Not Aspie enough!

Post Reply New Topic

As regards Anarchism, besides being simplistic and silly, is not the point moot? In any serious and practical exploration the problems at hand, may we take the presumption of working within the existing legal framework?

Jonathan79, isn't taking insult beneath the dignity of Aspie candor? If you don't even believe I so intended, then purge yourself of the knee-jerk response to buzzwords. Show me that little trust, sir. The different expectations Asperher's might entail from others generally fall into two categories. One is differing stimulation needs and preferences, notions of fun. And the other would indeed be exemption from difficulty. The latter is, of course, a practical consideration, but psychologically it can also be an excuse to avoid the anxiety of the risk even trying. And there really should be no trepidation simply in speculatiion as to what might or not be feasble. Can we get on topic, then?

And find my testable hypothesis presented in the topic: 'Aspie culture and Aspie candor: Hope or hokum?' at http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ic&t=14935

While always possible, such conclusion as yet remains unsupported, the inquiry being far from exhausted.

And, for that matter, how or not might a change in social order improve matters for us? The answer to that question still might remain somewhat contingent upon whatever the true etiology of our difficulties.

Besides, without networking and without playing to our strengths, how the Hell do you expect ever even getting a revolution off the ground? Isn't that all just monumentally Sophomoric?

By contrast, one serious, profound and perhaps even at all genuinely feasible change in social order, is such as is most proximate, that is to say: in immediate social networking, on building one's own vital and viral connections and web of support.

Otherwise, we can just forget about ever leveraging any wider clout.

And for whosoever remains in denial or simply cannot even relate, then that will be the first obstacle to overcome. Or else anything further will be rendered somewhat academic.

What a concept!

Which only goes to beg my other points and questions.

AaronAgassi

I don't think you actually read the posts between me and peebo.

There are two different definitions of "anarchy". One of them doesn't involve breaking the law and blowing stuff up.

So you missed the entire discussion on autonomy and freedom and any benefit it might bring to help you with your "bullying heteronomy".

Well, actually, I do indeed retain a passing grasp the varied shades of Anarchism, all the way from bomb throwing assassination through to Mikhail Bakunin's all too tragically prophetic critique of Marx. Just what of it?

Good luck with that.

what?

If you think that all we need do is wait for the floor to drop out from under us, into a bed of roses, then you're just boring me.

Roses are damn prickly things mostly. And the pricks sting. For ages.

I was trying to establish a goal, ie what would the world looked like if we achieved what we want. Yes, Utopia, which is unattainable and differerent for each and every one of us, but it's still a better target than no target at all.

Progress, the ongoing improvement and correction of defects and mistakes, is more feasible and indeed possible at all. And so, no, an impossible ideal is not actually crucial simply as a benchmark. And I find myself still struggling here with you to get back on point at all discussing particular possible areas of improvement, problem definition and active solution strategies.

AaronAgassi:

And I struggle with your abstractness. That last post while being in English I could understand was so far removed from anything tangible that it doesn't actually mean anything much to me.

So maybe we could go back to "bullying heteronomy". And define that a bit more clearly. What specifically about the status quo do you find bullying? And what would you like to change? I keep thinking we need to go in the direction of more autonomy (this is like the friendlier definition of anarchy) and maybe more personal concierges for those of us who aren't completely capable of looking after ourselves.

Personally, I'd like to be able to keep the part of my tax that is currently allocated to fighting in Iraq and spend it how I see fit, like reducing the waiting lists for serious operations like knee replacements. Or dental care.

I agree with wobbegong, AaronAgassi. Can't even understand what your point is anymore. Anyone with advice or suggestions is brushed off by you and ridiculed. Sooner or later, people on here will stop replying to your posts, you will be ignored. Is that what you want, because you're going the right way about it. And forget about your polysyllabic reply because I won't be reading it.

I cannot further or better define the nature of progress, the standard definition as it happens, unless I am posed specific questions.

Bullying includes violence, intimidation and overt harassment as well as relational bullying. And bullying seems more often a social phenomenon than the aberration of a lone individual. Hence networking is crucial both to relational bullying and to the common defense therefrom.

Obviously, bullying tends to be conformist and heteronymous phenomenon and on this I take it that we all agree. And I am all for more autonomy. But my concern begins less with overall change in society, let alone utopian transformation, than with more effective and gainful function within society. And the key to better function in society is more effective networking. This is also the crucial lever of any hoped for wider change. Otherwise, the very question is rendered entirely academic.

Another concern of improved social interaction, is better service to varied stimulation needs.

And never mind the futile gesture of withholding a few tax dollars from the Pentagon. Making and keeping more money is another entirely a desirable practical goal of effective networking. So is Politics. So is the reconciliation of the different priorities.