Hierarchy and Psychology

[Rekyl]

I have not disagreed with the fact that psychological freedom is as important as physical, but that has absolutely nothing to do whether or not my mind has gotten control of my body (holding my breath)... That was the last example given. <br> <br>If we where talking slavementality then thats a different thing, but as far as Ive seen the only examples given are those that has no relevance to that subject, so I just blindly asumed that that was not what we where talking about... <br> <br>As for slavementality and mental freedom and its effects, I fully agree with you on that one... I would like to talk about it, but I cannot find any relevance between neurology concerning natural reflexes (like breathing) and psychosocial behaviours; if you can, please explain.

[Rekyl]

OK here we go; <br>One concerned stubbing your toe and the "internal hierarchy" of the mind to care more about how much the toe hurts than how hungry you might be for example and the other example was that you body was forcing you to breathe. These was then sort of compaired with peoples "natural tendency" to form social hierarchies. I was merely commenting on the fact that the neurological reactions based on pain and the need to breath has as much to with social hierarchies as bicycles has to do with fish. <br> <br>Im sure we could find a link between aquatic lifeforms and bicycles if we tried but the relevence isnt really there... <br> <br>The person I claimed was pro-authoritan was the person who started this thread; anomylous or something... He made some claims that atleast from my perspective looked like he was trying to make a statement for Authority and Hierarchies.

[Din]

[color=green]I cannot find any relevance between neurology concerning natural reflexes (like breathing) and psychosocial behaviours; if you can, please explain.</font color=green> <br> <br>I can't either...

[PunkCasualties]

Among this topic occurs the idea of the Heirarchy of Needs, a table created by Abraham Maslow, a great psychologist. This chart expresses the values of which conformists and human beings attend to. I saw this post on heirarchy and the needs of society. So i thought i would post a little known info on one of the best psychologists of all time. Except maybe Freud, whom of which would not have a name in this society if it weren't for the term "sex and agression". That is all.

[Guest]

I am pro-authority, anti-authority, both, and neither depending on the context in which it is used. Only an idiot would take his anti-authority dogma to such an extreme that he would have any old chap cut out his appendix when he got appendicitus. <br> <br>Hierarchies can be positive as well, as the main forces that combatted Hitler's fascism were organized in the military hierarchy. <br> <br>If your idealism has blinded you to the positive uses of authority and hierarchy, then you're just another asshole kid that wants to be more "punk" then the rest of us. I agree that both authority and hierarchy are largely overused to the ill of society, but that is not to say that they can't be transformed into something positive. <br> <br>The need for breath can be circumvented in the way of Houdini, but if one is too afraid to challenge the inner hierarchy he won't be able to perfom the same kind of magic. The same goes for your approach to challenging social hierarchies. If you just yell and scream, people won't want to be around you, and you can pretend that it was because of their sense of hierarchy. <br> <br>So how does psychological hierarchy/authority relate to real world hierarchy/authority? Well, if an authority or hierarchy is going to be altered, IT NEEDS TO BE ECOLOGICAL FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. <br> <br>--&gt;&lt;--

[Rekyl]

&lt;&lt;&lt;If your idealism has blinded you to the positive uses of authority and hierarchy, then you're just another asshole kid that wants to be more "punk" then the rest of us.&gt;&gt;&gt; (ano) <br> <br>First off; why do you assume that I am one thing when infact you have most likely never even been within a ten mile radius of me? Why do you think I yell and scream? <br> <br>Second; what do you think my ideology is? Why do you assume you can so easily define for me what I am? <br> <br>And at last; where do you come off using such impotent rhetorics as defining those who doesnt agree with you as something no one will be described as? It doesnt really wash as an argument for your cause, does it? <br> <br>&lt;&lt;&lt;So how does psychological hierarchy/authority relate to real world hierarchy/authority? Well, if an authority or hierarchy is going to be altered, IT NEEDS TO BE ECOLOGICAL FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.&gt;&gt;&gt; (Anomylous) <br> <br>Well you never mentioned anything about psychology in your examples unless you belong to the school that claims that neurological impulses and chemical reactions are all we are. <br> <br>I would like to differentiate between false and natural hierarchies before going any further, I for example ask my Father about things concerning housebuilding (he better than me) but I am not forced to follow his advice. <br> <br>Now; you claim that your example of neurological imuplses is somehow a good way to show that you consider some forms of authority to be useful, right? Not mentioning the fact that as an example it didnt really say anything about it to me (and appearently not to some others aswell) and as such was kinda useless; in what way is this relevant? We all know that it is a rather nice feeling knowing that the person who just cut your belly open to remove your appendix knew what he was doing, but I think many would disagree that this would somehow prove that other authorities are justified. <br>One cannot avoid the issue that knowledge does have a say in what *I* would let *you* do to *my* person, but I wouldnt say that you would have the right to rule over me just because you have a nice title or enough money or party backing to make this possible. <br> <br>One is selfchosen, I wanted you (in this example a skilled doctor) to remove my appendix instead of Fred (local hardwarestore keeper), the other was forced upon me; You say your a Gov official which means I have to let you remove my appendix (or worse still, let Fred do it). <br> <br>Its the grey areas that are off course more interesting, but as far as I can say you havent really been interested in them (and when I speak of grey areas, I dont mean my appendix who should be, by this time, rather pink and in nice shape thank you (please call off Fred))... <br> <br>&lt;&lt;&lt;Hierarchies can be positive as well, as the main forces that combatted Hitler's fascism were organized in the military hierarchy.&gt;&gt;&gt; <br> <br>Now personally I would say that this was done more or less by the personel involved not the way they built up their military society. And on another note; The fact that for example Hitler did allot of wonderful things to, say German health care doesnt mean he should be glorified and neither his way of handling the nation (Very Authoritan)... And we shouldnt applaude Mengele even though he with his "research" managed to assist diving technology and even our space explorations. <br> <br>But I agree with you on one area, if you rely to heavily on a ideology and let it become a series of Dogmas and strict commands then you just set yourself up to be duped by the next eloquent little Goebbels that may stroll by... <br> <br>Respectfully; <br>rekyl.

[monkeyman]

I feel like certain 'rules' would need to exist, but no leaders would be necessary to enforce them. Every individual is born with the knowledge of right and wrong. Some just choose not to use this knowledge.

[Theobalt]

Every individual is born with the knowledge of right and wrong. <br> <br>Children have to learn it, they aren't born with this knowledge. But, usually they are quick to understand that doing bad things to someone means retaliation. When they grow old, they (should) learn that cooperation pays more then egocentrism. <br> <br>Freedom means responsability. So, let people be free, and they'll set rules for themselves. If a leader enforce these rules, it suppresses their freedom, and responsability at the same time. The more there are oppression, the more people act stupidly.

[monkeyman]

I think they have a sense of what's right and wrong, but even so, that could still be taught.

[Din]

[color=green]Every individual is born with the knowledge of right and wrong. Some just choose not to use this knowledge.</font color=green> <br> <br>Who determines what is right and wrong? What standard? Where is the evidence that there exists some sort of universal objective notion of what is right and wrong, common to all culture and all time? <br> <br>There would be many who would think that anything anarchic is wrong. It would be a point of dogma to contend with them "We are right! You are wrong!" only to be greeted in return that "We are right! You are wrong!" over and over again... <br> <br>[color=green]I feel like certain 'rules' would need to exist, but no leaders would be necessary to enforce them.</font color=green> <br> <br>Who determines what these certain rules would be? The first generation of anarchists? The vanguard? The elders? The wise? <br> <br>You choose your own rules for your own self and I will choose my rules for my own self. That is anarchism.

[Din]

[color=green]One is selfchosen, I wanted you (in this example a skilled doctor) to remove my appendix instead of Fred (local hardwarestore keeper), the other was forced upon me; You say your a Gov official which means I have to let you remove my appendix (or worse still, let Fred do it).</font color=green> <br> <br>That is a common response from anarchists, including, for instance, Bakunin and Tucker. Unfortunately, if anyone were to think about it further, such a sentence can practically justify a democratic system of government. The distinction between voluntary and coercive authority can only go so far - and anarcho-capitalists enjoy seizing upon such a distinction since it allows them to argue that their advocacy of "voluntary" employer-employee relationships is compatible with anarchism. <br> <br>A more appropriate rejoinder is as follows: <br> <br>Anarchists reject hierarchical authority - i.e. rulers. A doctor with authority on medicine would hardly be considered to be hierarchically above a composer with authority on harmony. When we say that a doctor has authority on medicine, we are essentially saying that a doctor has authority over an abstract conception. When we say that a bootmaker has authority over boots (to use Bakunin's example), we are similarly saying that the bootmaker has authority over non-living entities of tools and raw materials. <br> <br>The real distinction, then, lies between an authority of a skill, which entails the mastery or control of the "materials, the objects, the things, whatever it is that a specific skill is exercised upon" and a hierarchical authority of one individual or group of individuals over another. <br> <br>Credit to where credit is due: Graeme Nicholson, "Authority and the State" in Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), The Political Economy of the State [Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1973] <br> <br>When we say that anarchism is "without authority", surely and clearly we are referring to this conception of authority between human beings over other human beings. Not abstract concepts or raw materials. <br> <br>Of course, as many of you would know, some anarchists have extended the "without authority" ideal to other living things beyond human beings - most obviously, animals. <br>And a small group of anarchists have extended the "without authority" ideal to abstract conceptions - this is precisely what is meant by internal authority [note, however, that I'm not sure if anomolous and myself are even talking about the same thing!]. Neither are essential aspects of anarchism and to consider either as being so would result in the expulsion of most historical anarchists from being considered anarchists. What is essential to anarchism - and which cannot be dispensed with - is the authority of human beings over other human beings.

[Guest]

I have to say that I've enjoyed this debate immensely so far, and feel as though I have learned a few things. Thank you to all the participants, and perhaps to subsequent posters as well. <br> <br>-&gt;&lt;-

[Guest]

Is anarchism not the freedom to choose what you yourself deem as important (internal hierarchy) while not fearing that this will have societal repercussions, such as being persecuted and oppressed(external heirarchy)??

[Man]

It is quite hard for internal hierarchy to exist without it being projected onto the world.