GeoFee
Anarchy
Posted on: 04/14/2011 18:26
"Most people, living heedlessly, tanning themselves, engaging in terrorism, or becoming TV slaves, ridicule political chatter and politics. They see that there is nothing to hope for from them. They are also exasperated by bureaucratic structures and administrative bickering. If we denounce such things, we gain the ear of a large public. In a word, the more the power of the state and bureaucracy grows, the more the affirmation of anarchy is necessary as the sole and last defense of the individual, that is, of humanity. Anarchy must regain its pungency and courage. It has a bright future before it. That is why I adopt it."
Jacques Ellul, in "Anarchy and Christianity"
- Login or register to post comments
- Add new comment
Search
Comments
GeoFee
A milder statement of a
Posted on: 04/14/2011 18:51
A milder statement of a similar perspective may be found in the work of Lewis Mumford, who writes:
"The pressing human task today is not to endure further misapplications of the power system, but to detach ourselves from it, and cultivate our subjective resources as never before. If this seems an all but impossible demand, with the odds heavily in favor of the power system and against personality, one need only remember how absurd such a withdrawal, such a rejection, such a challenge seemed to most intelligent Romans before Christianity presented an alternative."
"Though no immediate and complete escape from the ongoing power system is possible, least of all through mass violence, the changes that will restore autonomy and initiative to the human person all lie within the province of each individual soul, once it is roused. Nothing could be more damaging to the myth of the machine, and to the dehumanized social order it has brought into existence, than a steady withdrawal of interest, a slowing down of tempo, a stoppage of senseless routines and mindless acts."
Two questions arise:
Would Jesus cast a ballot?
Which political option might Jesus prefer?
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee
Posted on: 04/14/2011 20:04
Hi GeoFee,
Would Jesus cast a ballot?
Jesus did when he declared that his kingdom was not of this world.
Which political option might Jesus prefer?
A kingdom which loves mercy, does justly and walks humbly.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GeoFee
revjohn wrote:Jesus did when
Posted on: 04/14/2011 21:07
Do we cast such a ballot when we decide for baptism?
Is this obtainable by politics?
graeme
It is not obtainable by
Posted on: 04/14/2011 21:45
It is not obtainable by humans at all. For us, it has to be an ideal we strive for. And politics of some form is the only way for a whole society to do it.
graeme
Forget to ask. Who is
Posted on: 04/14/2011 21:50
Forget to ask. Who is organizing the anarchy?
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee wrote: Do
Posted on: 04/14/2011 22:16
Hi GeoFee,
Do we cast such a ballot when we decide for baptism?
That would depend upon your baptismal practice. It could also be that we cast a spoiled ballot.
Is this obtainable by politics?
By some forms of politics I think so. With other forms I think not.
Grace and peace to you.
John
InannaWhimsey
graeme wrote: Forget to
Posted on: 04/14/2011 22:14
Forget to ask. Who is organizing the anarchy?
Robots/Slaves with G_dlikepower that cannot be fiddled with?
GeoFee
revjohn wrote:By some forms
Posted on: 04/14/2011 22:49
Are you able to indicate the nature of an efficacious political agency?
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee
Posted on: 04/14/2011 22:52
Hi GeoFee,
Are you able to indicate the nature of an efficacious political agency?
The best hope is in political agents of character rather than political systems
Grace and peace to you.
John
InannaWhimsey
GeoFee, REALLY COOL THREAD
Posted on: 04/14/2011 23:07
GeoFee,
REALLY COOL THREAD btw.
Perhaps Jesus would be like the Dalai Lama and go 'on tour' around the world, being sure to remind people that he is an entertainer (to get them to keep from being dogmatic aboot HIM and concentrate on HIS message).
And maybe he'd help with working out some kind of real UN, one with actual ability to do things.
Maybe he'd be all zen-like and appear to EVERY WORLD LEADER and hand them a shovel-equivalent and take them to Haiti or somewhere and start working (and since He's G_d, right, he could do this in multiple places at multiple times).
Maybe he'd have to put his foot down with war and violence, pulling a kind of Forbin Project thing, but not staying himself in power, but creating a kind of state where violence and wars are no longer necessary and then, Lorax-like, leave?
So many different things to ponder :3
Witch
GeoFee wrote: Two questions
Posted on: 04/15/2011 00:23
Two questions arise:
Would Jesus cast a ballot?
Which political option might Jesus prefer?
I suspect He would cast a ballot.
I suspect He wouldn't check any of the boxes.
