The twentieth century had so much activism for the quest for liberation for women, black people and LGBTIQ people. — Jack Cummins

Yes. Peak activism developed after 80 years of Jim Crow oppression of black people. There was an upwelling of activism which was well led by a core of very talented activists. The 1950s brought a release from the economic restrictions of the 15 years of the great depression and WWII. Women's liberation wasn't triggered solely by The Pill, but it helped a lot. Gay Liberation, like the other liberation movements, had been percolating slowly, and burst out in 1969. There was a synergistic relationship among the various liberations.

Mentioning Bertrand Russell brings up the strong anti-nuclear weapons demonstrations which were perhaps more active in the UK than the US. There was the anti-war movement in the US and the student-led protests in France (don't remember what that was about). It was a heady time!

Did all these movements change policy/behavior in a major way?

They did. But there are limits. Nuclear policy was too massive to be turned aside. 70+ years after Russell was active in anti-nuclear demonstrations, production of new plutonium pits for atomic weapons has started up at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Women's and GLBT liberation panned out pretty well. Black liberation moved mountains, but the fundamental disadvantages imposed on black people in the US are very difficult to remedy.

Success on the one hand; fatigue on the other. There are strong efforts by citizens to slow down climate change, but there are stronger efforts by Big Carbon to keep petroleum front and center; then there is coal and meat production (I'm not a vegetarian).

For myself, it just seems like we are screwed. Triumphant capitalism will solve the problem of global warming as soon as it figures out a way of making it very profitable. So far it hasn't.

I'm old; I will be surprised if I am still here 10 years from now. Maybe my "sell by" date is considerably closer. Keep up your courage.

One important perspective in thinking of this topic is that of Owen Jones, in, 'The Establishment: And How They Get Away With it' (2015). The idea of the establishment may be an important assumption underlying that of rebellion and it suggests that there is more to the idea of the establishment as a mere conspiracy. Jones argues that it involves 'shared economic interests and common mentalities' as 'an organic, dynamic system. He is writing with specific reference to Britain but it is likely that his general perspective applies to many other nations.

He sees the idea of the system, rather than power itself as being the issue. It is based on protecting the interests of those at the top of the hierarchy and connected to non- liberalism and values of individualism in the 'freedom' of the free-market economy. It is 'cemented by financial links and a "revolving door" culture: that is, powerful individuals gliding between the political, corporate and media worlds.' It goes beyond the power of specific political parties.

I find Jones' critique useful for understanding what appears to be happening in the real world. My own sense of rebellion seems bound up with a rejection of the values of neo-liberalism. However, it is not simply about economics but about an approach to life and being outside of the system. It may be why I cannot get a job and, even when I did I never really fitted into the corporate system. I think that this applies to many people too.

Some may see the 'establishment' as a mythic assumption and I have toyed with the idea of this but do see it as being something which does exist to a large extent. It is hard to know how far to go though, because I know that some believe that there is a 'government blacklist'. I am inclined to think that may not exist as such, although in this information age there is probably so much stored information about individuals anyway, which may be accessed by official bodies, especially with the aid of artificial intelligence.

I am writing this thread after attending a creative writing group, in which the theme was about the establishment and antidestablishmentarianism. What does it mean to rebel and even the idea of the 'establishment' is ambiguous. Generally, I was a little surprised in the group that the majority in the group seemed to embrace conformity as opposed to rebellion. — Jack Cummins

There are many terrifying parts of that paragraph.

In old D&D there was a better alignment system than that which is in most roleplaying games these days. In that alignment system there were 4 poles, evil and good, and chaos and order.

I do indeed assert the existence of a pole and axis for chaos and order. I deny the existence of a pole and axis for good and evil. Evil is merely less good.

Rebellion then is only chaos, renamed. Freedom is also chaos renamed. Desire is also chaos renamed. All of these terms are then effectively synonymous. All of them relate to disruption of order.

But order and chaos are both finally delusional. The balance between them is not.

Free will itself is the only law of the universe, and the balance within that state allows for choice. Choice is informed by emotions only. Effectively there is nothing but emotion in existence. Choice can be fear oriented which is synonymous with all order. Or choice can be desire oriented which is synonymous with all chaos. Anger, the third and final emotion is responsible for the tension between these emotive forces. Anger denies fear and thus allows moral agents to 'stand courageously' too all else in reality. Anger denies desire and thus allows moral agents to 'be calm as self sufficient' (wanting nothing). The tension of anger literally CAUSES the reality we admit to, to exist.

The gist of my own written piece in the group was that my own understanding has altered. Initially, I viewed rebellion in relation to youth subculture, especially punk, new wave music and metal. However, on a deeper level, I came to see it as both a political and philosophical idea, especially after reading 'The Outsider', by Colin Wilson. While thinking about this, I became immersed in the music of the Doors, as well as the existentialism of Camus and Nietzsche. — Jack Cummins

I still assert that rebellion is a bid for freedom against any perceived order. It is desire or chaos. That is all.

