|
|
#111
10-06-2005, 03:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On your way
[ QUOTE ]
So you counter with a bunch of witticisms. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is that I try not to substitute argument with "witticisms". But maybe I was too harsh on SheetWise. After all, we can always joke about things. I hope. [ QUOTE ] Either you can't read or you're just a liar. Either way, there's no point in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you anymore. Congrats, you've descended from reasonable poster to just a notch above an outright troll. [/ QUOTE ] In case you are still reading, my aside ("One of the pair of Invisible Hand cultists here advocates that society simply does not exist"), yes, was indeed directed at you. But instead of the invective, you could have simply stated that your previous statements about Society are no longer operative. Or that they need clarification/qualification. Because, excuse me for being attentive to details, but when I pointed out that societies used to sacrifice humans (to appease the gods, etc), here is what you wrote: [ QUOTE ] Individuals sacrificed other individuals. You're using "society" to lump individual thugs into a faceless entity. [/ QUOTE ] ..Which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is Society! No individual without some power invested on him by that "faceless entity", Society (and not just "Government"), could sacrifice (kill) a human being with impunity! If things were as you stated, then indeed Society would not exist. For more on the subject of the imaginary constructs of Society as internalized by its invididual members and the creation, thusly, of an all-important super-structure, I have already pointed out the turning point in analysis here and some primers here. For the record, I must state that I fully respect your utter and strong distrust/disdain against Government! This is the proper starting point. You are well on your way, IMHO. 
|
|
#112
10-06-2005, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On your way
[ QUOTE ]
Because, excuse me for being attentive to details, but when I pointed out that societies used to sacrifice humans (to appease the gods, etc), here is what you wrote: [ QUOTE ] Individuals sacrificed other individuals. You're using "society" to lump individual thugs into a faceless entity. [/ QUOTE ] ..Which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is Society! No individual without some power invested on him by that "faceless entity", Society (and not just "Government"), could sacrifice (kill) a human being with impunity! [/ QUOTE ] Society still didn't sacrifice the individual. And the tolerance for the human sacrifice is still the result of many individual decisions to tolerate it. [ QUOTE ] If things were as you stated, then indeed Society would not exist. [/ QUOTE ] Society does not "exist" in the self-aware hive-mind sense that you pretend it does. You seem to lean on this a lot as a crutch to minimize criminal actions, such as here where you try to disperse the blame for human sacrifice over everyone instead of the people that actually commit the atrocity.
|
|
#113
10-06-2005, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On your way
[ QUOTE ]
Society still didn't sacrifice the individual. And the tolerance for the human sacrifice is still the result of many individual decisions to tolerate <font color="white"> .</font> Society does not "exist" in the self-aware hive-mind sense that you pretend it does. You seem to lean on this a lot as a crutch to minimize criminal actions, such as here where you try to disperse the blame for human sacrifice over everyone instead of the people that actually commit the atrocity. [/ QUOTE ] You are reacting predictably as if I'm the kind of "liberal" that conservatives love to argue against! You know, the kind of "liberal" that usually shifts blame and responsibility from the individual to Society. However, this is neither the case with me nor with my argument about Society. Society did kill those individuals. That specific society established and tolerated specific sacrificial rules; even if only a minority did the legislating, the whole of society is involved. And even if that minority carried the mantle of god-given authority (or, today, ratically assigned" authority)to further "legislate", this does not make that specific society any less complicit. Contrast the sacrificial ritual performed by the individual Inca priest with the sacrificial "ritual" performed by an individual such as Jack The Ripper. While both can be "technically" similar, the context renders them totally different: In the former, the murder is part of social norms and customs, while in the latter case, the murder falls ostensibly outside them. The internalisation, whether voluntary or mandatory, of the (mostly imaginary) constructs that bind individuals into Society is the key.
|
|
#114
10-06-2005, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On your way
[ QUOTE ]
Society does not "exist" in the self-aware hive-mind sense that you pretend it does. You seem to lean on this a lot as a crutch to minimize criminal actions, such as here where you try to disperse the blame for human sacrifice over everyone instead of the people that actually commit the atrocity. [/ QUOTE ] I want to expand on this a little more. It *can* be advantageous to use the "society" metaphor when examining things like *what happens* when large groups of people engage in activities. Aggregate data is useful and important - but it's not *everything*. Ignoring or marginalizing the individual interactions leads to all sorts of unsound conclusions, *especially* when investigating *how* large-scale phenomena occur.
|
|
#115
10-06-2005, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On your way
[ QUOTE ]
You are reacting predictably as if I'm the kind of "liberal" that conservatives love to argue against! [/ QUOTE ] Except that I hold contemporary conservatives and liberals in equal disdain. You're trying to put up a straw man. [ QUOTE ] Society did kill those individuals. That specific society established and tolerated specific sacrificial rules; [/ QUOTE ] Some individuals established and tolerated. [ QUOTE ] even if only a minority did the legislating, the whole of society is involved. [/ QUOTE ] If by "involved" you mean "victimized by the individuals making unjust decisions" I might cut you some slack. If by "involved" you "responsible for the atrocities" I say you're spinning the blame. [ QUOTE ] Contrast the sacrificial ritual performed by the individual Inca priest with the sacrificial "ritual" performed by an individual such as Jack The Ripper. While both can be "technically" similar, the context renders them totally different: In the former, the murder is part of social norms and customs, while in the latter case, the murder falls ostensibly outside them. [/ QUOTE ] The sacrifice is part of societal norms because some individuals used force to coerce people into tolerating them. Unbelievably, this helps them maintain the established power. [ QUOTE ] The internalisation, whether voluntary or mandatory, of the (mostly imaginary) constructs that bind individuals into Society is the key. [/ QUOTE ] So, individuals coerced into tolerance. By other individuals. Amazing.
|
|
#116
10-06-2005, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On your way
[ QUOTE ]
Society does not "exist" in the self-aware hive-mind sense that you pretend it does. You seem to lean on this a lot as a crutch to minimize criminal actions, such as here where you try to disperse the blame for human sacrifice over everyone instead of the people that actually commit the atrocity. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It *can* be advantageous to use the "society" metaphor when examining things like *what happens* when large groups of people engage in activities. Aggregate data is useful and important - but it's not *everything*. Ignoring or marginalizing the individual interactions leads to all sorts of unsound conclusions, *especially* when investigating *how* large-scale phenomena occur. [/ QUOTE ] What if I looked at a group of gamblers in my casino as a society. I have 1000 players at my blackjack tables every day -- and on average, very consistently, I win about 20% of their money. When I look around, I always notice that everyone is having a good time. I calculate my advantage to be about 3%. What can I conclude from looking at the composite behavior of this society? 1) The players skill level puts them at a 3% disadvantage. I would guess that this profile doesn't apply to any one of the individual players. Some are much better, and most are much worse. 2) The players enjoy giving me money to play the game. I would guess that this doesn't apply to any of the players. Each of them, individually was trying to take my money. Yet, as a group, they are enjoying themselves while giving me money. You can define a society using composite data and observing behavior -- but it's dangerous to draw any conclusions from your observations -- about the individual or the group.
|
|
#117
10-07-2005, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Battlefield view
[ QUOTE ]
Aggregate data is useful and important - but it's not *everything*. Ignoring or marginalizing the individual interactions leads to all sorts of unsound conclusions, *especially* when investigating *how* large-scale phenomena occur. [/ QUOTE ] I never claimed anything different. One does both quantity and quality analysis. Only anecdotal evidence or only "the figures" give only part of the picture.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