GeoFee
Thanks folk. I find myself
Posted on: 04/15/2011 11:23
Thanks folk.
I find myself quite agreeably inclined to each of the notes above.
With Graeme, I am persuaded that we are addressed by an ideal and invited to take up a challenge. Like athletes preparing for a sporting event, we lay aside all that hinders and develop all that helps. In this we press our hope forward as persons in free association with other persons; seeking the outcomes of mercy, justice and humility by being merciful, just and humble.
With John, I think character is the cornerstone of any social economy. This suggests education for character as a way forward. This would have to flow against the stream in the western social economy where education is primarily oriented to finding a niche in the market economy of production and consumption.
With InannaWhimsey, I suspect the personal determination of any person of mature character would exert tremendous spiritual influence by which the trajectory of the our world might be shifted; one decision at a time. I can imagine a gathering momentum as persons influenced by the character of spiritual exemplars decide for character as the way forward. Taking up the practice of personal integrity and turning aside from the seductions of consumer ideologies this 'cloud' of witnesses would grow in its affective dimension and thereby present an increasing spiritual density. I can imagine a tipping point where character eclipses appetite as the primary motivation of personal, cooperative priorities and commitments.
With Witch I can easily imagine Jesus being just like any other citizen in the exercise of his one vote. I agree that the choice made by Jesus would most likely be none of the above. It might well be that if "none of the above" were an option many more persons would turn out to make their position clear.
With Jesus and Socrates in view, I am persuaded that personal expression of personal conviction is the only way of overcoming the herd mentalities by which so much chaos is let loose in our world.
Jim Kenney
Hi GeoFee. Please read some
Posted on: 04/16/2011 00:07
Hi GeoFee. Please read some of Murray Bookchin's stuff on anarchy.
My personal goal in working for anarchy is to encourage activities that distribute power, develop resilience in individuals, families and communities; promote confidence in individuals regarding feeling able to exercise personal power in confronting evil and working for good; and providing a vision of a society in which all people experience a high degree of freedom/responsibiity and personal security. My hope is that this project won't take more than another 1000 years to achieve.
For examples, I participate in CIvic Camp, City Repair, and other broad organizations in Calgary that invite individuals, companies and organizations into sharing in the development of a vision for the city and working for the realization of that vision. Most of these organizations currently involve less than 1 person out of 10,000 in the city, but they are making a difference, including helping shape the City budget.
GeoFee
Jim Kenny wrote:My personal
Posted on: 04/16/2011 11:00
Thanks for this. It is remarkable how one person can bring slight influence to bear in multiple relationships to further the ends you outline briefly above.
I have found great encouragement in the story of a sower sowing seeds.
graeme
Jim - you're working in
Posted on: 04/16/2011 17:09
Jim - you're working in organizations? You can influence City government? That's good. But it's not anarchy.
Panentheism
graeme thank you for
Posted on: 04/16/2011 17:22
graeme thank you for point..... I am bothered by any question of what would Jesus do? Each of us make up what we think out his teaching on the presence of the kingdom of God and the idea of some compassionate justice, harmony and intensity that emerges out of our experience. What we do is create our sense of those teachings and revise them in light of what actually happens. This is what Jim is doing and it is a good way of transforming our reality. I also have a problem when we make the kingdom into an utopian ideal - there is a real problem with that thinking for looks for a perfect representation of some static ideal. Perfection is what works for this moment and we build on it to create another perfect moment - there is no absolute perfect reality.
Jim Kenney
graeme, I am not sure what
Posted on: 04/16/2011 18:27
graeme, I am not sure what your definition of anarchy is. Based on the Greek, I believe anarchy means without rulers. When a society reaches a point where all people feel empowered and have the needed tools to share in decision-making; where no one has the power to intimidate or rule others, then we have true, sustainable anarchy. I believe that the most essential role of democratic government is to protect the majority from individuals prepared to use force to control others, but the practice of government has been to concentrate a variety of powers that attract individuals who want to exercise control over others.
What I am doing is not directly working for anarchy, but it is working on cultivating the soil where anarchy may have a chance to eventually flourish.
GeoFee
Graeme wrote:But it's not
Posted on: 04/16/2011 21:18
Neither is yeast bread.
As one who prefers anarchy to all other available political options, I have spent many years in relationship with a wide diversity of persons and associations of persons. In every one of those relations, I have clearly distanced myself from the institutional biases and commitments by which persons are subordinated to some higher value - the group and its devices of control.