Rebellion may be a stance of perception beyond the political aspects of it. Camus saw suicide as an act of metaphysical rebellion. Here, it may be equated with nihilism. I also wonder about the idea of antinatalism as a form of metaphysical rebellion. — Jack Cummins

Nihilism is a rejection/rebellion of a moral agent towards meaning itself. The stance is entirely immoral. Immersed in nothing but meaning, fear actually pushes the observer to deny meaning in order to becalm itself. In such a way, a 'lazy' approach to truth may be attempted, with the danger of moral duty taken off the hook by Nihilism.

Suicide is selfishness that destroys the self. It is rooted mostly in the anger infused desire. Anger is the base of substance, essence, matter. Anger infusion vectors deny existence. Desire is the pull towards perfection. It is no surprise at all that this combination, in weak moral agents, can result in suicide. Effectively, the shame immoral tendency arises from desire. Desire with insufficient anger means chaos is in play more than it should be. Desire reflects worthlessness upon a moral agent. The reason why is that they can only want something if they are currently insufficient in some way. This dynamic can increase the likelihood of the immoral act of suicide because of the imbalance. Adding proper anger to stand to the desire and refute the worthlessness by accepting oneself as belonging, is a proper path.

Suicide can approach a moral act only. It cannot finally be moral.

Generally, choices of conformity or rebellion are bound up with values. Conformity may arise through trust in the tried and tested methods and rebellion, even though based on turning values upside down may have emerged from romanticism. It held strongly in the arts and may have inspired the beat generation writers, including Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, as well as postmodernism. — Jack Cummins

Most art is expression is indeed a formulation of desire, chaos. Beauty itself is directly tied to the concept of mysterious truth as discussed briefly in the esoteric thread.

The use of the Enneagram, as always, helps us to understand truth in motivation.

Enneatype 5 - anger infused fear, denies being and prefers to observe as if they themselves were not present. This type is THE most Nihilistic type. Awareness always comes from fear and order and tends to lean towards denying existing order (truth) to establish its own. Fear is a limiting force and always delusional. Like all order, the key emotion is fear which is reflecting false worthiness on the chooser.

Enneatype 4 - anger infused desire, denies being by wallowing in emotive mystery. The tragic romantic is the most likely to commit suicide. This type desires to be 'special' and this need is so great that it becomes an immoral aim, as in, nothing can be so special that it does not belong. This then leads in more immoral 4 to denial of being, life itself, in order to be so very special. Like all chaos, the key emotion is desire which is reflecting shame on the chooser.

On a personal level, I see the idea of rebellion as a political stance and as a way of wishing to question values. Mostly, I see rebellion as refusing to be an automated, robotic being. In actuality, I find it extremely difficult to 'blend in', which may be unfortunate, especially in relation to finding employment. So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? The theme goes back to the religious sources, such as Milton's idea of the 'fallen angels'. Here, the idea may have involved obedience in service to a higher being and the contrasting emphasis on choosing one's own pathway. So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life? — Jack Cummins

It is all only the interaction of order, chaos, and anger as the balancing force. There is nothing else going on at any level other than that.

Your way of thinking of the idea of rebellion is interesting because it is so different from the political one. As a child, I definitely saw rebellion as being about the nature of good and evil. I was brought up as a Catholic and while adopting that approach and being 'confirmed' at age 11, before I had begun to think of questioning, I saw the idea of rebelling as being equated with sin. I was brought up with the idea of the 'fall of the angels', and the consequent fall of humanity from a state of innocence and grace.

My shift in the way I saw rebellion came while studying sociology 'A' level and especially the topic of 'deviance' and the way in which the label of being a deviant often marks a career of deviant behaviour. It was while studying this that school friends of mine, who were not studying sociology, began telling me that I was a deviant.

The aesthetic aspect of ideas of rebellion are also an important aspect. I am aware of a battle within myself over order and chaos. When I make art I do this in a precise detail as opposed to some who make more chaotic art. On an art based course, someone saw my art as being about control and order. The funny aspect is that I am untidy and chaotic in daily life, even when I try to keep things tidy. The balance between order and chaos is intricate and even chaos theory in physics sees an emergent order from chaos and the rave music makers drew upon this. In music, the tension between chaos and order is so strong and even in punk culture there is designer punk, which is a marketed hype and so different from the original punk mode of expression.

↪Chet Hawkins
Your way of thinking of the idea of rebellion is interesting because it is so different from the political one. — Jack Cummins

Well it isn't completely different. People put things into to broad and vague a category to really understand. It's fundamental forces, only. Order vs chaos. Right vs Left, all duality really is always a trinary situation. And the ideals of both must be balanced and yet not moderated. The extremes of both is what is the good. The moderate middle in conflict is low expectations laziness.

