Autonomy, Responsibility and Freedom - Interview Part 1

in autonomy •  3 years ago  (edited)

Autonomy, Responsibility and Freedom - Interview Part 1
Introduction in 2016

- The last events and actual mood in Steemit,made me to listen to an interview I gave more then 20 years ago, to Sara Aleixo a young film maker that was searching for inspiration for a movie she was making about Autonomy .

Thanks for her vivid spirit and drive of this interview made in the year 1995

This was later published on the Internet in the Portuguese Language in 1996 . Transcript "as was" in the tape

So I decided to post it here to help people think more about what should be different in decentralized autonomous systems, to revolutionize, corrupt and make Power obsolete, the main dictatorship of actual society against the flux of autonomy and freedom.

Of course for me, a long time anarchist I see new values to create an anarcho-capitalism society , that have never been mentioned in all the theories of Anarchism are they Revolutionary (change the system but with alternatives), Rebel (against the system to create alternatives) or Revolted (destroy the system with no alternatives) methods seen in social anarchism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, social ecologists, bomb anarchists, philosophical and individualist anarchism, and others

This new Value should be untraumatized Children in the future world
I think a child that is not bullied will never bully others, because this the the root of the problems

After abolishing Slavery, we have tried to liberate Men , Women are liberating , but we must free the last slaves, Children

"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." -
Jean-Paul Sartre

If we stop the Violence our ancestors used upon us, and stop the cycle of passing it to our kids, then we can be free and help to create a world were people have enough autonomy, are happy and know how to live in an "antagonist-cooperative", "competitive- collaborative" World without the interference of Power

Since Linu(s)(x), and Free Open source code I always felt some kind of "conspiracy" that could destroy the structure of Power and centralized systems, con-substantiating a world with more ethics and global justice

Blockchain is still the living proof, how a scientific invention in Open Source, uses decentralized consensus as a definitive proof we don´t need Power intermediating the value of money to suck it all.

I think anarchy is defined in the balance of three fundamental human values: Autonomy, Responsability and Freedom as the pillars of Living with oneself and the community

Please be aware that this interview was made in the end of the last century, so please comment , criticize or enfasize discrepancies or anachronisms with today's life and what became true

Introduction in 1995

This Interview given to Sara Aleixo on the autonomic capacity of each person whose contrast affiliation (need to rely on someone else), reading also on the other hand, the tendency for success (capitalist achievement), which has two components, the force for Success and strength to Power.

Checks If, in the tests that our Portuguese population has great penchant affiliation, which implies low autonomic capability. Moreover, there was a higher tendency for Power than the tendency to Success.

"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility" - Sigmund Freud

Autonomy, Responsibility and Freedom - Interview Part 1

"Happiness is an intermediary stage between scarcity and excess" -
Ibsen [1828-1906]

Credits: Freedom Photo - Photo Alan Levine 2015/365/23 Thinking of Freedom host:

Sara Aleixo - The main question, which is the basis of this interview, it's about autonomy. What is autonomy?

Charlie - What is Autonomy ... It will be difficult, will be a long journey ... there are many things ...

Sara Aleixo - There are many senses, is not it?

Charlie - Yes, for me Autonomy ... puts a big question, this will start and end in the autonomy, I think, in freedom.
After the question has to be put on a personal level, the level of interconnecteness and the level of social ideological structures, is a bit tricky!

Sara Aleixo - Ideological?

Charlie - Yes, there is always a cultural ideological structure which conditions intra-individual autonomy, the autonomy of each.

Let's see if I would get a definition, autonomy may be ... can be the ability to develop a task, a thought, a goal, referencing me more on myself than to an external source.

Therefore, people who do not have much autonomy to accomplish anything, have to ask to whom one consider the Chief, which is assumed to have autonomy, and it varies within the various cultures.

It is known scientifically that the Americans and the British have a greater autonomous capacity.

And there was an individual who was studying this to find out why these people were so autonomous... there is a work called The Ethics of Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber, who will find a relationship between the adults cultural autonomy, in a society with a very early education in childhood.

And it was found that the more Latin cultures, Southern Europe, in South America and in India, do not develop in children up to the age of one year and a half, a large autonomy, while the Americans are much more autonomous because require children up to a year and a half to take a number of tasks such as knowing pack your clothes, learn to wear it, learn to eat with knife and fork, making a series of tasks with the absence of the father or mother who the will to gain a lot of autonomy, precisely because of this situation.