In free association with others, I do all that is in my power to promote each person's potential for freedom, responsibility, creativity and courage. Anyone who knows me here and elsewhere should be clear by now that I have no commitments to any institution of religion or state. knowing that these are all provisional. Any claim to the contrary constitutes idolatry.
Christian faith is thoroughly eschatological. It announces the end of all powers, all dominions, all principalities, all thrones and the final realization of unconditioned freedom in which love is the only agent of social coherence. Is this not what leads Jesus to the cross?
Of course history has denied this all along the way and tends to deny it still.
Camus reminds us, as does Panentheism above, that the goal may be unobtainable. This does nothing to diminish the joyful companionship of those who will not rest content with status quo, preferring the struggle for freedom to accommodation with whatever idolatry happens to be carrying the day.
GeoFee
Thanks Jim, for naming Murray
Posted on: 04/16/2011 21:31
Thanks Jim, for naming Murray Bookchin for me. I will certainly look forward to reading him. Online I found and deeply appreciated this:
"What compels me to fight this society is, of course, outrage over injustice, a love of freedom, and a feeling of responsibility for perpetuating and enlarging the human spirit - its beauty, creativity, and latent capacity to improve the world. I do not care to come to terms with an irrational society that corrodes all that is valuable in humanity, that eats away at all that is beautiful and noble in the human experience.
Captalism devours us. At the molecular level of everday life, it changes us for the worse, and it compels people to make extremely unsavoury rationalisations for why they believe things they know - or at least they once knew - are false and for doing things that are trivialising and dehumanising.
When we struggle against capitalism, we are really struggling against our own dehumanisation, and once we become fully cognisant of that, then the danger of surrender to the system reinforces our resistance. As revolutionaries, we are fighting not only for a better society but for our very humanity."
Would that our liturgies were leavened with such leaven.
MikePaterson
In my youth I was a fan of
Posted on: 04/17/2011 09:05
In my youth I was a fan of Mikhail Bakunin.
The problems are the propensities of some people -- not all but enough to seriously screw things up -- for violence and for appropriation.
There is no worthy reason for anyone to want more than does the day... but we can be totally insatiable... meaninglessly, pointlessly, obsessively, stupidly greedy.
And we seem to have reached a point where the fear of violence (real or pretended) is the no. 1 excuse for violence. While we have weapons other than fists, there's no quick way out of the cycle.
Violence -- in all of its forms -- has to be universally despised as the repugnant lack of moral authority and vacuity of intellect it truly represents.
Greed has to be universally loathed as the grotesquely obscene "violence"-of-the-gutless it actually is.
And there's two little challenges even Jesus couldn't accomplish.
How can we bring those two vices into universal contempt, when our political systems actively promote them? Beeak the political systems? How? Anarchy?
MikePaterson
You'll convert me to
Posted on: 04/17/2011 11:25
You'll convert me to Catholicism yet, Besh. If I could only believe...
Mely
If you want to live with
Posted on: 04/17/2011 18:35
If you want to live with anarchy move to Somalia.
Jim Kenney
Somalia is not an anarchy --
Posted on: 04/17/2011 22:38
Somalia is not an anarchy -- people with guns run the place. Chaos of a sort yes; genuiine anarchy, no.
revjohn
Hi Bespin, Beshpin
Posted on: 04/18/2011 07:13
Hi Bespin,
No true scotsman?
I don't think so. More like a specific definition of the term.
It rejects other more common definitions.
Anarchy from the Greek an-archon would technically mean no ruler. The presence of factions or individuals using coercive force suggests that there is some ruler present. That ruler may not have legal or moral authority they still function as the archon. Once an archon is present anarchy is disqualified.
In the same way anhedonic fails to apply in the presence of hedonism.
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Hi Beshpin, Beshpin
Posted on: 04/18/2011 11:33
Hi Beshpin,
How does that differ from the no true scotsmen fallacy? If 'true' anarchy is impossible to attain then we are left with any form of anarchy filling the place of an idealised unsystematic system.
It differs in that what is at the centre of debate is the operant definition. All definitions, I would argue, are in play until one can be proven to be better than the others.
In the no true scotsman fallacy the definition of what a true scotsman is an invented one and that invention is peculiar to the individual.
That isn't happening here even though the optics appear similar.
To say that we are not true capitalists because we have public healthcare would be an equal application of that same line of rhetoric.
Technically true.
There is no pure form of any ideology in practise, so it is crucial for the person saying "that is not genuine anarchy" to accept that nothing is genuine anarchy and to begin to accept the reality of their ideology in places where a system exists which reflects the ideas of the purer form.
While I am sympathetic to your argument, anthropology suggests that wherever there is a heirarchy whether it is formal or informal you have archons, I do not think that genuine anarchy is an impossibility. I find it to be highly improbable and yet I can see anarchy at its most constructive in three friends deciding what kind of pizza they choose to share and what kind of beer they want a pitcher of.
I think genuine anarchy is a possibility no matter how seriously limited genuine anarchy might be.
This conversation went aristotlean really fast.
No signs of it going Platonic yet.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GeoFee
revjoh wrote:Once an archon
Posted on: 04/18/2011 11:56
Can we explore this by reference to the trajectory of Jesus? For example:
May we take it that Jesus has the history of his people in view? For example:
This brings into view a series of questions:
Why is it that persons are so ready to abdicate personal freedom and responsibility to serve the aspirations of those whose natural instinct for the exercise of power is unbounded by any principle transcendent of the self and its appetites?
Can it be that Jesus makes manifest the an-archon by which each and every archon is called into question?
Further, can it be that as Jesus was rejected then, as Jesus continues to be rejected now, simply because he refused the role of archon and refused to subordinate his personal passion to the diverse archons of the day?
I must of course bring into view Christian history where the an-archon Jesus is inverted and presented as the archon Jesus.
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee
Posted on: 04/18/2011 12:09
Hi GeoFee,
Can we explore this by reference to the trajectory of Jesus?
Sure.
Jesus knew that the people wanted him to become king. The people planned to come get Jesus and make him their king. So Jesus left and went into the hills alone.
Jesus not taking the role of archon is not anarchy. Herod and Pilate still supply the context with Arcons galore.
“Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
Still not an anarchy. A change in Archons certainly. Or perhaps from the perspective of Israel at the time an invisible archon is considered anarchy where as a visible archon is not anarchy?
Why is it that persons are so ready to abdicate personal freedom and responsibility to serve the aspirations of those whose natural instinct for the exercise of power is unbounded by any principle transcendent of the self and its appetites?
I think that is not a faithful read of the situation. The people are happy with having an archon. God is happy for them to have an archon. The difficulty in the story is the people not wanting the archon God desired for them to have and so, since God is being supplanted as archon God reserves the right to select the archon for the people.
Without an archon I think we fall prey to the autonomos. just as the hoi polloi is thought by Pericles to be the corrective to the hoi oligoi it would appear that Israel or God at least, considered the archon to be a corrective to the autonomos
Can it be that Jesus makes manifest the an-archon by which each and every archon is called into question?
Possibly thought I think not. The only thing which calls the archon into account would be a greater archon. In that sense Jesus is more Archon of Archons than an-archon.
Further, can it be that as Jesus was rejected then, as Jesus continues to be rejected now, simply because he refused the role of archon and refused to subordinate his personal passion the diverse archons of the day?
It could be said. I'm not sure it sticks.
It is true that Jesus was not concerned to be the archon others desired. I don't think he actually refuses to be archon.
I must of course bring into view Christian history where the an-archon Jesus is inverted and presented as the archon Jesus.
Is Jesus ever presented as the an-archon? I don't think so. I think Jesus rules in ways we don't tend to equate with archons. His servant leadership, for example doesn't mesh with our common imagery of the archon. Maybe that is more our problem than it is Jesus'.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GeoFee
revjohn wrote:Jesus not
Posted on: 04/18/2011 12:51
I fully agree that there were archons galore, along with the retinues of those aspiring to the status of archon. It remains that Jesus refuses to express himself as an alternative among archons. He seems, in my reading, to be present as the one who refuses each and every archon's jurisdiction to make available, when the work is completed, a new creation in which the authority of a transcendent referent is the only ground for being and becoming. Is this not what we intend when saying: It is not I, but Christ in me?
I get what you say here and realize it has a strong trajectory in our unfolding western experience.
To give myself a little wiggle room, to loosen the grip your quick response has me in, and perhaps put off the pin, let me introduce the existential problem posed by non-being.
Humans are anxious in their being because of the realization of death and the threat of non-being. This anxiety presses us to the exertion of power in the hope of obtaining security. It is this longing for security in the face of non-being that seems the effective ground for emergence of history's diverse archons.
It seems to me that Jesus presents an alternative to the whole realm of archons by making present in his personal being, by his embrace of death with its threat of non-being, a truly unique manifestation of being in the world wholly free from the domination of any and every archon, by reference to a transcendent alternative characterized as an egalitarian plurality inclusive of all difference.