As a child, I definitely saw rebellion as being about the nature of good and evil. I was brought up as a Catholic and while adopting that approach and being 'confirmed' at age 11, before I had begun to think of questioning, I saw the idea of rebelling as being equated with sin. — Jack Cummins

Which is the interesting hypocrisy of the church and I do mean Catholicism specifically. The Protestant reformation is a fear backlash of order amid Christianity. The Catholic church is definitely more on the liberal freedom side throughout history, indulgences pretty much named for the core sin of desire. But all second order individuals (groups) are orderly only in formation and then they tend to be chaos in their next oscillation.

But as the wavelength lengthens, the orderly second wave merges into the chaotic first wave and the first wave rules so the second asymptotes BACK to it, if you follow. So everyone and every organization ends up drifting more and more back to its core emotion, fear for the right and protestants and desire for the left and Catholics. Of course this is very broad brush and stereotyping, but it does work statistically also.

I was brought up with the idea of the 'fall of the angels', and the consequent fall of humanity from a state of innocence and grace. — Jack Cummins

Which is fine. Objective moral truth must be a call to perfection, but when perfection is attained, it starts over again. So this start over is mythed out as a 'fall of angels', when really its just a chance to do it all again, and not be static. Perfection is too hard to be eternal except if time is a delusion.

My shift in the way I saw rebellion came while studying sociology 'A' level and especially the topic of 'deviance' and the way in which the label of being a deviant often marks a career of deviant behaviour. It was while studying this that school friends of mine, who were not studying sociology, began telling me that I was a deviant. — Jack Cummins

I know this can feel predetermined or grouped with other motivations permanently. But that is so not the case. Objective moral truth guarantees one thing only, free will. And choice is infinite in power. That means forgiveness is infinite. But its a law of the universe, the only way the universe CAN BE, and yes you could call that 'love' but 'God' is a stretch (to me).

The point being that within each stereotyped scope there is always a split between that form or virtue of expression and good and evil within that. There is not a type (like Enneatype 4 artists) that do not always have a way to be good within that type. All types are equally moral and immoral as possible. No type is predestined to evil. They are though ... predestined to certain types of evil and certain types of good. That is personality, and NOT disease. So, often our treatments of personality types as a disease is immoral (to me). Both the minutemen and Hamas are rebels. I'd have to read British accounts of the Americans in the revolutionary war to know, but, I'm reasonably sure that one of those is a more moral case than the other. Still the Tyrannical oppression of over expressed order was present in both cases. England was fairly high-handed with the colonies. Israel is even more than that with Hamas.

The aesthetic aspect of ideas of rebellion are also an important aspect. I am aware of a battle within myself over order and chaos. When I make art I do this in a precise detail as opposed to some who make more chaotic art. On an art based course, someone saw my art as being about control and order. The funny aspect is that I am untidy and chaotic in daily life, even when I try to keep things tidy. — Jack Cummins

The witch and pirate (thug) are the heart of chaos. These are tribal men and women. The warriors (enneatype 8) that just like to fight and pose for the female mystery spirit (Enneatype 4). These are the quintessential male and female types for tribes. The warrior and the beautiful witch. But those are both chaos. One is desire infused anger. The other is anger infused desire. Order is right out.

But civilization takes order. And only from order can you truly rebel. Before order rebellion is only BETRAYAL, more personal.

The balance between order and chaos is intricate and even chaos theory in physics sees an emergent order from chaos and the rave music makers drew upon this. In music, the tension between chaos and order is so strong and even in punk culture there is designer punk, which is a marketed hype and so different from the original punk mode of expression. — Jack Cummins

That is because in the end, objective moral truth requires that order and chaos be balanced. It's like a basic law of the universe. The cycle is in oscillation. It has to be to be alive.

To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do be do be do - Sinatra

The duality of life is central to all life and progression. Even with the mythic account in Genesis of the fall, the 'sin' was necessary for the unfolding of history itself. Evil as well as good are aspects of the very existence of life.

The issue of perfection as emphasised in Christianity may be contrasted by the idea of the 'middle way' in Buddhist ethics. However, it is an inevitable that human beings may go to extremes in searching. Balance is not found easily, without lived experience of mistakes made. This may be an unfortunate aspect of life, with people experiencing so much suffering on account of their own or others' mistakes.

The tension between order and chaos is complicated in politics. Anarchism and utopianism may sit together or apart from one another. Even the division between capitalism and socialism is far from straightforward and Marxism may shown the ridiculous nature of this based on Marx's idea that oppression is a positive in the way it will lead to uprising.

The nature of conformity vs rebellion is a central theme underlying religious systems and political ones, and where ethics arises in this. It can even be asked, to what extent are ethics and politics complementary or in opposition? Politics may be based on ideals of goodness or or on the basis of protection of self interest. I guess that rebellion may be about self interest or the search for justice.

Also, you mention pirates and witches. Such ideas and examples show the way in which people are viewed. In the past, there were witch hunts, which may have had variable concepts of what constitutes a 'witch'. Outlaws and rebels may be treated in various ways and may often become scapegoats. There is so much projection of 'evil' onto others and this may involve the tensions between opposites in oneself.