On 13/01/15 05:15 PM, Alfie John wrote:
Many people have a need to identify with, participate in, and derive support from, a formal structure or at least a well defined meme... before they can independantly or collectively deal with issues. Even if what they follow ends up being Invisible Discordia. Isn't this antithesis to idea of cypherpunks in general? Once there is a
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015, at 08:08 AM, grarpamp wrote: formal structure, it can be controlled.
A religion is not necessarily a structure. Look at the Eastern religions for example. Or at Quakerism.
Who are its priests? What are its idols? Priests can be discredited and marginalised leading to abandonment by the followers. That's why Anonymous has it right - with nobody at the top to take down, you can't collapse the group. Their power comes from shared idealism, not a dogmatic religion.
Alfie
It would have no need for priests ... better to call them "philosophers" anyway. As an example, a Socratic question: what is the difference according to you between a "shared idealism" and a "dogma"? Can you explain with examples?