsibility we now have systems which cannot be held accountable for their consequences - everyone blames the system and no man stands up and takes the blame. We are ruled by a million spineless bureaucrats (my careers adviser is trying to make me one of those, go into the fast track to the senior civil service, I told him I'd rather be buried alive!) instead of people not alienated from the realities of the world who can be held personally accountable for their misdeeds if they make them.

[steevo]

"The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." ~ Stanley Milgram

Cosh this is how you replied to that quote :-

Quite untrue. In choosing to submit to an authority you take on full responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Both freedom and responsibility are inescapable.

You say it's "quite untrue".
You either didnt understand the quote or you are deliberately misunderstaning it in order to change the "question" that has been raised by the quotaion. For the sake of argument, I will assume it is the former :D
Notice in the quote it says "sense of responsibility"

[coshh]

Cosh this is how you replied to that quote :-



You say it's "quite untrue".
You either didnt understand the quote or you are deliberately misunderstaning it in order to change the "question" that has been raised by the quotaion. For the sake of argument, I will assume it is the former :D
Notice in the quote it says "sense of responsibility"

Well I have never lost the sense of responsibility when submitting to authority. Quite the contrary, I have been awed and terrified by the prospect of the risk of what I was about to undertake and the profoundity of my own responsibility for whatever may occur. Obviously I've never been anyone else and cannot speak for them, but I doubt peoples consciences shut up just because they have a superior above them.

[danster82]

You dont need an outside organization to be an authority instead people become their own authority. That does not mean you will have people running around acting wild and doing as they please because it will be understood that if you wrong do someone the populace will have the power to act as they see fit without any outside authority telling them otherwise. And it will encourage people to help each other out on the street when they see wrong doings, currently people dont help each other because of the hassels of commerce law, which is the authority. So the thief gets compensation because you broke his nose when you tackled him as he was robbing an old lady, so people have learnt this and dont help.

for example you try to rob someones house then they will shot you, so thieves wont be so quick to rob people when people are their own authority because there will be real consequences.

[coshh]

You dont need an outside organization to be an authority instead people become their own authority.Who said anything about organisations? I was more thinking of authority as an abstract principle... That does not mean you will have people running around acting wild and doing as they please because it will be understood that if you wrong do someone the populace will have the power to act as they see fit without any outside authority telling them otherwise.Is that what happens in Somalia? And it will encourage people to help each other out on the street when they see wrong doings, currently people dont help each other because of the hassels of commerce law, which is the authority.The impression I get is because they are scared of being stabbed and because Thacherite policies destroyed community spirit. So the thief gets compensation because you broke his nose when you tackled him as he was robbing an old lady, so people have learnt this and dont help.Would that stop you helping someone? I doubt that's what stops people. Sometimes when I see people in visible distress in the street I want to help them ask if they are alright, but I worry they'll think I am intruding or being a nuisance to them - I think its... the sense that nothing outside oneself is "my buisness" that is the problem, which is to do with ideology and beleifs and the way our society is too hyperindividualistic these days - not authority.

[steevo]

Well I have never lost the sense of responsibility when submitting to authority. Quite the contrary, I have been awed and terrified by the prospect of the risk of what I was about to undertake and the profoundity of my own responsibility for whatever may occur. Obviously I've never been anyone else and cannot speak for them, but I doubt peoples consciences shut up just because they have a superior above them.

But the point is, that it gives you A SENSE that you are NOT responsible for your actions. And this is what the authorities want, unquestioning obedience.
By REALISING that YOU and you alone are responsible for your actions, then you would have a population of people who DO question authority and EVERYTHING else.

[coshh]

But the point is, that it gives you A SENSE that you are NOT responsible for your actions. And this is what the authorities want, unquestioning obedience.
By REALISING that YOU and you alone are responsible for your actions, then you would have a population of people who DO question authority and EVERYTHING else.
No. I have submitted to authority, even unquestioningly, many times without losing a sense of my own responsibility for my actions. I know that no-one else can be held accountable for any of my deeds even when I make the choice to submit to superiors. Just because responsibility cannot be taken from me doesn't mean that I cannot take a risk and give myself and willingly suffer the consequences.

[steevo]

No. I have submitted to authority, even unquestioningly, many times without losing a sense of my own responsibility for my actions. I know that no-one else can be held accountable for any of my deeds even when I make the choice to submit to superiors. Just because responsibility cannot be taken from me doesn't mean that I cannot take a risk and give myself and willingly suffer the consequences.

Yes we already know that but what the point is, is that other people do NOT realise that they MUST take responsibility for their actions. It is drummed out of people, for example, in the army they are taught to OBEY orders (conditioned), otherwise it could lead to the death of themselves and/or they fellow soldiers because they have to act quicker than the enemy. That's just an example. So their sense of responsibility goes out of the window. And not only that, when someone with an air of authority tells you to do something, people have been brought up from birth to blindly obey. The authority figure acts as a LEADER and people have been brought up to believe that authority figures have everyones best interest at heart and also the person who does as their told usually would say "I was just following orders" clearly not realising that their sense of responsibily has been thrown overboard.

[loderlive]

nice last line... love it!

it's easy to come to detest authority in this world where it has been abused so tremendously,

but authority exists in nature, natural leaders -

try living in nature, the stronger people with the greater capabilities are so valuable to all. This is what makes someone important - what gives them real authority, how valuable they are to others.

Hi esse,

Yes we need this natural leadership you speak of and perhaps you know more about it than me but I was under the impression it did not come from authority and power but through observation and guidance. It may be an authority the child will seek in you but not an authority you give to the child. And their lies the difference. In essence you replant your leadership in free will not dominance. For their is no way this figure has means to abuse its authority because it is not their in the first instance. The idea that someone has authority over me does not in any way feel right to me.

[coshh]

Yes we already know that but what the point is, is that other people do NOT realise that they MUST take responsibility for their actions. It is drummed out of people, for example, in the army they are taught to OBEY orders (conditioned), otherwise it could lead to the death of themselves and/or they fellow soldiers because they have to act quicker than the enemy.But when they join the army, they know that they are signing up to be underneath an authority, that they will have to obey orders and that they are responsible for those choices. Although in the past they were not held legally responsible (until the Nuremburg trials when the rules changed - retrospectively aswell) but they were always held morally responsible. That's just an example. So their sense of responsibility goes out of the window. And not only that, when someone with an air of authority tells you to do something, people have been brought up from birth to blindly obey. The authority figure acts as a LEADER and people have been brought up to believe that authority figures have everyones best interest at heart and also the person who does as their told usually would say "I was just following orders" clearly not realising that their sense of responsibily has been thrown overboard.Just because they use an excuse doesn't mean their sense of responsibility is not there, doesn't mean they don't actually feel responsible, they might just be trying to get out of being judged or something.
But I have never heard anyone use the excuse "I was just following orders". Of course a leader should be held more responsible for what he tells his followers to do than them because he is the one orchestrating.

[coshh]

Hi esse,

Yes we need this natural leadership you speak of and perhaps you know more about it than me but I was under the impression it did not come from authority and power but through observation and guidance. It may be an authority the child will seek in you but not an authority you give to the child. And their lies the difference. In essence you replant your leadership in free will not dominance. For their is no way this figure has means to abuse its authority because it is not their in the first instance. The idea that someone has authority over me does not in any way feel right to me.

Authority is impossible without consent.
A person can put a gun to your head and tell you to do something, but without your consent you can just not do it, and they might shoot you - but you have that choice to make.
Authority can never force anyone to do things against their will - but authority freely accepted can bind the will of another by their consent.

[sevenworlds]

What is wrong with authority?

One major flaw with authority... those who govern over me were also once a baby like me so where do they get this authority from?

[steevo]

But when they join the army, they know that they are signing up to be underneath an authority, that they will have to obey orders and that they are responsible for those choices. Although in the past they were not held legally responsible (until the Nuremburg trials when the rules changed - retrospectively aswell) but they were always held morally responsible. Just because they use an excuse doesn't mean their sense of responsibility is not there, doesn't mean they don't actually feel responsible, they might just be trying to get out of being judged or something.
But I have never heard anyone use the excuse "I was just following orders". Of course a leader should be held more responsible for what he tells his followers to do than them because he is the one orchestrating.

If they OBEY orders then I would think that they would be given more support during a prosecution than if they DIDNT obey orders. That is a conflict of interests.

When have you "never heard anyone use the excuse 'I was just following orders'" ? Are you in the Military ?
So a leader should be held MORE responsible ? Well that says SOMETHING about the role of authority figures then doesnt it.

[coshh]

One major flaw with authority... those who govern over me were also once a baby like me so where do they get this authority from?

Depends on your beleif system what you will think the answer is.
Simplistic answer: power.
Slightly different version: God or nature.
Slightly different version again: the consent of the governed.
(I would say all 4)

[steevo]

Authority is impossible without consent.
A person can put a gun to your head and tell you to do something, but without your consent you can just not do it, and they might shoot you - but you have that choice to make.
Authority can never force anyone to do things against their will - but authority freely accepted can bind the will of another by their consent.

:confused: BUT if someone DID put a gun to your head and you didnt want to die, then you MAY do what they tell you to do. That is FORCE.

[steevo]

Depends on your beleif system what you will think the answer is.
Simplistic answer: power.
Slightly different version: God or nature.
Slightly different version again: the consent of the governed.
(I would say all 4)

I would say deception.

[coshh]

If they OBEY orders then I would think that they would be given more support during a prosecution than if they DIDNT obey orders. That is a conflict of interests.

When have you "never heard anyone use the excuse 'I was just following orders'" ? Are you in the Military ?
So a leader should be held MORE responsible ? Well that says SOMETHING about the role of authority figures then doesnt it.
Of course a leader should be held more responsible. It was his WILL being enacted wheras the other people were co-operating with his will. They are responsible for their co-operation. The leader is responsible for his WILL.

Am I in the military? No. I am a woman. I don't believe women belong in the army. I also disapprove of modern warfare and of the foreign policy of the British state. I would join a Citizens Home Defense Militia perhaps which I believe should replace standing armies (supplemented perhaps by a return to a voluntary system of homage - partially because I think it would be funny for all the people that bought knighthoods to have to go to war as a result).

[quetzalcoatl]

IMO its most extreme forms have developed into thriving, lucrative industries; so much so that the PTB actively manufacture circumstances that require such regulation/control. E.G :- 911, org crime, incarceration institutes.

Sad thing is being relatively infantile on the evolutionary scale.. it almost seems we 'need' authoritive systems to maintain some sort of stability or perceptual safety. Yet, like most modern 'services' (for want of a better word) they only treat the symptoms, not the cause. E.G :- legal system, religion, health system.

This is an area where I agree with aspects of Islamic law.

I also reckon an anarchists society might just work..

[coshh]

:confused: BUT if someone DID put a gun to your head and you didnt want to die, then you MAY do what they tell you to do. That is FORCE.

But they still only have authority over you if you give it.
You can choose not to give it, sure there are consequences, but the only way to get rid of them is to have an even higher authority who can prevent mr gun to your head doing that (either by force or persuasion). Cliche as it is, they can take your life - but no-one, ever, can take your freedom.

[coshh]

I would say deception.
You can't deceive someone unless they already accept your authority.

[supertzar]

Why judge an abstract concept? Who sits around and goes "God, I hate the concept of authority! The very idea of it just boils my blood. I don't care about specific abuses by authority figures. I just hate authority itself."

[coshh]

Why judge an abstract concept? Who sits around and goes "God, I hate the concept of authority! The very idea of it just boils my blood. I don't care about specific abuses by authority figures. I just hate authority itself."
Many people, maybe not in those words... but I have met loads of people who even in a hypothetical situation of a totally benevolent, totally wise authority - they would not accept that because they cannot deal with the idea of anyone being above them or telling them what to do.

[steevo]

Of course a leader should be held more responsible. It was his WILL being enacted wheras the other people were co-operating with his will. They are responsible for their co-operation. The leader is responsible for his WILL.

Am I in the military? No. I am a woman. I don't believe women belong in the army. I also disapprove of modern warfare and of the foreign policy of the British state. I would join a Citizens Home Defense Militia perhaps which I believe should replace standing armies (supplemented perhaps by a return to a voluntary system of homage - partially because I think it would be funny for all the people that bought knighthoods to have to go to war as a result).

You seem to know alot about that sort of stuff to say you are not in the army. "Citizens Home Defense Militia" never hear of that, is it something new ? How old are you (roughly) cos you mentioned a careers officer (i think) which suggest that you are very young :confused:

[loderlive]

Many people, maybe not in those words... but I have met loads of people who even in a hypothetical situation of a totally benevolent, totally wise authority - they would not accept that because they cannot deal with the idea of anyone being above them or telling them what to do.

Their the best.

[sevenworlds]

Why judge an abstract concept?

That is all authority is isn't it? So I would say thought is responsible for authority.

[steevo]

You can't deceive someone unless they already accept your authority.

Of course you can :rolleyes: Anyone who trusts another person can be deceived.

[coshh]

You seem to know alot about that sort of stuff to say you are not in the army. "Citizens Home Defense Militia" never hear of that, is it something new ? How old are you (roughly) cos you mentioned a careers officer (i think) which suggest that you are very young :confused:
I am 22. I have in my short life started and quit many things.
A citizens home defense militia is an armed group of citizens organised around, generally a city or town or village, who organise in order to defend said city/town/village from external invaders should the land be attacked. Rather than an army which is paid wages by the state, the state or local authorities may or may not pay for the weapons, but the militia is organised and run by the citizens themselves.

I believe in this because I think in the absence of a return to feudalism, putting the real power of the state - the monopoly on violence - in the hands of localised citizen militias - is a key method by which a broad process of decentralisation can be achieved and the rather disturbing trend toward globalisation can be slowed.

I went to see a careers officer to see what university I should go to next (I've been before but I quit because I didn't like the way everyone just spent all their time getting drunk and didn't really have a clear plan for my life - now on the other hand I have a very clear plan for what I want to do and how I will do it).

[steevo]

Of course you can :rolleyes: Anyone who trusts another person can be deceived.

And bring fear into the equation and people would be willing to submit their liberties to these authority figures.

[coshh]

Of course you can :rolleyes: Anyone who trusts another person can be deceived.

If you trust someone to the point they can define what is true or false for you then they have a (fairly significant) degree of authority over you.

[steevo]

I am 22. I have in my short life started and quit many things.
A citizens home defense militia is an armed group of citizens organised around, generally a city or town or village, who organise in order to defend said city/town/village from external invaders should the land be attacked. Rather than an army which is paid wages by the state, the state or local authorities may or may not pay for the weapons, but the militia is organised and run by the citizens themselves.

I believe in this because I think in the absence of a return to feudalism, putting the real power of the state - the monopoly on violence - in the hands of localised citizen militias - is a key method by which a broad process of decentralisation can be achieved and the rather disturbing trend toward globalisation can be slowed.

I went to see a careers officer to see what university I should go to next (I've been before but I quit because I didn't like the way everyone just spent all their time getting drunk and didn't really have a clear plan for my life - now on the other hand I have a very clear plan for what I want to do and how I will do it).

You are in the UK ?

[coshh]

You are in the UK ?

Yes.

[steevo]

If you trust someone to the point they can define what is true or false for you then they have a (fairly significant) degree of authority over you.

So you agree with my comment ? Please reply without going around in circles.

[coshh]

So you agree with my comment ? Please reply without going around in circles.
Well in the sense that the ability to deceive someone is power. It doesn't fall outside my initial schema.

But you still need someones consent to be able to interfere with their freedom.

[steevo]

I am 22. I have in my short life started and quit many things.
A citizens home defense militia is an armed group of citizens organised around, generally a city or town or village, who organise in order to defend said city/town/village from external invaders should the land be attacked. Rather than an army which is paid wages by the state, the state or local authorities may or may not pay for the weapons, but the militia is organised and run by the citizens themselves.

I believe in this because I think in the absence of a return to feudalism, putting the real power of the state - the monopoly on violence - in the hands of localised citizen militias - is a key method by which a broad process of decentralisation can be achieved and the rather disturbing trend toward globalisation can be slowed.

I went to see a careers officer to see what university I should go to next (I've been before but I quit because I didn't like the way everyone just spent all their time getting drunk and didn't really have a clear plan for my life - now on the other hand I have a very clear plan for what I want to do and how I will do it).

You sound like just this bloke on here called Marpat or is it Adimon. ;)

"Citizens Home Defense Militia" ? Is it legal ? Sounds dangerous and very divisive :eek:

[Anders Lindman]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

When humanity matures, authority will not be a problem. Until then, authority can be dangerous. The idea that we blindly can trust people in positions of authority is laughable to me. ;)

[coshh]

You sound like just this bloke on here called Marpat or is it Adimon. ;)

"Citizens Home Defense Militia" ? Is it legal ? Sounds dangerous and very divisive :eek:

Legal? Um... well... since its not legal to bear arms in the UK. No. They had something like it in Switzerland a while back, not sure if they still do. It's basically a way to defend the nation without standing armies.

I've been accused of being Adimon/Marpat before.

[coshh]

When humanity matures, authority will not be a problem. Until then, authority can be dangerous. The idea that we blindly can trust people in positions of authority is laughable to me. ;)

You can't trust ANYONE, not even yourself.
That being so, other people and yourself are as likely to make mistakes as each other. Everything is dangerous. Life is dangerous.

[john white]

Authority per se is not the problem: but the consciousness behind the authority most certainly is. An identical Law can be passed in two different countries and in one is part of the fair running of society whilst in the other be used to oppress the people

The flaw in government is simply the flaw in ourselves magnified: the solution was only ever in one place: those the seek and find that solution dont actually need the authority anymore (and how that scares "them"!)

But when we have an excess of authority (usually in the form of mindless beaurocracy) then we have an excess of injustice, which is why those with power can never be trusted but must constantly be questioned and challenged

That is the citizens responsibility to maintaining their own freedom of course, and when we fail in that first we have to suffer the erosion of Freedom into Liberty, and if not checked, then the erosion of Liberty into Tyranny

[coshh]

Authority per se is not the problem: but the consciousness behind the authority most certainly is. An identical Law can be passed in two different countries and in one is part of the fair running of society whilst in the other be used to oppress the people

The flaw in government is simply the flaw in ourselves magnified: the solution was only ever in one place: those the seek and find that solution dont actually need the authority anymore (and how that scares "them"!)

