ebonypearl (ebonypearl) wrote,


After many, many years of pondering, I have come to the conclusion I am an anarchist. In gamer terms, I'd be Chaotic Good. The rules and laws I prefer to follow are the ones I feel are appropriate and good laws. I don't insist that anyone around me follow any laws other than the one that clearly states "Leave me alone" - if their actions impinge upon what I am peacefully, blissfully doing, preventing me from completing it, then I take steps to insure it doesn't happen again.

Order, rules, structure, routine, closure, familiarity, consistency, or certainty are not important to me. These things fluctuate with the circumstances, and should not be fixed-state in my world-view. There are so many exceptions and exclusions that trying to impose rules and such on others is - in my opinion - rather hopeless. Striving for goals without bound-in-place rules and laws makes much more sense to me. Rules, structure, laws - these are guidelines implemented for the sake of children to help them learn and develop a sense of personal standards. Gibbs Rules are OK and sometimes useful (especially since they are a plot device), but some are rather arbitrary, and some conflict with others, so learning how to stand on one's own and pick and choose the "rules" that apply best at this time is an anarchic thing to do. I've never been one of those "my way or the highway" type people. I'm more like one of those, "Eh, good for you. Come back when you wanna play again." people.

I am not sensitive to threats - which is why when I perceive a threat, I tend to take it much more seriously. Amorphous, undefined, "We're all gonna die!" threats just pass through me unchanged. I just can't get all worked up about unfounded threats that are not specific and therefore lack any proper defenses. Turtling up is just not natural to me. This doesn't mean I disregard all threats, just the ones that are highly unlikely. I can't be bothered to be scared of things that will probably never happen in my lifetime or to me and mine.

I am a risk-taker, but only with myself and my things, not with other people's. In that regard, I could be somewhat conservative. Blowing my entire life savings on giving my child a chance to realize a dream is fine by me. Blowing a second life savings on trying to start an event that I think others will love is not a risk, but an opportunity. It didn't play out, but it so could have. Taking chances, learning new things, doing new things; I do these not for the adrenalin rush - if I wanted adrenaline rushes, I'd take up extreme sports - I do them for the opportunities, the learning, the experiences. And if I make a mistake - well, I had fun and learned something, didn't I?

I will scrupulously follow the rules of other people regarding their things and their lives. Should someone have too many rules and be too paranoid, they probably won't last as a friend of mine - we'll just drift away. I'll make sure to reduce contact with them in a way that they usually think it's all their own idea. I don't feel a need to impose order, rules, controls, on other people because I feel they should manage for themselves, but I will follow theirs until it becomes burdensome. If I care for someone, I will comply with their needs - to an extent.

I like uncertainty, risk-taking, new ventures, new things, exploring, going off and doing my own thing without any care for recognition or lauds. I'm not dependent on others for validation or kudos, and would prefer not to receive them. I have a box full of award certificates, trophies, plaques, ribbons, and medallions that mean very little to me other than as a reminder that I did all those things. Standing up before others to receive an award or someone's thanks or something similar is a total bore to me and I will avoid it as much as possible. It's not that I hate the attention, it's that I have more interesting things to do.

That's part of the reason I love my religion so much. There are guidelines and some slight structure to it, but for the most part, it's infinitely customizable and each adherent is personally responsible for how they live it - and for documenting and supporting their stances.

Being an anarchist doesn't mean total chaos, it means laws and freedom without force - a coming together of mature adults to review and discuss developments without a centralized authority. It is a mostly autonomous religion, with only one truly core belief (and even that could change if new information comes to light that would substantially alter it).

I suppose this is because I believe people should mature and be trustworthy. Laws, order, authority imposed from above or without all imply immaturity and distrust.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded