What an article. lol. I hadn't heard of you before Steemit, loving what you write, Sterlin.

My feeling on reason vs. emotion is that reason has a higher floor but also a lower ceiling (can't do as much harm but also can't do as much good). With a pure, unadulterated psyche (in a playful, voluntaryist society), emotion tells us everything we need to know, and there's no need for reason. In a culture of threats, blind trust in emotion is risky (and can be hijacked for wrong) and reason can tether the ship.

Does that explanation seem true to you, Sterlin?

So I think your trajectory makes sense (and it's similar to my own). Reason might still serve a purpose in the world we have now. But that purpose is fading and it's ultimately human connection that takes us to the promised land.

I used to play poker, and I always thought of reason and emotion as two legs trying to lead me to the right decision. And using feel over textbook thought process is really the only way to tap into your best potential, but if you're gonna mis-use it or not truly be in touch with it, textbook would be better to lean on to at least not be wildly bad.

FWIW there's probably an observation bias in the amount of hard anarchists out there. Cause they're the ones we see arguing, and know are anarchist. But when someone sees you practicing soft anarchism, you're just some guy.

In my experience all the groups like to argue, anarchists are just cursed with actually being right lol, so it's more threatening and more of a palpable clash.

I think technically Molyneux says that you should make every effort to work it out with them, and to get the help of a therapist, before you "defoo". But I did always get a vibe that was more in line with how you describe it. (Funny how it ties in with hard vs. soft. My vibe is of course "not an argument". He technically isn't wrong, but it doesn't seem he communicated that stuff in a way that was emotionally connected or helpful.)

Which is probably one of the dangers of any media that you can't interact with. It will necessarily be devoid of real connection, and communication of what you need in this unique dynamic moment.

And I think that's fine when you know that's what it is and understand its limitations. But I always found it "off" the way he talks about FDR as something that plays a big role in freeing the world. I don't mind the courage and the belief in himself, it just is totally inside out that a centralized source who necessarily can't have real human connection with people is the path to a voluntary, cooperative, p2p world.

I always felt like his impact on the world wasn't what he believes it to be, and I think what you say about hard and soft anarchy sheds light on that.