But when we have an excess of authority (usually in the form of mindless beaurocracy) then we have an excess of injustice, which is why those with power can never be trusted but must constantly be questioned and challenged

That is the citizens responsibility to maintaining their own freedom of course, and when we fail in that first we have to suffer the erosion of Freedom into Liberty, and if not checked, then the erosion of Liberty into Tyranny
I can agree with that much.

[supertzar]

Many people, maybe not in those words... but I have met loads of people who even in a hypothetical situation of a totally benevolent, totally wise authority - they would not accept that because they cannot deal with the idea of anyone being above them or telling them what to do.

A totally benevolent and wise authority seems pretty abstract. I am having a hard time envisioning what that might mean.

[steevo]

When humanity matures, authority will not be a problem. Until then, authority can be dangerous. The idea that we blindly can trust people in positions of authority is laughable to me. ;)

That is the way that I see it too. When you say "matures" I assume you are meaning fully AWAKENED or something to that effect ?

I also agree with John White's comments.

[coshh]

A totally benevolent and wise authority seems pretty abstract. I am having a hard time envisioning what that might mean.
A hypothetical person who knows the effective thing to do in all the situations with which he is faced and who is only interested in the welfare of his subjects. Of course such a person is not possible, but even if it were some people would reject it.

[Anders Lindman]

You can't trust ANYONE, not even yourself.
That being so, other people and yourself are as likely to make mistakes as each other. Everything is dangerous. Life is dangerous.

But there is an evolutionary tendency towards maturity. If it wasn't, we would still live like baboons being prepared to defend our lives all the time.

[coshh]

But there is an evolutionary tendency towards maturity. If it wasn't, we would still live like baboons being prepared to defend our lives all the time.
Evolution isn't going toward anything...
It doesn't get better or worse, it just changes. IF and its a big IF we are any better than animals it is for supernatural reasons, not for natural (evolutionary) ones.

[Anders Lindman]

That is the way that I see it too. When you say "matures" I assume you are meaning fully AWAKENED or something to that effect ?

I also agree with John White's comments.

I believe there will be a shift where the dangerous pyramid of authority is replaced by other more developed and safe forms of authority.

One important part of that shift would be the discovery of the 911 attack being an inside job. That could create a massive change in how people look at authority.

[supertzar]

A perfect authority is kind of a loaded idea that seems to be difficult to isolate from experience in my opinion.

[Anders Lindman]

Evolution isn't going toward anything...
It doesn't get better or worse, it just changes. IF and its a big IF we are any better than animals it is for supernatural reasons, not for natural (evolutionary) ones.

Actually, I believe evolution is accelerating and that we today have reached a point where the process of evolution is going very fast.

The most obvious sign is progress in technology. Look at video games how they have evolved:

http://smoothjazzy.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pong.gif

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/876/876137/grid-20080522031830575.jpg

[coshh]

Technology has nothing to do with evolution.
Technological progress is not accompanied by social, moral or biological progress.
All it means is we are better now at manipulating our environment, which was pretty inevitable once we learned how to write.

[Anders Lindman]

Technology has nothing to do with evolution.
Technological progress is not accompanied by social, moral or biological progress.
All it means is we are better now at manipulating our environment, which was pretty inevitable once we learned how to write.

The universe evolves as a whole. There is not the universe PLUS video games. There is the universe INCLUDING video games. A bird's nest is a simple form of construction. A video game is a more advanced form of development. Both bird nests and video games are the result of evolution in action.

"Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations. In Evolution in Four Dimensions, Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb argue that there is more to heredity than genes. They trace four "dimensions" in evolution -- four inheritance systems that play a role in evolution: genetic, epigenetic (or non-DNA cellular transmission of traits), behavioral, and symbolic (transmission through language and other forms of symbolic communication). These systems, they argue, can all provide variations on which natural selection can act. Evolution in Four Dimensions offers a richer, more complex view of evolution than the gene-based, one-dimensional view held by many today. The new synthesis advanced by Jablonka and Lamb makes clear that induced and acquired changes also play a role in evolution."

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10470

[Anders Lindman]

Most authority today is probably working quite well. For thousands of years in history, strict obedience to authority has been needed to prevent civilizations from regressing into animal-level societies. In a baboon society for example there is a strict ranking of authority, but these are fragile hierarchies of power which can, and often do, crash when the social ranking among the baboons no longer can be upheld. Humans have through history been able to set up much more reliable hierarchies of authority.

So the strict obedience to authority has been a necessary part of human civilizations.

The problem today seems to exist in the upper parts of the power pyramid to which lack of accountability and transparency has been pushed. This secret form of authority can today wield its power often in the name of 'national security'. And this clustering of dangerous authority at the top of the power pyramid can explain how for example the 911 attack could have been an inside job.

[kingmonkey]

What is wrong with authority?

Nothing in theory, most tribes and groups of any kind will appoint leaders, elders, shaman to guide them and keep a perspective in times of crisis,war etc. but those are chosen or have risen to the top by acts that have earned them respect and trust. The leaders in today's societies have more often than not lied, cheated, murdered and stolen from their own and others to get to where they are. They're power hungry and genocidal. I personally don't have a problem with authority; I just have a problem with the corrupt and malevolent kind we currently have.

Leaders need to have the trust and respect of their people, all the leaders of today crave is praise from their masters and crumbs off their tables.

[coshh]

Nothing in theory, most tribes and groups of any kind will appoint leaders, elders, shaman to guide them and keep a perspective in times of crisis,war etc. but those are chosen or have risen to the top by acts that have earned them respect and trust. The leaders in today's societies have more often than not lied, cheated, murdered and stolen from their own and others to get to where they are. They're power hungry and genocidal. I personally don't have a problem with authority; I just have a problem with the corrupt and malevolent kind we currently have.

Leaders need to have the trust and respect of their people, all the leaders of today crave is praise from their masters and crumbs off their tables.
Apart from the blanket generalisation of ALL the leaders (really, not one single leader in the whole world, not some tribal elder somewhere, not some head of a small company or organisation?) I would largely accept these sentiments.

[supertzar]

more often than not is what was said. No "blanket generalisation of all leaders."

[kingmonkey]

Apart from the blanket generalisation of ALL the leaders (really, not one single leader in the whole world, not some tribal elder somewhere, not some head of a small company or organisation?) I would largely accept these sentiments.

I didn't mean all as in "all of them", i meant all as in "the only thing the leaders of today crave...etc."

But yeah, it's still somewhat of a generalization, but i couldn't think of anyone who stood out as being particularly moral to use in contrast.

[coshh]

I didn't mean all as in "all of them", i meant all as in "the only thing the leaders of today crave...etc."

But yeah, it's still somewhat of a generalization, but i couldn't think of anyone who stood out as being particularly moral to use in contrast.

ah yes, I realise now. 'veBeen awake rather too long methinks.

[kingmonkey]

Haha, I know the feeling...

[esse]

Hi esse,

Yes we need this natural leadership you speak of and perhaps you know more about it than me but I was under the impression it did not come from authority and power but through observation and guidance. It may be an authority the child will seek in you but not an authority you give to the child. And their lies the difference. In essence you replant your leadership in free will not dominance. For their is no way this figure has means to abuse its authority because it is not their in the first instance. The idea that someone has authority over me does not in any way feel right to me.

Hey LL - I just looked up the definition of the word and it is confusing. I see yr point and Cosh's - I knew what he was getting at... the problem is there are 2 different ways to use the word... To be an authority on something - to have superior knowledge, ability.. what have you
or To have the power to enforce Laws - which I'd agree with you on... for the most part... I mean tribal elders dealing with someone in the tribe committing a serious crime against others and coming from the right place - this is natural, justice... but in our "system" justice conveniently wears a blindfold whilst the cornocopia of abundance flows out downward into the gutters... not to the people.. Corruption is rife, as I noted...
Anyway, I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, the word does have a lot of negative connotations and meanings... it can also be something one acquires, the dictionary says with accomplishment, maturity of ability - or one something acts with... which can be righteous (and not..) so yeah - I thought it good to balance out the debate anyway with the side that was being underrepresented :)

[esse]

Nothing in theory, most tribes and groups of any kind will appoint leaders, elders, shaman to guide them and keep a perspective in times of crisis,war etc. but those are chosen or have risen to the top by acts that have earned them respect and trust. The leaders in today's societies have more often than not lied, cheated, murdered and stolen from their own and others to get to where they are. They're power hungry and genocidal. I personally don't have a problem with authority; I just have a problem with the corrupt and malevolent kind we currently have.

Leaders need to have the trust and respect of their people, all the leaders of today crave is praise from their masters and crumbs off their tables.

Totally KM - that's about it... do away with the corruption, nothing wrong with genuine leadership..etc...

[resevaz]

Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

- from Edmund Burke's 'Letter to a Member of the National Assembly' (1791)

[kingmonkey]

Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

- from Edmund Burke's 'Letter to a Member of the National Assembly' (1791)

There would be plenty of it "within" if we hadn't unwittingly handed it over to the powers that be (the "without") over the centuries. They've essentially stripped us of the ability of self governance and then blamed us for not having any.

I think Alan Watt said something like, "It's similar to crippling a child, then blaming it because it can't walk when you tell it to". Same applies here.

[lifeofbrian]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

We, all of us, depend on authority between the ages 0-18. The dictators are called parents.

Some of us accept personal responsibility from then on, some of us do not.

Hence nanny states and what not.

The only solution that will ever work: Grow Up.

[thirdwave]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

nothing wrong with authority one little bit... its how that authority is put in place and who holds it.