However, these authors do not turn off the autonomy of another series of factors.

They studied four factors studied what was the tendency for success, then put the autonomy and a counterpoint of autonomy, which is another factor called affiliation. Membership has nothing to do with father and son, and has ... affiliation mean, exactly, the need for someone else to act. They put these two factors as two points that defined the trend for success.

Of course we, with this buzzword "trend to success", we can not switch off at all, the capitalist structural spiritual model, is not it? Thus, the tendency for success is analyzed in terms of the capitalist model.

It is known that, in a capitalist model, who is inserted in it, to succeed, must have a lot of autonomy, little affiliation, tendency for Power and tend to success. Are, at bottom, these four factors that define the trend for success, one of the very tendency to success.

McClelland, who applied these studies worldwide, discovered that Americans, for example, have a greater tendency for Autonomy, Success and Power,and in northern Europe also had values ​​with great tendency for autonomy .

After appears Southern Europe, Asia, etc., where people have little autonomy and are very affiliate, or, to act they are highly dependent on others, and on the other hand, since because capitalists cultural models are less developed here also tend to have less tendency for Success and to Power.

And also, perhaps, because the Power is very structured and stable in these countries, more fascist, perhaps.
And, after all, in the most democratic countries, where democracy is more interactive and less fascist, people have much more Autonomy and want to act, and then it ends up in Freedom.

The Latino audiences, from Southern Europe and there below, live what I call a Fascist Democracy because, precisely, they do not exercise its tendency to Autonomy.

"They vote simply on politicians that end up doing what they want and there is no interaction."

While in other countries, where people have higher levels of Autonomy, there is a stronger interaction between the political system and the people.

We conventionally use to call democracy to all this, but it is not, there is a big difference, but then will find that has to do with these such factors.

It is the lack of autonomy, lack of tendency for success ... and the ... They are separated. The trend to success and Power are culturally related and generates do not know if it's good if it's bad, but generates a better adaptation to the capitalist structural system.

And act by itself and have values ​​of democratic and political Freedom, play with Autonomy and Affiliation.

Latin speaking people as they are very Affiliate and have such less developed capitalist society, and will always have these factors in lower values ​​than others, who have such early education, back to the beginning, to Max Weber.

But this is the egg and the chicken, (not two separate units but one process) that is, if society is highly developed culturally and people have a lot of autonomy, then these people generate this feeling in children and this is always unstoppable .

What this gives, in statistical terms, it is that in the most developed countries will have more, because this is an arithmetic progression in logical-mathematical terms and therefore increasingly, there will be a distance in relation to the people who have low development. And it never ends.

And ultimately, the issue of autonomy leads us to the primary communism.

That is, when we reach a world cultural level that the Internet and communications facilitate in one hand, but decrease by another (after perhaps I explain this later), but anyway, the more you develop the channels of communication, the more increases personal autonomy, as the education system to develop in many countries, the more you will develop this issue of Autonomy.

And going back to the question of primary communism, we get to such anarchic society, on the day that people have super Autonomic values ​​and, perhaps, have already reduced the Success and Power values, because I think that social development also , in a thousand years, will divert the stupidity to walk to the capitalist system, where you have everything materially and spiritually nothing.

And, as I think it will also be in the next hundred years, a change in the sense of life, precisely because of the communications, people will begin to choose other values ​​such as creative leisure, creativity, freedom, time available, perhaps will reduce working hours, people will come to have more autonomy, and then comes up to what I wanted to say, I do not correlated at first, but here there is another principle that has to be correlated with all this in personal terms, it has to do with Responsibility.

Basically, Responsibility is synonymous with Freedom, when it reaches the limit of two things. Because Autonomy is the Responsibility of doing things without hurting the other person that is around us.

When the world reaches a super level of Autonomy with this sense of Responsibility, there will be the elimination of the main factor of human destruction, that is Power.

Power exists only because people do not have autonomy.

On the day when people arrive at a total level of autonomy, they will not need leaders or Power, and there shall come perhaps to such an egalitarian communism, equitable distribution of goods.

In the next two or three hundred years, the capitalist logic will destroy completely, the spiritual value and humanity, and there-to get to the time when suffering a shock and will have to start looking for new spiritual values.

And, perhaps, is that Autonomy ... Because Autonomy also turns us off the dominant cultural structure, is not it?