We may think in terms of the Holy Spirit by which the person dead in baptism and alive in resurrection is animated and informed. That is, are we able to entertain the Holy Spirit as the ground of authority which makes no resort to the over-under dichotomies characterizing the realm of the diverse and competing archons?
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee wrote: Is
Posted on: 04/18/2011 13:32
Hi GeoFee,
Is this not what we intend when saying: It is not I, but Christ in me?
I suppose that some might mean that. I don't know that I mean that. I don't know that appealing to Jesus in me negates the whole concept of Jesus as Lord/archon.
This anxiety presses us to the exertion of power in the hope of obtaining security. It is this longing for security in the face of non-being that seems the effective ground for emergence of history's diverse archons.
Which still doesn't present Jesus as an-archon so much as it shows humanity chooses its archons poorly. Which is what I take from the whole "we want a King like everybody else fiasco."
Even when God gets to select he has poor stock to work with and Kings of God's own choosing prove to be disappointing.
It seems to me that Jesus presents an alternative to the whole realm of archons by making present in his personal being, by his embrace of death with its threat of non-being,
I don't see the non-being so much as I see the embodying to be honest. Some of our most powerful images (vine and branches, sheep and shepherd or from Paul, one body and many members) are the antithesis of non-being.
I think that perhaps the whole issue of being is anachronistic to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, it just doesn't fit.
a truly unique manifestation of being in the world wholly free from the domination of any and every archon, by reference to a transcendent alternative characterized as an egalitarian plurality inclusive of all difference.
Any and every lesser archon perhaps but not, I think any and every archon. Jesus is Lord/archon there is no other. He can't free them from the grip of every and any archon when he is the archon of archons. And even if he refuses to be held as archon (and going by Palm Sunday's witness--he is not anti-archon he just wont be the people's expected archon) the individual, deprived of all external archons becomes archon and the self is the law.
That is, are we able to entertain the Holy Spirit as the ground of authority
You've scuttled your own ship!
If the Holy Spirit is the archon then there is no anarchy, there is no an-archon.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GeoFee
Picture me in the deep waters
Posted on: 04/18/2011 14:00
Picture me in the deep waters holding fast to Queequeg's coffin, watching for the sails of the good ship Rachel.
Jim Kenney
I understand the whole of the
Posted on: 04/18/2011 14:19
I understand the whole of the minisry of Jesus as pointing to replacing laws and rulers by the valuing of relationships with God, others and self--rpeplacing human archons by mutual love, principalities by principles.
revjohn
Hi GeoFee GeoFee
Posted on: 04/18/2011 14:32
Hi GeoFee
Picture me in the deep waters holding fast to Queequeg's coffin, watching for the sails of the good ship Rachel.
Ishmael is far more secure than Ahab.
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Hi Jim Kenney, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/18/2011 14:34
Hi Jim Kenney,
I understand the whole of the minisry of Jesus as pointing to replacing laws and rulers by the valuing of relationships with God, others and self--rpeplacing human archons by mutual love, principalities by principles.
Which is a fair image to be sure.
In that relationship with God does God not take the role of Archon? Is love not the highest of that archon's laws?
Grace and peace to you.
John
Jim Kenney
Or is God patiently waiting
Posted on: 04/18/2011 15:06
Or is God patiently waiting for us to enter into loving relationship with God as partners rather than servants in the unfolding of creation?
revjohn
Hi Jim Kenney, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/18/2011 15:33
Hi Jim Kenney,
Or is God patiently waiting for us to enter into loving relationship with God as partners rather than servants in the unfolding of creation?
I'm sure even archons have friends.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Jim Kenney
Some theologies propose an
Posted on: 04/18/2011 16:16
Some theologies propose an understanding of God/Spirit as source of being without a desire for control or to be a ruler, a God/Spirit that refuses to be an archon, but instead is a host of possibilities.. (interpret host both ways.)
InannaWhimsey
Folks, topical: CBC Radio
Posted on: 04/18/2011 16:48
Folks,
topical: CBC Radio One "Ideas in the Afternoon" right now, talking with practical Anarchism in Greece. 2-3 pm.
GeoFee
Jim Kenny wrote:...a
Posted on: 04/18/2011 17:35
This is how I tend with anarchy in view. We may take the kenosis theme elaborated in Philippians as a start point. Can we speak of God as arcon if God pours out all that pertains to arche and in this way alone overcomes the diverse archons of the ages?