[coshh]

nothing wrong with authority one little bit... its how that authority is put in place and who holds it.

Personally neither of those things matter to me. What matters to me is what authority does. If it does good things on balance, I don't care how it got there.

[loderlive]

nothing wrong with authority one little bit... its how that authority is put in place and who holds it.

is that indeed not the problem with authority.

[matthew84]

Life of Brian, of course you are right; the original blur-print for authority is the parental couple.

The mother and baby are a DYAD and can continue in the blissful state until the baby realises there is another pull on mum's attention - the FATHER.

How do we negotiate this difficult/tricky realisation?

Well, many, many books have been written on the subject but make no mistake, we will all have our own particular set of emotional feelings about the DYAD and the triangular emergergence of the father/other human beings/external reality.

I made an earlier post asking people on this forum to think about these matters because in my opinion they are central to how we relate to one another and how we form opinions about authority and how we see authority morphing into authoritarianism which is a very different beast altogether and which I think are all to easily conflated.

David Icke is our authority figure, we are on his website, he says think for yourself - and we do.

Even if we disagree with him we have INTERNALISED something good from him, he has modelled something about authority which we have INTROJECTED and which is helping us to function and to communicate with one another in external reality.

[matthew84]

So our understanding about authority is different from our feelings about authority and both are part of an process which takes place over years and inter-relates between the thinking mind and the experiencing and feeling body.

What was our experience of the father? Of our fathers? Did we all have one? Were they benign? Were they pussy-whipped by our mothers? Were the neglectful/abusive/distant/caring?

These questions can only be answered on an individual basis.

But can you trust your answer?

Probably not because you may have a wish to IDEALISE your father. Or you may wish to DENIGRATE your father. Or some combination of the two, perhaps?

Bib Brother is getting bigger and taking more and more control becuase we individuals are not addressing these questions honestly and with the help of others who genuinely care about us. Human relationships are the thing that clarify and expose some of the truths about out own issues to/with authority.

We are approaching the tip of the ice-berg.

[coshh]

...matthew... are you into Freud?

[matthew84]

I have a Post-graduate diploma in psychodynamic practice from the Tavistock Clinic.

I think Freud is interesting, I would not say I am a Freudian but I think some attempt to think about these questions in deeper, more individual way, might throw some light on what is happening politically at the moment.

I prefer some of the female revisionist psychoanalysts and I quite like Luce Irigary.

[matthew84]

But the broad question about authority relates to how we can become our own authorities and that is a lifetimes work and we can pick and chose which authorities we take in.

On this site, I'd hazard a guess that we are taking in authorities like Icke which make us question things, make us try to think.

But in doing that are we ignoring, possibly how our thinking function is occluded by our FEELING?

How do these things inter-relate on the question of authority?

Why do we feel alientated/betrayed/deceived by our government?

Is it the case in objective reality?

I'd say we are in a process of becoming a post-democratic society where we don think for ourselves more and do rely less on traditional authority figures - but we do still need them and they do still have a role to play, not least because our internalised parental voice will still be looming large in our decision making facilities. We are all products of each other, in a sense. I was brought up a Calvinist.......so was Gordon Brown. He tells poor people it is stoic and correct to resist wage increases. It is his programming. Can he see it, I wonder? Can we see our own programming? Part of being an adolescent is to rebel against authority. Then, later, you become an authority yourself.......

The father has helped the mother who you love by giving her a break from the baby that you were; someday, you realise this and you stop resenting authority for personal reasons and can form a more authentic political conscience...

[kingmonkey]

Why do we feel alientated/betrayed/deceived by our government?

Because they've alienated, betrayed and deceived us!

[coshh]

I used to have a religion that I invented myself (stealing ideas from others whenever it helped) who's core aim was the attainment of "self-sovereignty".

Then one day I had a firm realisation that I did not belong to myself. I couldn't quite get my head around what I did belong to at the time, but the firm sense that I couldn't just live my life "for myself" and say "meh" to anything outside myself was there. And where I would have resisted and fought with all my power against this in my prior "sovreignity" religion - I had changed. I was ok with it. I am still free in belonging to the other - because I can always neglect to give what duty requires of me - I always have that choice - but likewise I always have that duty.

And I am not sure it is possible to express how freeing it is to realise that and to be able to trust to such a depth that you are willing to let go of yourself, not escaping yourself or your responsibility at all, but trust, and love in the Other.

[matthew84]

Damn right Kingmonkey, they certainly have.

You're not paranoid if they are actually out to get you and I agree, they are out to get us.

[coshh]

My government is not out to get me... its out to attain certain objectives (most of which I disagree with) and doesn't have the slightest interest in me at all one way or the other.

[Anders Lindman]

I'd say we are in a process of becoming a post-democratic society where we don think for ourselves more and do rely less on traditional authority figures - but we do still need them and they do still have a role to play

Yes, that may be true. Hierarchies of authority will still be needed as the backbone of society, but we have perhaps reached a limit of how much such rigid hierarchies can manage. The next big step in development will likely have to come from individuals becoming more sovereign with more personal integrity. From that a kind of social network structure will emerge in addition to traditional hierarchies of authority. That will be needed I believe for society to be able to deal with growing complexity and information flow.

[coshh]

Yes, that may be true. Hierarchies of authority will still be needed as the backbone of society, but we have perhaps reached a limit of how much such rigid hierarchies can manage. The next big step in development will likely have to come from individuals becoming more sovereign with more personal integrity. From that a kind of social network structure will emerge in addition to traditional hierarchies of authority. That will be needed I believe for society to be able to deal with growing complexity and information flow.

Can someone invent me a time machine before we reach this brave new world where the whole of society is like the internet because I really, really do not want to live in a world like that.
I want a world where there is some solidity in the bonds between people.

[matthew84]

Anders and Cohse, you are not necessarily envisaging different worlds......

I think you are both right: as technology increases and society becomes more complex the best way of negotiating that is by greater personal sovreignty, more integrity AND closer, more authentic, meaningful bonds between people.

Humanity is struggling with it at the moment becuase things are all going so fast and we have no time to contemplate and extrapolate how our own experiences/ideas can meld with a new society/way of being. It's exciting potentially.

[Anders Lindman]

Can someone invent me a time machine before we reach this brave new world where the whole of society is like the internet because I really, really do not want to live in a world like that.
I want a world where there is some solidity in the bonds between people.

But the bonding you mention here IS the networking structure I was describing. Instead of 'networking structure' which sounds very computer-like I admit :D the term 'bonding' could be used.

In society today the bonding between people is usually only strong between family members and friends. That's a very small clique. The number of social bonds will become larger as society develops further.

Pure hierarchies of authority don't have horizontal bonds (friendship). They only have rigid and imposed vertical bonds (the boss tells you what to do).

[matthew84]

Coolness Anders

[coshh]

But the bonding you mention here IS the networking structure I was describing. Instead of 'networking structure' which sounds very computer-like I admit :D the term 'bonding' could be used.

In society today the bonding between people is usually only strong between family members and friends. That's a very small clique. The number of social bonds will become larger as society develops further.

Pure hierarchies of authority don't have horizontal bonds (friendship). They only have rigid and imposed vertical bonds (the boss tells you what to do).
I think rigid and unchosen bonds are better. Chosen bonds can be unchosen - you can abandon your friends, but unchosen bonds you are stuck with - you cannot just stop being someones parent/child/sister/brother. I think social relationships (the ones which society functions on) should be more like familial bonds which cannot be broken than the fluid and changable bonds of friendship. When you can choose it breeds intolerance of difference, expectation of agreement or specific kinds of behavior. When people have to stick together it makes them more accepting and loving of each other.

[empyblessing]

There should be no laws and no one of authority.

[coshh]

There should be no laws and no one of authority.
How in a world without authority and law do you prevent people creating authority and law? Or is it just a temporary state you envision for the laying down of a new authority and law?

Its awfully limiting to human creativity to tell humanity it may not create laws for itself or follow leaders when it sees fit.

[empyblessing]

There shall be only one law.

[Anders Lindman]

I think rigid and unchosen bonds are better. Chosen bonds can be unchosen - you can abandon your friends, but unchosen bonds you are stuck with - you cannot just stop being someones parent/child/sister/brother. I think social relationships (the ones which society functions on) should be more like familial bonds which cannot be broken than the fluid and changable bonds of friendship. When you can choose it breeds intolerance of difference, expectation of agreement or specific kinds of behavior. When people have to stick together it makes them more accepting and loving of each other.

Both/and I think. Both permanent bonds and more temporary bonds and flexible permanent bonds and all kinds of bonds.

As Peter Russel said, society maybe develops similar to the human brain. In the fetus the brain first grows very fast, probably in a rigid and hierarchical structure, and then the growth slows down and then instead the growth is about connecting neurons together (bonding).

In a similar way, society today has grown very large but the bonding between people is still not much developed.

[coshh]

Both/and I think. Both permanent bonds and more temporary bonds and flexible permanent bonds and all kinds of bonds.

As Peter Russel said, society maybe develops similar to the human brain. In the fetus the brain first grows very fast, probably in a rigid and hierarchical structure, and then the growth slows down and then instead the growth is about connecting neurons together (bonding).

In a similar way, society today has grown very large but the bonding between people is still not much developed.
I think thinking in this way about humanity tends toward dehumanising the individual and delegitimising the needs of the human individual by making the development of society as a whole more important than individual needs.