And increasingly, we think more for ourselves and less by what culture and Power structure tells us to think.

And that brings such a beautiful society, where the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the lions graze alongside people, that figuratively, and there where no longer the sharks, also in a figurative sense, the Power of Sharks.

And then we come to such egalitarian society where each is completely independent but has the full responsibility of doing things that will interfere with someone else.

And ..., I have said enough about Autonomy.

Sara Aleixo - You spoke mainly of social, cultural and political structure , is not it? And, of course, the freedom of man as a person is always related to that. But there is a possibility of autonomy in being, in his own person, even living in a culture that has not yet reached that degree of autonomy?

Charlie - What I think is that are the great artists, the great philosophers, people that transform a little the world, and even many years ago, when there was the so-called mass culture, because there was no free communication systems, and communication was very forbidden to those who lived idleness and the work of others, there was a culture.

Then there was always a black sheep, the bourgeois extract or even classes on the rise, petty bourgeois, but there were always people who had high levels of autonomy.

Sara Aleixo - And what is the great degree of autonomy?

It's a Picasso, which is something totally new, out of the collective unconscious and what is expected to see a certain historical period. And so are these people with great autonomy that usually when reveal this autonomy, the Power, immediately clashes with them.

Whenever someone shows an autonomous thinking in the midst of mass social thought, immediately, the Power structures begin to put pressure on people being too autonomous, which are a danger to the current social structure.

Sara Aleixo -What The Power will ultimately do?

Normally exerts a lot of pressure on these autonomous beings, who, by this pressure and they are very autonomous, ultimately generate further works "dangerous" for the system, getting stronger, becoming more autonomous, because they have a concept personal freedom and have a very personal thought, very different from thinking or unconscious prevailing social group in a particular historical moment.

But what happens is that since the hippie era of the Sixties that the Power structure has become quite clever, that is, perhaps, the Power structure has always been unconscious due to their assignment to the inanimate world, namely, the Power come from God, for the people, and there is a great historical radical change, where people had no autonomy or could challenge the Power, could not do anything because he was inanimated, from outside, from God, and that was respected, there was no defense.

And these are autonomous beings, inside culture, which will revolutionize, will be autonomous and will be rebelling against these things.

What happened is that with the logic of capitalism and the distribution of Power, not to a single figure named by an act of the Power, or war, or weapons, or the cosmos, God, he ceased to be unconscious and Men became aware.

World Information Services and Power increasingly have more awareness about the handling of cultures and masses.

It was this radical change that brought a new phenomenon that is chasing up the autonomous people but it creates them two choices: those little independent, end up accepting a situation in Power and develop their philosophy, no longer as an autonomous, but within an institution, in the logic of Power.

And then there are those who are irrevocably indestructible and will continue ...

Sara Aleixo - But what the system does to these?

As soon as they die or stop, the system picks up what they have done, and extract the categories that interest you and tuns it into capitalist cultural terms and sells them.

That is, the "Freak" idealistic spirit of the seventies, today is sold by the commercial capitalist system and is perfectly integrated

For example, in the area of ​​Rock'n'Roll, it is no longer possible to make revolutions because the System has reached this level of self-bounding autonomy of people.

Whenever there is someone who is independent in relation to the current thinking of a culture, society buy it, or kill it and then sells it, and therefore there is here a new logic that is extremely difficult to control, and it was what I was talking about earlier.

For many years there has always been 0.03% of the population, who were such independent thinkers who made the great cultural, social revolutions, art and painting, cinema, but the capitalist system had not yet self-consciousness and did not know to deal with such independent thinkers who always disstrutured society in terms of the future.

They restructured the society in terms of Power and, therefore, is that this issue of autonomy will always clash with the great phenomenon that is the Power, and the Power aims to reduce the autonomy of people.

"It is only in our decisions that we are important." -
Jean-Paul Sartre

Next Post - Autonomy, Responsibility and Freedom - Interview Part 2

Other posts

World Re-Evolutions by the change or mutations of the Word

Freedom of Choice: Free Information – Free Education – Free Speech – Free Communication

Further Reading on the Internet

Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy

Dialectical Materialism (A. Spirkin) Prev Chapter 5. On the Human Being and Being Human Next Destiny, Freedom and Responsibility

Choice, freedom and autonomy - Social Psychology of existential concerns

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!