John is a strong contender and it often takes a tag team to keep abreast of his quick and ready mind. A quality I have grown to appreciate over the years.
revjohn
Hi Jim Kenny, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/18/2011 17:47
Hi Jim Kenny,
Some theologies propose an understanding of God/Spirit as source of being without a desire for control or to be a ruler, a God/Spirit that refuses to be an archon, but instead is a host of possibilities.. (interpret host both ways.)
Fair enough.
How do such theologies address the apparent need of humanity for an archon, be it external or internal?
How broad are the possibilities that God plays host to? Are those possibilities only positive/good or may those possibilities be negative/evil?
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee wrote: We
Posted on: 04/18/2011 18:07
Hi GeoFee,
We may take the kenosis theme elaborated in Philippians as a start point. Can we speak of God as arcon if God pours out all that pertains to arche and in this way alone overcomes the diverse archons of the ages?
Ah yes, the emptying. How do we define empty? Is an empty gas tank still a gas tank or does it become a nothing? Is Jesus the content or the container? Is Jesus both? Then there is the Trinitarian enigma. If the Son empties himself are the Father and the Spirit of necessity emptied?
John is a strong contender and it often takes a tag team to keep abreast of his quick and ready mind. A quality I have grown to appreciate over the years.
Many partners and much sparring help to keep me limber.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Jim Kenney
Does humanity need an
Posted on: 04/18/2011 19:03
Does humanity need an archon? If so, wjhy are we almost universally oppositionally defiant to some extent? Can we distinguish between leaders and rulers? From my reading of the history of the Cree, probably the First Nation that was spread over the largest territory, they chose leaders from time to time for specific roles. Those leaders fulfilled those roles as long as the community thought they were doing it well. If they were not, the community chose a new leader for that role. Many aboriginal communities have social structures that are close to anarchies.
Jim Kenney
Just an additional note:
Posted on: 04/18/2011 19:05
Just an additional note: there is power over -- always associated with systems with rulers.
and there is power for -- appropriate for all systems.
revjohn
Hi Jim Kenny, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/18/2011 19:56
Hi Jim Kenny,
Does humanity need an archon?
I'm going to go with yes. If no archon is readily handy we establish the self as archon.
If so, wjhy are we almost universally oppositionally defiant to some extent?
The defiance might be attributed to a natural resistance of the self to be ruled by other or it might not be a defiance of archon so much as defiance of an unsatisfactory archon.
Can we distinguish between leaders and rulers?
I'm not clear on the intent of the question. Are we seeking to deny one or the other status as archon?
From my reading of the history of the Cree, probably the First Nation that was spread over the largest territory, they chose leaders from time to time for specific roles. Those leaders fulfilled those roles as long as the community thought they were doing it well. If they were not, the community chose a new leader for that role. Many aboriginal communities have social structures that are close to anarchies.
Are we arging for a specific criteria here? A when is an archon not an archon question? Being close to anarchy is not anarchy right? Isn't that like being almost pregnant?
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Hi jim Kenney, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/18/2011 20:01
Hi jim Kenney,
Just an additional note: there is power over -- always associated with systems with rulers.
and there is power for -- appropriate for all systems.
Whether power be coercive or lure it is being employed by someone for some purpose. Is that enough to qualify as archon?
Grace and peace to you.
John
Jim Kenney
I am curious as to your
Posted on: 04/19/2011 18:49
I am curious as to your definition of an archon. My understanding is that a ruler is a boss, whether you want that person as a boss or not. For example, our government leaders have the capacity to make decisions that are against the will of the majority of the citizens, and our system gives them that power. This makes them archons. In many organizations, if the chosen leadership tries to make a decision that is not accepted by the membership, the leadership is changed. In effect the real power lies with the group as a whole. Since this leadership does not have power over the membership, it is not, by my definition, an archon. Leaders who are entrusted with particular roles by the ongoing approval of the membership are not rulers in the since that I understand the term.
revjohn
Hi Jim Kenney, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/19/2011 21:54
Hi Jim Kenney,
I am curious as to your definition of an archon. My understanding is that a ruler is a boss, whether you want that person as a boss or not.
I'm working with the same idea, ruler. I'm just not content to let the ruler be self-aware. Hence the internal element. Our wants and desires function as rulers.
In many organizations, if the chosen leadership tries to make a decision that is not accepted by the membership, the leadership is changed.
True. There are other systems where, when the membership wants a change in leadership some members disappear.
In effect the real power lies with the group as a whole. Since this leadership does not have power over the membership, it is not, by my definition, an archon.
Well, yes it is. As you point out, so long as the membership is happy the leader continues to exercise the right to lead.
Leaders who are entrusted with particular roles by the ongoing approval of the membership are not rulers in the since that I understand the term.
So The Prime Minister and cabinet do not govern? They do not rule? They do not construct and enact laws which outlive their time as leaders?
Grace and peace to you.
John
Jim Kenney
Ah, but the beginning of my
Posted on: 04/19/2011 23:57
Ah, but the beginning of my earlier response was that in our government, our leaders can make decisions that are unpopular with the majority, but the majority has no power to counter their decisions --this makes them rulers -- making decisions that do not have the approval of the ruled. One definition of our system is periods of dictatorship interrupted by single days of democracy. We also do not have complete freedom in our choice of representatives.
revjohn
Hi Jim Kenney, Jim Kenney
Posted on: 04/20/2011 10:10
Hi Jim Kenney,
Ah, but the beginning of my earlier response was that in our government, our leaders can make decisions that are unpopular with the majority, but the majority has no power to counter their decisions --this makes them rulers --
Fair enough. In a majority government there is very little that the opposition can do to stop a certain piece of legislation or an unpopular budget. I suspect that a poorly worked law would find itself shredded by the judicatory upon first challenge. Since the politicians do not control our courts that is a check and balance to the government's ability to draft and enact legislation.
As we have seen through our recent bouts of minority governments there are ways to stop a government if the actions of that government are found not to be in the best interest of the majority.
Way and means exist to stop a government that is not representing admirably. Those ways and means may not be readily available to the common person. At the same time I suspect the common person, in their relative affluence doesn't much care about how government is or isn't representing them.
making decisions that do not have the approval of the ruled. One definition of our system is periods of dictatorship interrupted by single days of democracy.
I think dictatorship is actually a false designation for our system of governance. I know that it currently looks dictatorial. I think that optic is by design and owes more perhaps to the quality of the team than it does the ability of its captain.
I would agree that our system is periods of oligarchy (pesky archon alert) interrupted by single days of democracy. Although I don't find that to be a completely satisfactory definition. Both oligarchies and dictatorships tend to frown on anything that would be considered an opposition.
We also do not have complete freedom in our choice of representatives.
That's a fair point. What would complete freedom look like?
At present there is, in theory, a rather extensive vetting process. Individuals choose party affiliation per riding. The riding executive select a member (appointments do happen and maybe they shouldn't be allowed to happen). That selected member goes up against other selected members in an election. Elected members go to their offices to work with or against other elected members.
It can be cumbersome. I don't think it would work better if all of Canada had to sit together and pick, from the general populace who should represent the nation. I think that scale influences how democracy is practiced. When we dealt with city states and the pool of candidates and sphere of influence and control were smaller the system you suggest has its advantages. On a nation state level where spheres of influence are much broader than spheres of concern it becomes problematic.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GeoFee
revjohn wrote:How do such
Posted on: 04/21/2011 13:05
Can we imagine something quite to the contrary? That is, it seems the Biblical account testifies to the longing for liberation from the archons by which creature and creation are spoiled.
The paradigm is established in the liberation of an indentured population groaning under the weight of exploitative and oppressive rulers; who profit by their enslavement of those without capacity for resistance. Do we not hear that people cry out for deliverance?
We may notice that this pattern is expressed in the dialectic tension inherent in the encounter of prophet and monarch in the narratives of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles?
This dialectic is further elaborated in the narratives of the major and minor prophets of ancient Israel. Though we find testimony to the practice of good kings (archons) the prophets are near universal in their denunciation of royal power as exploitative and oppressive.
In the gospels we see Jesus as the strong critic of royal and religious powers as hostile to the intention of God and the interest of persons in the land; creature and creation. Just now we are engaged with this testimony as we commemorate the rejection of Jesus by the diverse archons of the age.
All only to wonder if John's characterization of Jesus as archon of archons misses the mark. This by noticing that Jesus is presented in the gospels not as archon but as logos.
Further, that this logos makes present the will and purpose of God in creature and creation and is rejected by the archons who profit by the appropriation of power to the service of self interest without consideration of cost to creature and creation.
My point?