[matthew84]

Coshh, you said you'd prefer if society had rigidly enforced bonds between people in order that they cannot stop being close in the manner that a parent/child/sibling cannot escapte their role assignement.

Well, I think that plenty of people eschew these roles for their own reasons, which i'm sure are many. But it is interesting that you are seeking some kind of secure human bonding that you almost want 'society' or 'authority' to enfore for you.

It makes me wonder why this might appeal to you?

I think Anders is advocating close ties and intimate human connectiveness within a social structure of increasing population and complexity; these ties will be elective because people like to make their own choices, no? These relationships will become as important as the authority figures who add a smaller tranch to the social glue.

On the no law issue, I currently feel that the government is breaking the law and has little respect for it so I don't feel that compelled to comply with it either.

[coshh]

Coshh, you said you'd prefer if society had rigidly enforced bonds between people in order that they cannot stop being close in the manner that a parent/child/sibling cannot escapte their role assignement.

Well, I think that plenty of people eschew these roles for their own reasons, which i'm sure are many. But it is interesting that you are seeking some kind of secure human bonding that you almost want 'society' or 'authority' to enfore for you.

It makes me wonder why this might appeal to you?

I think its human nature to want that and I see nothing wrong with that.
We evolved in groups we depended on not in groups we could pick and choose on a whim. We evolved to form close tribalistic bonds with less than 100 other people - not loose diffuse bonds which we switch from person to person in a large network of thousands or millions.

I think the people who dislike the idea dislike it either because they've never had a solid relationship because modern society discourages them or because they never matured beyond the whole "differentiating myself" stage of adolescence or they actually do like the idea but don't want to think of themselves as the kind of person who does.

[Anders Lindman]

I think thinking in this way about humanity tends toward dehumanising the individual and delegitimising the needs of the human individual by making the development of society as a whole more important than individual needs.

It is each individual who must become more powerful, not the government, for this increased bonding to become possible. The tendency of more and more Orwellian control is a sign, maybe of an NWO agenda yes, but also a sign of the governments having reached their limit of how much they can manage.

The government cannot create true bonding between people. True bonding is between individuals.

[matthew84]

I think its human nature to want that and I see nothing wrong with that.
We evolved in groups we depended on not in groups we could pick and choose on a whim. We evolved to form close tribalistic bonds with less than 100 other people - not loose diffuse bonds which we switch from person to person in a large network of thousands or millions.

I see nothing wrong with anything you want but the truth about bonds of strength is that they are not enforceable by anyone. They are bonds of choice. Fathers can abandon, children can turn their backs on their families, siblings can be indifferent/warring.

We select our partners by falling in love, not because someone decrees this person ought to be with this particuar person. Although maybe you'd like someone in authority to select someone for you (who you'd find acceptible and genetically/socially compatible obviously) and who would be made to never leave you?

[coshh]

It is each individual who must become more powerful, not the government, for this increased bonding to become possible. The tendency of more and more Orwellian control is a sign, maybe of an NWO agenda yes, but also a sign of the governments having reached their limit of how much they can manage.

The government cannot create true bonding between people. True bonding is between individuals.
The government IS bonding between individuals. When you fill in a tax return that is a relationship you are engaging in, with people. I think we need closer, more decentralised and less "diffuse" but more rigid and organic relationships. That's why I prefer the oaths of feudalism to the contracts of capitalism.

[coshh]

I see nothing wrong with anything you want but the truth about bonds of strength is that they are not enforceable by anyone. They are bonds of choice. Fathers can abandon, children can turn their backs on their families, siblings can be indifferent/warring.

We select our partners by falling in love, not because someone decrees this person ought to be with this particuar person. Although maybe you'd like someone in authority to select someone for you (who you'd find acceptible and genetically/socially compatible obviously) and who would be made to never leave you?
I wanted arragned marriage for a while but my dad said no. Love happens to people because those people are close, work together, are good to one another etc. You are saying love should come first then proximity, but in reality it works the other way round.

You can't force people to love each other - but a condition of choice makes love less likely because people will often choose to give up when things are difficult.

[matthew84]

"I wanted an arranged marriage and my dad said no"

I now understand why you began this thread.

A tax return is not a relationship, it is a contract. The government recently passed a law refusing to allow the public to know how much tax payer cash is being handed over by our elected representatives to bail out floundering banks. So whilst I agree with your disdain for global corporate capitalism, I disagree with your desire to comply with it.

I think the earlier comments about the importance of everyone one of us going through our own individual process are important. You are on your path, I wish you well.

[Anders Lindman]

I wanted arragned marriage for a while but my dad said no. Love happens to people because those people are close, work together, are good to one another etc. You are saying love should come first then proximity, but in reality it works the other way round.

You can't force people to love each other - but a condition of choice makes love less likely because people will often choose to give up when things are difficult.

The increased bonding may not need to change ordinary bonding such as friends, marriage etc. Instead the trick could be to transform the 'enemy' bonds into 'no enemy' bonds, at least no serious enemy. This would not mean that everybody in the world would become my friend or lover, but it would mean that I wouldn't have anything to fear from 'strangers'. That would be a huge step. Almost incomprehensible from our level of social development we have today, yet in the human brain the neurons are not each other's 'enemies' and in a similar way society may be moving in the same direction as the development of the human brain, but on a much larger scale taking more time.

[coshh]

"I wanted an arranged marriage and my dad said no"

I now understand why you began this thread.

A tax return is not a relationship, it is a contract. The government recently passed a law refusing to allow the public to know how much tax payer cash is being handed over by our elected representatives to bail out floundering banks. So whilst I agree with your disdain for global corporate capitalism, I disagree with your desire to comply with it.A contract is a relationship, what else would it be, you and another party are interacting. You are not alone in acting under a contract, rather there is an interaction. The government doesn't actually pass laws, people do, people who should be held responsible by mentioning who they are rather than hiding them in the term "the government".

I think one should obey whenever it is not immoral to obey. If the government asked me to do something immoral, I'd not do it. But if its not immoral to do something then why not do it out of charity or for the sake of the peace.

[coshh]

The increased bonding may not need to change ordinary bonding such as friends, marriage etc. Instead the trick could be to transform the 'enemy' bonds into 'no enemy' bonds, at least no serious enemy. This would not mean that everybody in the world would become my friend or lover, but it would mean that I wouldn't have anything to fear from 'strangers'. That would be a huge step. Almost incomprehensible from our level of social development we have today, yet in the human brain the neurons are not each other's 'enemies' and in a similar way society may be moving in the same direction as the development of the human brain, but on a much larger scale taking more time.I don't have any "enemy" bonds...

[matthew84]

And the paradox of staying with someone through the hard times is exactly where its beauty lies - if I stay with you only because I am compelled to by some other or some law or some external requirement, then the tenderness of the sacrfice is nullified.

Proximity of the physical body is 3 dimensional thinking, we are multidimensional beings, we can connect anywhere and everywhere. The soul will find what it needs. More of us need to trust this process, as Anders has been pointing out. We need not fear, we need to be open to everything and all things.

When someone in your authority says "no" then you begin to think, rather than demand.

[coshh]

And the paradox of staying with someone through the hard times is exactly where its beauty lies - if I stay with you only because I am compelled to by some other or some law or some external requirement, then the tenderness of the sacrfice is nullified.You stay with someone because you decided to. There is no law outside of will, law cannot compel the will. All law is internal before it is real. No-one can make you do anything at all.

Proximity of the physical body is 3 dimensional thinking, we are multidimensional beings, we can connect anywhere and everywhere. The soul will find what it needs. More of us need to trust this process, as Anders has been pointing out. We need not fear, we need to be open to everything and all things. Well as I am sure is clear I don't believe these theories.

When someone in your authority says "no" then you begin to think, rather than demand.I assure you people think (or don't) regardless. And a wise authority would only demand when there was no other option (for instance a parent stopping a child running in front of a car, there is no time to explain) but that doesn't mean its not good even to obey unwise authorities at times. Meister Eckhart's talks on obedience are wonderful explanations of this.

But one big difference here is that I trust and believe in God - I believe so long as I do nothing actively wrong that anything I obey from another comes from God and will be turned toward good. I do not believe I can understand everything and perfectly evaluate the wisdom behind any command.

[Anders Lindman]

I don't have any "enemy" bonds...

But we all have potential enemies. Some 99.99999% of all people in the world are strangers to us. When we are among strangers we don't feel safe.

Instead of having almost all people in the world as strangers to me, I would like to have them as them being a ZERO threat to me. That's something almost incomprehensible in today's societies. Heck, not even a husband may experience his wife as zero threat, and may for example be hiding information from her out of fear. :eek::D

[coshh]

But we all have potential enemies. Some 99.99999% of all people in the world are strangers to us. When we are among strangers we don't feel safe.

Instead of having almost all people in the world as strangers to me, I would like to have them as them being a ZERO threat to me. That's something almost incomprehensible in today's societies. Heck, not even a husband may experience his wife as zero threat, and may for example be hiding information from her out of fear. :eek::D
I don't want a world where no-one is a potential threat... the only way to make that happen is for everyone to have the same will.
I like that we all have often conflicting will. If we had all the same will there would be no contrasts between cultures, no distinctions, nothing...

[matthew84]

In feudal law, the local lord had first go at a virgin on her wedding night. This was law. There is Roman Law, Civil Law, Contract Law, Case Law. I do not hold that any of these laws to have anything whatsoever to do with my 'inner world'.

Perhaps those who espouse Sharia Law would have a different view.

We clearly have different metaphysical opinions, c'est la vie.

[Anders Lindman]

I don't want a world where no-one is a potential threat... the only way to make that happen is for everyone to have the same will.
I like that we all have often conflicting will. If we had all the same will there would be no contrasts between cultures, no distinctions, nothing...

You mean a hive-mind society like the Borgs. That's not what anyone wants except perhaps the Illuminati. Conflicts can be good. Competition is often good. What I mean is the destructive kinds of conflicts. The fear-based kind of conflicts. The whole world reeks of fear and of protection, protection, protection.

I think we need an evolutionary leap into a global mind or something like that. Not the hive-mind type. :eek: The free individual type. :)

[coshh]

In feudal law, the local lord had first go at a virgin on her wedding night. This was law. There is Roman Law, Civil Law, Contract Law, Case Law. I do not hold that any of these laws to have anything whatsoever to do with my 'inner world'.They do in the sense that you can choose to act the way you want regardless of them. For them to control your behavior you need to give them legitimacy.

And as someone who has studied the feudal ages in depth I can say at least in the UK that was just not true.
For more information about it see the last three paragraphs of this snopes thing:
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/customs/droit.asp

But anyway, in the feudal ages Christianity was the main religion in Europe (Shinto in Feudal Japan and Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism in Feudal China - its arguable if any other societies experienced full blown feudalism.) which would make it against a higher law than mans law (God's law) to engage in this practice and thus under the values of the system itself wrong and illicit.

[lifeofbrian]

Life of Brian, of course you are right; the original blur-print for authority is the parental couple.

The mother and baby are a DYAD and can continue in the blissful state until the baby realises there is another pull on mum's attention - the FATHER.

How do we negotiate this difficult/tricky realisation?

Well, many, many books have been written on the subject but make no mistake, we will all have our own particular set of emotional feelings about the DYAD and the triangular emergergence of the father/other human beings/external reality.

I made an earlier post asking people on this forum to think about these matters because in my opinion they are central to how we relate to one another and how we form opinions about authority and how we see authority morphing into authoritarianism which is a very different beast altogether and which I think are all to easily conflated.

David Icke is our authority figure, we are on his website, he says think for yourself - and we do.

Even if we disagree with him we have INTERNALISED something good from him, he has modelled something about authority which we have INTROJECTED and which is helping us to function and to communicate with one another in external reality.

Hello matt, many thanks :)

Well, personally I reckon our relationship with "Mother" shapes our emotional side and the "Father" ditto the mental. Cue internal conflict. (Sorry, not a big fan of the Oidipus thing myself; had a very emotionally mature Dad and a friendly non-possessive Mum.) Here's how I reckon growing up can be tough: questioning the truths of loving parents. If we rely on loving parents to have told us the truth and we later find out they didn't "know it all" -- do we toss them and their love out with the falsehood-bath water?

:)

Likewise; people building their lives upon certain dogma and views of the world cannot afford to listen to conspiracy theories if theirs is a world of rationality as in "seeing is believing" ('Ay've neva witnessed a satanic killink so it's bollocks ay fink'). They can only adjust to having been fooled if their emotional selves are fulfilled. (Pop-psychology in a nutshell, forgive me.) Back to authorities: teachers and the like. Those "doing their job" without emotional investments, apart from their egos/a.k.a. recognition for a job well done.

Too right, we're on the David Icke official forum. Personally I back the man because I support his right to speak his truth and he isn't a complete loon. That aside, many of my views differ from his considerably. In many ways I recognise he is a "late bloomer" as, for example, I read Sitchin in the late 1970s and a host of other areas that David Icke has researched was common knowledge before he even started writing books; for example Michael Talbot; The Holographic Universe, 1989.

What is important to recognise in the day and age of the personal thouch of the Internet is that since we communicate thought-to-thought, is appears more genuine. Our thoughts are directly invaded as opposed to via vocal chords and body language as well.

Authority figures are people claiming to know more than you do and more than you ever will.

That's their trade mark.

Why?

They want your business/attention/energy/money/power.

[coshh]

You mean a hive-mind society like the Borgs. That's not what anyone wants except perhaps the Illuminati. Conflicts can be good. Competition is often good. What I mean is the destructive kinds of conflicts. The fear-based kind of conflicts. The whole world reeks of fear and of protection, protection, protection.

I think we need an evolutionary leap into a global mind or something like that. Not the hive-mind type. :eek: The free individual type. :)
Free individuals conflict. Destruction is not always bad. Fear is as much a part of life as any other emotion.

[the itinerant shrubber]

Truth is;we dont need authority. Humans are naturally egalitarian.
Who always tells us that we need authority? Authority!!:eek:

[coshh]

Truth is;we dont need authority. Humans are naturally egalitarian.
Have you a single piece of evidence for this at all? Has single totally egalitarian society ever existed? Even in very primitive societies (pre-agriculture) there is division of labour and hierarchy.

[matthew84]

Well if you advocate breaking the law because of some adherence to a higher authority (God, morality) then you are as anti-authoritarian as the next person Coshh.

You have some serious contradictions in your thinking.

[the itinerant shrubber]

Have you a single piece of evidence for this at all? Has single totally egalitarian society ever existed? Even in very primitive societies (pre-agriculture) there is division of labour and hierarchy.

Look at the Amerindians and the Australian Aborigine's for a start.

[coshh]

Well if you advocate breaking the law because of some adherence to a higher authority (God, morality) then you are as anti-authoritarian as the next person Coshh.No that genuine authoritarianism. You can't justify breaking a higher law by a lower law that's absurd. That's like if a policeman told me to kill someone I should do it even though killing is illegal, that's ridiculous, the law is what gives the police his authority so he cannot make anyone do anything outside the law. Likewise God is what gives earthly authorities their power so if they advocate doing things that are against God's law then no-one is under any obligation to listen.

[coshh]

Look at the Amerindians and the Australian Aborigine's for a start.
Narrow it down to a specific tribe, there are many all with different social structures. I don't know much about Aborigines (apart from that case where the 8 year old girl who was raped didn't have her assailants prosecuted because they said its "normal in her culture"). As for American Indians all the tribes I've heard of have hierarchies and division of labour.

[lifeofbrian]

A contract is a relationship, what else would it be, you and another party are interacting. You are not alone in acting under a contract, rather there is an interaction. The government doesn't actually pass laws, people do, people who should be held responsible by mentioning who they are rather than hiding them in the term "the government".

I think one should obey whenever it is not immoral to obey. If the government asked me to do something immoral, I'd not do it. But if its not immoral to do something then why not do it out of charity or for the sake of the peace.

Pray, clarify your own "moral code".

[lightgiver]

Trouble today with today's and yesterdays AUTHORITY,its CORRUPT to the CORE:rolleyes:

[matthew84]

Only in your paradigm view is god's law 'higher' than ordinary law.

That's entirely subjective.

On a personal note, I think your difficulty with authority centres around your father's refusal of your arranged marriage. You want very desperately to believe he is right because to disagree with him would be psychically intolerable for you.

[Anders Lindman]

Free individuals conflict. Destruction is not always bad. Fear is as much a part of life as any other emotion.

Fear is VERY much a part of humanity at this moment and always has been. But the future is not necessarily what it used to be.

Constructive destruction is good and needed for creation to be possible.

Fear is only needed when we are confused and/or helpless. Or fear as entertainment as in watching a scary movie, but that's another kind of fear which is of the good kind.

The more individual and personal power we get, the less fear we will need. The good kind of power. Not the tyrannical kind of power which leaves the person having the power even more fearful (like Stalin who out of paranoia killed many of his fellow men).

[coshh]

Pray, clarify your own "moral code".

Above all: Love God and love thy neighbour.
Apart from that:
Cultivate:
Wisdom, humility, compassion, prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice, charity, consideration, understanding, and joyfulness.

Avoid:
Pride, greed, envy, acedia, lust, wrath, gluttony.

Repay all debts. Be unceasingly loyal to: truth, God, kin and mankind. Follow the ten commandments. Repent of wrongdoing. Help the suffering. Stand firm in the face of injustice and be docile in the face of justice.

[matthew84]

Quite agree Lightgiver.

And thanks for the reply Lifeof Brian.

[coshh]

Only in your paradigm view is god's law 'higher' than ordinary law.If God exists it cannot be otherwise because God is omnipotent. If he doesn't exist its a moot point because there is no "God's law" (and in my opinion that would mean there is no right and wrong and I would be perfectly justified in attempting to conquer the world and bending it to my whims)

That's entirely subjective.No, it may be right or wrong but its not a matter of choice because IF its right by definition its right for everyone.

On a personal note, I think your difficulty with authority centres around your father's refusal of your arranged marriage.I didn't want or ask for an arrange marriage until after I had decided I believed in the principle of authority. You want very desperately to believe he is right because to disagree with him would be psychically intolerable for you.I don't think he is right. I think he is wrong. But I respect and abide by his decision anyway.

[lifeofbrian]

Quite agree Lightgiver.

And thanks for the reply Lifeof Brian.

Thank you Matt.

[coshh]

Fear is VERY much a part of humanity at this moment and always has been. But the future is not necessarily what it used to be.Mankind shows no signs of having ever changed before, why would he suddenly change now?

