The reason why I'm reluctant to share personal experiences is because I reject the idea that they are relevant. If a person says "When washing dishes, one should use soap and warm water for best results, instead of a dry stone", the validity and efficacy of that information is independent of the speaker's having exemplified its efficacy in practice. Think on it yourself. Try it for yourself. Investigate to see if it's true. The idea is to be judged on its own merits, not that of the speaker.
Yes, the information I provide is available elsewhere. I consider myself a radio, broadcasting a message that I have not created; something that is being broadcast by many other individuals. But someone may come into my range who would not have come by this information anywhere else. I am merely trying to carry this information into my sphere of influence.
I absolutely DO embody what I speak about, and one of the ways I do this is by speaking these ideas. I attempt to make my influence in any circumstance representative of that message. So whereas people may have carried on a conversation about compulsory schooling under the assumption that it's moral, appropriate, and beneficial, my presence will introduce an alternative viewpoint that casts doubt upon that unfounded set of assumptions.
I also remove my support from institutions and practices that are not in accord with Truth and morality. I do not vote or appeal to politicians. I do not call the police to enforce immoral laws upon others. I do not support the vile practices of the meat and dairy industry with my dollars or participation. I would not send my children to school, but for the fact that my wife would destroy my family if I imposed this action without her consent, and I have yet to garner her consent because she is too insecure to step outside the conformist paradigm.
I do, however, raise the issue constantly, and teach my children the truth: that teachers have no rightful authority over them, and they have no responsibility to follow any of their commands because they never consented to the arrangement that would imply the obligation. I teach them to challenge what's being asserted by teachers when they bring home information that's erroneous or deceptive. I teach them what that ritualistic oath known as "The Pledge of Allegiance" actually means, and let them know they need not participate, nor should they feel compelled to take oaths they do not understand or agree with.
There need not be any distance between us. I would prefer to both look out into the world hand-in-hand and try to figure out what we're looking at. Is the sun an LED light bulb in the sky, or a flaming ball of fire? There is a truth to this matter, as all others, and together we should seek to find it. When we do, we will necessarily agree; and if we are not in agreement, it only means the work is not yet complete on that particular subject.
Two years later.
I owe you an apology.
I think I now get what you back then tried to tell me. This year made me realize some things which I was not willing to see as it threatened my view of the world (though I deep down knew it but decided not to look at it as I probably felt I could not change it, anyways).
I read a lot about anarchy these days. Maybe the only way to exist in more or less peace. Unfortunately the definition of this term is negative.
I hope, you will find this late answer some day. I wish you to find peace in your heart and mind, especially in this upcoming era. The same I wish for me and all of us.
Love,
E.