In Jesus we are offered what we truly seek, not archon but logos; by which the dominion of the world archon, with all of its subordinate archons, may be overturned and the realm of God made manifest; a realm characterized by freedom, responsibility, creativity and courage.
revjohn
Hi GeoFee, GeoFee
Posted on: 04/22/2011 07:02
Hi GeoFee,
Can we imagine something quite to the contrary?
Rather than address the question? Sure.
That is, it seems the Biblical account testifies to the longing for liberation from the archons by which creature and creation are spoiled.
I recognize the value of interpretation. This is one that I do not buy into exactly. Also, the danger of running with appearances means that we stay only at a surface level engagement and ignore the substance of the thing.
The paradigm is established in the liberation of an indentured population groaning under the weight of exploitative and oppressive rulers; who profit by their enslavement of those without capacity for resistance. Do we not hear that people cry out for deliverance?
Do we dare ask liberated from what into what? It is fair to point out that Israel suffered under a succession of archons who used the standard means of the world to enforce their will (which was warned would happen and the people embraced it anyhow) the parenthetical fact speaks very strongly to my belief in a need.
Getting back to the from what into what element. Where does scripture suggest that liberation into non-relationship is the goal or redemption. Do not the very words redemption and grace require a relationship where one must give what the other cannot acquire for one's self?
We may notice that this pattern is expressed in the dialectic tension inherent in the encounter of prophet and monarch in the narratives of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles?
Please, let us notice that pattern. Let us explicitly notice that the call of loyalty is not for the individual to choose between an earthly king and nothing but rather an earthly king and a kingdom not of this world. A kingdom not of this world yet still a kingdom has, as the source of its governance a king.
So how exactly is the prophet calling us to forsake archon? Is the prophet not calling us to choose our archon rather than to forsake all possible archons? I know it is so out of vogue to proclaim that Jesus is Lord. Has such a profession always been wrong?
This dialectic is further elaborated in the narratives of the major and minor prophets of ancient Israel. Though we find testimony to the practice of good kings (archons) the prophets are near universal in their denunciation of royal power as exploitative and oppressive.
Which is of course true and in contrast to the command of God as Sovereign over heaven and earth. Again, not a choice between archon and anarchon so much as it is a choice between archons as the challenge of Palm Sunday is not a choice between Herod and Caesar over nothing so much as it was the arrival of a king who challenged the authority of both Herod and Caesar.
In the gospels we see Jesus as the strong critic of royal and religious powers as hostile to the intention of God and the interest of persons in the land; creature and creation. Just now we are engaged with this testimony as we commemorate the rejection of Jesus by the diverse archons of the age.
And for all of that Jesus is no individualist. Nor does he ever suggest that we do not need God upon his throne with the earth as his footstool. Again, it seems that the rulers of this world are always compared to and contrasted with the Creator of this world as rightful ruler. Dare I point it out again? Once more a choice between archons and not a rejection of archon.
All only to wonder if John's characterization of Jesus as archon of archons misses the mark. This by noticing that Jesus is presented in the gospels not as archon but as logos.
I'm quite certain that for many it does.
Why logos? Why Word. Who holds the word of power in the immediate context of Christ's coming? Is it the individual? Is it Herod? Is it Caesar? Who speaks and it is so? Do you appreciate that only those considered powerful are afforded words with power? We can argue about how one acquires or exercises that power till cows come home. When someone says jump we are only moved if we recognize their authority.
Jesus comes as The Word of God. The very word of Scripture's only true sovereign. Jesus is the Word of Power, the utterance of Sovereign God. Can the word deny what it is? Can it deny what it is and still be truth?
Confess Jesus as logos all you wish. That Word contains power because it is the word of The Archon that is second to none. The logos doesn't deny archon. The logos affrims archon.
Further, that this logos makes present the will and purpose of God in creature and creation and is rejected by the archons who profit by the appropriation of power to the service of self interest without consideration of cost to creature and creation.
Will and purpose.
Clearly no archon has ever possessed these right? Will and purpose are the only things archons get into conflict over. Whose will prevails, whose purpose dominates. If God does not back off in either will or purpose then God is explicitly challenging all contending wills and purposes to defeat God's own.
In Jesus we are offered what we truly seek, not archon but logos; by which the dominion of the world archon, with all of its subordinate archons, may be overturned and the realm of God made manifest; a realm characterized by freedom, responsibility, creativity and courage.
God is not archon then? God does not reign/rule/lead/govern/administer?
We are all set free to do precisely what we wish? Nothing limits and nothing hinders?
We are all just chickens running around with our heads cut off?
Grace and peace to you.
John