Fear is only needed when we are confused and/or helpless. Fear is useless when you are confused and helpless. Fear is needed when you are in danger and need to quickly find and enact a plan to neutralise that danger. When you are helpless then there is no point being afraid because there is nothing you can do. Fear is what gives us the energy to deal with situations that threaten our goals.

The more individual and personal power we get, the less fear we will need. The good kind of power.More power gives you more reason to fear because (unless you dont use your power) you will have more and greater goals with more power and there is then more threats around that those goals might not succeed.

[matthew84]

Where to begin.

You state you believe in God, so you have decided that his law is higher than ordinary law, but that only applies to you, not to those of us who may or may not believe in god. Yet you argue for a cohesive, intimate society, whilst being obviously blind to the fact that your views are not held by others.

Anarchy is a valid political option in the views of some. We then have to find the equilibrium of our own authority rather than submitting to those we disagree with.

You are using intellectualisation as a defence when you say:"I only decided on an arranged marriage when I decided to accept authority."

Nevertheless, it is a valid code to live by, it is your choice to decide to do what someone else tells you for the understandable reason that he is your father. Good for you. You are a good girl, and, logically, it all makes sense.

As I said before I wish you well.

But I feel you are still struggling with something.

[the itinerant shrubber]

Narrow it down to a specific tribe, there are many all with different social structures. I don't know much about Aborigines (apart from that case where the 8 year old girl who was raped didn't have her assailants prosecuted because they said its "normal in her culture"). As for American Indians all the tribes I've heard of have hierarchies and division of labour.

Bit of unreasonable request isnt it? Look at any stone age society and you will see the same thing and your puzzling comment insinuating that aboriginies habitually rape their women tells me that you already have a view set in stone anyway.
Egalitarianism has nothing to do with divisions of labour or hierachy btw. All tribes have different classes obviously. The hunter,the shaman/witch doctor,etc but they're only classes that by observation we impose upon them with our way of thinking.

A group of people living together may have different rolls in the house as agony aunt,organiser,handy-man etc but it doesnt mean that they're not free to do as they wish.Their roles have come about naturally and the roles are just a convinient way of catagorising something.
Every tribe has a chief but chief doesnt mean boss,it means a chosen elder whom the tribe go to for council. Every member of the tribe is treated equally and is free to follow their own path in life.
If you're definition of authority is someones right to tell someone else what to do then it's a concept that flys in the face of every observed behaviour in every organism on the planet.

Authority only exists if you allow it to have authority over you. I could for example let my kids have authority over me if I just let them do what they wanted to and gave in to any demands they made but instead I appear to have authority over them even though it's just an illusion. They do as I tell them not becouse that if they dont they will be beaten or tortured but becouse I have cultivated the illusion of authority over the years.

I have authority over them becouse they let me have authority over them becouse I have tricked them into thinking that I have authority over them-just like the planet has done with their goverments.
Of course this particular authority is necessary in order to keep them safe and to raise them in the way I see fit but when they turn into adults,no one,no organisation has authority over them as with all adults unless they choose to belive the illusion.

[Anders Lindman]

Mankind shows no signs of having ever changed before, why would he suddenly change now?

Fear is useless when you are confused and helpless. Fear is needed when you are in danger and need to quickly find and enact a plan to neutralise that danger. When you are helpless then there is no point being afraid because there is nothing you can do. Fear is what gives us the energy to deal with situations that threaten our goals.

More power gives you more reason to fear because (unless you dont use your power) you will have more and greater goals with more power and there is then more threats around that those goals might not succeed.

Evolution makes leaps of development. There seems also to be gradual change in the process of evolution/creation, but for major changes leaps are needed I think. So what I am speculation about is a huge evolutionary leap where a planetary consciousness is born.

Ok, helplessness doesn't need fear I agree. Hmm... Interesting. I have to ponder that. But you don't need fear in order to take action if you are in control of the situation. Like a Jedi, you just swing into action.

Only the tyrannical kind of power leads to more fear, like Stalin killing his fellow Communist leaders. That's a confused kind of power where Stalin couldn't even trust the leaders he himself had chosen. Good power gives personal control and isn't contaminated by fear. Jesus Christ had good power for example (even if Jesus may have only been a mythical figure).

[coshh]

Where to begin.

You state you believe in God, so you have decided that his law is higher than ordinary law, but that only applies to you, not to those of us who may or may not believe in god.No it either applies to everyone or no-one. Yet you argue for a cohesive, intimate society, whilst being obviously blind to the fact that your views are not held by others. I am not blind to that fact. If I thought I had to agree with others before saying what I believed I would never speak (or type, or write) again.

Anarchy is a valid political option in the views of some. We then have to find the equilibrium of our own authority rather than submitting to those we disagree with.I do not believe anarchy can work and I feel sad for the suffering any attempt to implement it would bring, but anarchists should see no threat in my disagreement with them because I don't have the power to prevent them trying.

You are using intellectualisation as a defence when you say:"I only decided on an arranged marriage when I decided to accept authority."No idea what this means.

Nevertheless, it is a valid code to live by, it is your choice to decide to do what someone else tells you for the understandable reason that he is your father. Good for you. You are a good girl, and, logically, it all makes sense.

As I said before I wish you well.

But I feel you are still struggling with something.Well I struggle with many things but I don't see what that has to do with anything really.

[child of the sun]

From a point of neutrality there is nothing wrong with authority.

The question is:

Why would you, as a conscious creator of life, need authority?

It is not necessary and just like I wrote in a topic about so called 'education', this one 'authority' is also a sign of being part of a cult where you give your power away to others instead of being the creator of your own reality.

Sunshine!

Kepha

[lifeofbrian]

Mankind shows no signs of having ever changed before, why would he suddenly change now?

Fear is useless when you are confused and helpless. Fear is needed when you are in danger and need to quickly find and enact a plan to neutralise that danger. When you are helpless then there is no point being afraid because there is nothing you can do. Fear is what gives us the energy to deal with situations that threaten our goals.

More power gives you more reason to fear because (unless you dont use your power) you will have more and greater goals with more power and there is then more threats around that those goals might not succeed.

Fear = the absence of answers/experiences.

Are you talking about instinct, intuition, resignation, motivation, loss of status, etc?

Interesting post, triggered a lot of synonyms.

[lifeofbrian]

From a point of neutrality there is nothing wrong with authority.

The question is:

Why would you, as a conscious creator of life, need authority?

It is not necessary and just like I wrote in a topic about so called 'education', this one 'authority' is also a sign of being part of a cult where you give your power away to others instead of being the creator of your own reality.

Sunshine!

Kepha

Right. So why have it if nobody needs it?

Somebody taught me how to read. The person told me, I trusted that information. God, was I stupid! I should have taken up graffiti.

[matthew84]

No it either applies to everyone or no-one. I am not blind to that fact. If I thought I had to agree with others before saying what I believed I would never speak (or type, or write) again.

I do not believe anarchy can work and I feel sad for the suffering any attempt to implement it would bring, but anarchists should see no threat in my disagreement with them because I don't have the power to prevent them trying.

No idea what this means.

Well I struggle with many things but I don't see what that has to do with anything really.


You are only right if we can know whether or not god exists; as no-one knows (and personally I think s/he does) your theory might as easily be said to apply to both everyone and no-one.

Debate presumes the possibility of 'movement' between positions. You have made your decision, as you said. And you began this thread by stating that many people on this site have an issue with authority.......

Denial.

Feelings matter.

[coshh]

Bit of unreasonable request isnt it? No... if one exists you can surely name it? Look at any stone age society and you will see the same thingNone of the stone age societies I have ever read about and your puzzling comment insinuating that aborigines habitually rape their women tells me that you already have a view set in stone anyway.I am not saying they do, I am saying the only think I have ever come across about aborigines apart from stuff about their being kidnapped by white settlers and forced to go to school and other things that are about white settlers not about aborigines - is about a court case I heard about where the COURT not me decided not to find the defendants in a rape case guilty because it was normal in the culture (maybe it was statutory rape - that she was 8 and not the fact she consented I don't remember).
Egalitarianism has nothing to do with divisions of labour or hierachy btw. All tribes have different classes obviously. The hunter,the shaman/witch doctor,etc but they're only classes that by observation we impose upon them with our way of thinking. Awfully convenient for you that anything in a society you idolise that doesn't square with your egalitarian ideology is just there because of my way of thinking and not real.

A group of people living together may have different rolls in the house as agony aunt,organiser,handy-man etc but it doesnt mean that they're not free to do as they wish.Thats the same in our society too. We are free to do what we wish.
If you're definition of authority is someones right to tell someone else what to do then it's a concept that flys in the face of every observed behaviour in every organism on the planet.Nonsense, social animals are always telling each other off or trying to control each others behavior and get themselves higher up the pecking order.

Authority only exists if you allow it to have authority over you. I could for example let my kids have authority over me if I just let them do what they wanted to and gave in to any demands they madeAbsolutely. but instead I appear to have authority over them even though it's just an illusion. They do as I tell them not becouse that if they dont they will be beaten or tortured but becouse I have cultivated the illusion of authority over the years.This is true for most authority. Enduring authority is almost always kept in place through soft power and belief, not through direct threats, beatings or torture. Naturally because people don't like being beaten or tortured and they resent it and as soon as a weakness appears they will exploit it. Wise authorities know you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.

Of course this particular authority is necessary in order to keep them safe and to raise them in the way I see fit but when they turn into adults,no one,no organisation has authority over them as with all adults unless they choose to belive the illusion.THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY. With any authority until you consent to it it has no power over you. It may have power over the physical world, including your body (i.e. they might be able to kick you if you don't do what they say but thats not authority over you, that is authority over their own legs) - but never over you, your spirit, your mind etc. And that power over the physical world is not something that can be taken away except by someone/s with even more such power.

[matthew84]

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your interesting post Lifeof Brian.

I hear you on the importance of the mother. To me, mother and father are not necessarily the same as biological gender; they are roles that either sex can deploy.

The father principle steps in and shows the baby there is someone else other than itself in the world and that this someone else has a claim in the mother's time/energy/resources.

The oedipal issue can just as easily be a daughter competing with her father for her mother as round the other way.

I agree with you that we give authority to others and choose to take up our own when we feel we are ready to and that is an on-going process.

[lifeofbrian]

What is wrong with authority? I get the idea a lot of people here have a big chip on their shoulders about authority, which I don't really understand. What's so wrong with authority in principle?

Obviously specific authorities may wrongfully overstep their bounds - but authority in itself I don't see the issue.

There is something perverse about adults telling other adults what to do and how to behave and how to conduct their lives.

Children excluded.
The deranged excluded.
Sadists and masochists excluded.

There is something very sick about adults telling other adults how to live and treat other adults.

Ergo: We live in very sick societies.

Cure: Grow Up.

[coshh]

There is something perverse about adults telling other adults what to do and how to behave and how to conduct their lives.

Children excluded.
The deranged excluded.
Masochists excluded.

There is something very sick about adults telling other adults how to live and treat other adults.Why do you see it as perverse?

[lifeofbrian]

Why do you see it as perverse?

There is something perverse about adults telling other adults what to do and how to behave and how to conduct their lives.


Pardon?

In my experience adults seek advice, consult each other, converse and discuss, but ultimately take full responsibility for their own decisions.

I don't know what kind of culture you live in but where I live people don't play "eternal child not having to think for itself-eternal daddy knowing best".

[coshh]

Pardon?

In my experience adults seek advice, consult each other, converse and discuss, but ultimately take full responsibility for their own decisions.

I don't know what kind of culture you live in but where I live people don't play "eternal child not having to think for itself-eternal daddy knowing best".
The whole individualism "I am god" self-worship of modern culture is very new. But as I said a million and one times already authority cannot and does not absolve one of responsibility.

[lifeofbrian]

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your interesting post Lifeof Brian.

I hear you on the importance of the mother. To me, mother and father are not necessarily the same as biological gender; they are roles that either sex can deploy.

The father principle steps in and shows the baby there is someone else other than itself in the world and that this someone else has a claim in the mother's time/energy/resources.

The oedipal issue can just as easily be a daughter competing with her father for her mother as round the other way.

I agree with you that we give authority to others and choose to take up our own when we feel we are ready to and that is an on-going process.

Hi Matt, that's true.

In the beginning there is something very odd within the brain of a baby which makes it feel as if it is still part of all-that-is; tiny stuff in the brain called dentrites

Dendrite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The socialization process (tolerating other people) /fragmentation of awareness is the seed of Empathy.

Nowadays modern people want to return to the state of the baby. They say "Fuck empathy." They say "I and the whole are One."

In a sense, that's the New World Order.

Empathy, tolerance, diversity; all of that makes up the world. It would be a dull shame if we all agreed on everything all the time and in the end didn't give a damn about anything.

[lifeofbrian]

The whole individualism "I am god" self-worship of modern culture is very new. But as I said a million and one times already authority cannot and does not absolve one of responsibility.

Nothing new about it. It's the beginning.

Sorry, I must have missed your million and one posts before these.

I beg your pardon.

[numbersix]

Not all authority is bad. For example for may years I looked up to my father and took his advice and respected his ideas by virtue of kinship.
However there are too many people trying to control, rule, dominate, dictate,lead and govern. The main problem is in the government and councils but is also in the workplace to a lesser extent.
These groups are always trying to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of thought and freedom of legitimate action.
If this is not the case then why are there cameras everywhere monitoring us ?
The simple truth is that a small number of people and groups wish to ensure that people dont question what they perceive to be their right to rule..

Authority should always be questioned and made accountable....

[coshh]

Nothing new about it. It's the beginning.Eh, well this is your religion which I disagree with and actually believe is the cause of a great deal of evil. And I do not implicate you in that mind, I just think that your beleif system is dangerous and bad for mankind. You probably think the same about mine and we will undoubtedly not resolve it - especially given that the internet makes it hard to really empathise with the people you're discussing with as compared to face to face communication.

Sorry, I must have missed your million and one posts before these.

I beg your pardon.It is granted ^_^

[coshh]

Not all authority is bad. For example for may years I looked up to my father and took his advice and respected his ideas by virtue of kinship.
However there are too many people trying to control, rule, dominate, dictate,lead and govern. The main problem is in the government and councils but is also in the workplace to a lesser extent.There is a saying by Chesterton that "too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists but too few". I think this applies well to authority as well. Too much "authority" is the function of not enough authorities. Instead of having Church, family, community, state, friendships and personal loyalties, God, the law etc etc as authorities in our lives - now we are expected to have no authorities except for the ideology of 'liberalism' (the kind that Irving Kristol worships).

Authority should always be questioned and made accountable....

Imho authority should be accountable to God. Of course atheists cannot agree with me on that. But if I was an atheist I would probably have some proxy for God - the goddess "reason" or something similar that I could put in its place (I btw think reason is a poor substitute for God).

[lifeofbrian]

Eh, well this is your religion which I disagree with and actually believe is the cause of a great deal of evil. And I do not implicate you in that mind, I just think that your beleif system is dangerous and bad for mankind. You probably think the same about mine and we will undoubtedly not resolve it - especially given that the internet makes it hard to really empathise with the people you're discussing with as compared to face to face communication.

It is granted ^_^

You seem to think you know me?

Look at this:

We don't know other people the way they are.

We know them the way we are.

Quoted especially for you, coshh.

Ta ta.

[coshh]

You seem to think you know me? You said that individualism self-worship "I am god" etc was 'not... new' and 'the beginning'. That is a religious belief. I was commenting on that belief - nothing else.

It's not my fault if you take that to mean I think I know "you".

[thirdwave]

is that indeed not the problem with authority.

IMO no... for example If I choose to give somone authority over my self because I respect there vision more than mine... then I dont see the harm of that.... if it for the better of my self and the people around me....

if somone is wiser I have no problem putting my ego aside... as long as I have the choice weather to be apart of that authority.

[coshh]

if somone is wiser I have no problem putting my ego aside... as long as I have the choice weather to be apart of that authority.
You always have that choice. It cannot be taken away from you...

[lifeofbrian]

You said that individualism self-worship "I am god" etc was 'not... new' and 'the beginning'. That is a religious belief. I was commenting on that belief - nothing else.

It's not my fault if you take that to mean I think I know "you".

If you reckon it is a "religious belief" to be an infant ("feeling like [a part of] all that is") -- so be it.

It escapes me why you put a label on that universal experience?

Never mind. :) See you around.

[coshh]

If you reckon it is a "religious belief" to be an infant ("part of all that is") -- so be it.

It escapes me why you put a label on that universal experience?

Never mind. :) See you around I suppose.
Infants don't have any of those concepts to work with.

[lifeofbrian]

Infants don't have any of those concepts to work with.

Infants have an enormous amounts of dendrites which makes them feel omnipotent; a.k.a. like God.

Feelings are precursors to language.

Why do you reckon there was a need for religions in the first place?

Cellular memories, that's why.

Hey, what did they teach you in school?

[coshh]

Infants have an enormous amounts of dendrites which makes them feel omnipotent; a.k.a. like God.There is more to godliness than godlike power - and God does not feel omnipotent, he simply is. Also ...since when did dendrites make one feel powerful?

Feelings are precursors to language.

Why do you reckon there was a need for religions in the first place?

Cellular memories, that's why.This is just speculation.

[lifeofbrian]

There is more to godliness than godlike power - and God does not feel omnipotent, he simply is.

This is just speculation.

I hear you have the "Faith".

Walk in Peace.

All is Peaceful my end.

Peace, peace, peace.

[drael]

Well for one, because we need some kind of cultural consensus for society to function peaceably...

Relevance to authority? Consesus has nothing to do with authority (look at any modern society, people dont agree at all, yet we have leaders)

Even if there is no truth, society needs to have a concept of "truth" to work with. Even if there is no objective right and wrong society needs guidelines of right and wrong - and its better for us if we agree on these things instead of having them forced on us at the point of the sword, which means we need to trust authority - not necessarily because they know better - but because we need something to arbitrate and say where the boundaries will lie.

Again, nothing to do with authority. Having a concept of "truth" to work with is not connected to authority. Modern society has very little "truth" to work with, we are IMO empty of such purpose altogether, yet we have leaders.

I see no need for authority, none at all. I would like the need properly explained to me, if i am to accept it.

[coshh]

Relevance to authority? Consesus has nothing to do with authority (look at any modern society, people dont agree at all, yet we have leaders)Eh I think you are wrong. We have a broad consensus when it comes to liberal values although there are some people (myself included) who disagree and are outside of that. On the otherhand we lack "leaders" although we have authorities (in the form of ideology, law etc). Leaders to me implies people who are respected and who can be held accountable for their actions. Our political system has neither.