| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2006 10:42:44 PM |
| Object: |
Society and individuals |
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
http://titancity.com/blog/
.
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
22 Dec 2006 04:02:44 AM |
|
|
Consciousness could be seen as a surplus.
And then there's all that violence people suddenly will participate in
in groups they would not consider alone.
Relationships could be seen as surplus.
Surplus is everywhere.
Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
http://titancity.com/blog/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
21 Dec 2006 11:21:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:42:44 +0100, Peter Bjørn Perlsø <spamtrap@SPAMMERSMUSTDIEmacplanet.dk> wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
Information.
"Information" is considered by some to be as substantial
an aspect of being as matter/energy and space/time, and
also manifest as if by magic from on high.
Another question :
Are "qualia" information or are they yet another manifestation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
22 Dec 2006 07:26:54 PM |
|
|
Sir Frederick wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:42:44 +0100, Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 <spamtrap@SPAM=
MERSMUSTDIEmacplanet.dk> wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
Information.
"Information" is considered by some to be as substantial
an aspect of being as matter/energy and space/time, and
also manifest as if by magic from on high.
Matter/energy isn't substantial.
(But I'll accept the 'information' part -- although
it too is insubstantial.)
Another question :
Are "qualia" information or are they yet another manifestation?
What's it feel like to be an apple?
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
22 Dec 2006 09:55:32 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2006 17:26:54 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir Frederick wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:42:44 +0100, Peter Bjørn Perlsø <spamtrap@SPAMMERSMUSTDIEmacplanet.dk> wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
Information.
"Information" is considered by some to be as substantial
an aspect of being as matter/energy and space/time, and
also manifest as if by magic from on high.
Matter/energy isn't substantial.
Whatever.
(But I'll accept the 'information' part -- although
it too is insubstantial.)
I use the word "charade". But then facisiosness will only
get you so far. No word seems available.
Another question :
Are "qualia" information or are they yet another manifestation?
What's it feel like to be an apple?
Like an orange?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
22 Dec 2006 10:34:39 PM |
|
|
Sir Frederick wrote:
On 22 Dec 2006 17:26:54 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir Frederick wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:42:44 +0100, Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 <spamtrap@S=
PAMMERSMUSTDIEmacplanet.dk> wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
Information.
"Information" is considered by some to be as substantial
an aspect of being as matter/energy and space/time, and
also manifest as if by magic from on high.
Matter/energy isn't substantial.
Whatever.
(But I'll accept the 'information' part -- although
it too is insubstantial.)
I use the word "charade". But then facisiosness will only
get you so far. No word seems available.
"Like a dream, like an illusion,
Like a city of Gandharvas,
So have arising, abiding,
And ceasing been explained."
-- The Mulamadhyamakakarika, Ch. VII, Stanza 34,
by Nagarjuna (approx. 2nd Century CE -- Chapters
and verse numbers are late additions)
Another question :
Are "qualia" information or are they yet another manifestation?
What's it feel like to be an apple?
Like an orange?
Only to an orange.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
22 Dec 2006 07:24:10 PM |
|
|
Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
Take away the cells, and the individual disappears.
[stages skipped]
Take away the atoms, and the cells disappear....
[more stages skipped, status unexplored]
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
There is no society outside of interaction.
No parts, and no sum of parts. There
is just a conventional description which
sounds good until looked at closely.
But what is this "surplus"?
Karma.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter B. P." |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
18 Mar 2007 07:43:01 AM |
|
|
On 2006-12-23 02:24:10 +0100, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> said:
Well, there is a sense in which society is independent of its parts,
the individuals. Here, in America, the society founded after the
Revolution and secession from the British Empire has survived even
though all the individuals that formed that society are now dead. In
fact the parts die off and are replaced and supplemented in various
ways but the society continues. Take away all the individuals, all at
once, and, you are right the society, too, would vanish. But take away
any one individual or even all of them over a period of time and the
society persists. In that way it *is* independent of its parts.
Ed
Question: How can the society be said to be the same, if the
individuals are changed (ie. the old individuals have died off and been
replaced by new ones)?
To what degree exactly can society be said to have a seperate existence
from that of the individuals that it is comprised of?
// PBP
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
http://titancity.com/blog/
--
If you want to be happy for a day - get drunk.
If you want to be happy for a week - get married.
If you want to be happy for life - get a Rolex.
http://titancity.com/blog/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omniqueryous" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
18 Mar 2007 06:47:09 PM |
|
|
On Mar 18, 5:43 am, Peter B. P. <spamt...@SPAMMERSMUSTDIEmacplanet.dk>
wrote:
On 2006-12-23 02:24:10 +0100, "Sphere" <sphere1...@gmail.com> said:
Well, there is a sense in which society is independent of its parts,
the individuals. Here, in America, the society founded after the
Revolution and secession from the British Empire has survived even
though all the individuals that formed that society are now dead. In
fact the parts die off and are replaced and supplemented in various
ways but the society continues. Take away all the individuals, all at
once, and, you are right the society, too, would vanish. But take away
any one individual or even all of them over a period of time and the
society persists. In that way it *is* independent of its parts.
Ed
Question: How can the society be said to be the same, if the
individuals are changed (ie. the old individuals have died off and been
replaced by new ones)?
To what degree exactly can society be said to have a seperate existence
from that of the individuals that it is comprised of?
// PBP
Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
http://titancity.com/blog/
--
If you want to be happy for a day - get drunk.
If you want to be happy for a week - get married.
If you want to be happy for life - get a Rolex.
http://titancity.com/blog/- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[This is also a response to the original post, which I can't seem to
respond to on account of its age]
Society =3D people + institutions + laws + conscience/morality/values/
principles/ideas + convention/tradition/customs/norms + physical
context + factor "x"
For example, any given individual may not represent "custom" or
"tradition" or "social conscience" -- these are attributed to the
society, even though they are upheld by people. However, if a number
of people were to go to Rome, they may start doing as the Romans do --
so some features of a society involve a sort of abstract principle
effected by people's adherence to that abstract principle. For
example, if I were to think, "People in McDonald's act this way, so I
should as well", and "People at Le Cordon Bleu act this way, and so
should I", I am in effect perpetuating the abstract idea of "how
people should act" in a given place, which is analogous to a society.
Also, many pieces of paper exist which, when read and put to practice,
have an effect on daily life -- thus if laws in one land allow and
forbid one collection of actions, the society will be shaped
accordingly, and so on. Paper encodes the laws into language, but
this must be decoded by human brains to have human-specific meaning --
laws exist independent of people symbolically (in writing), but must
be decoded and implemented by intelligence.
There are also physical features of locations, such as climate, land,
and architecture, which can have an effect on a given society, or can
(in the case of man-made designs) perpetuate or influence features
attributable to the society, although not contained within people.
So, if residents were cleared from New York City, and natives from a
different city and culture were put in their place, with no attempt to
educate them as to "how a New Yorker should act", within a few
generations, we may see a bit of pushy and rude behavior, as the
environment worked its influence upon the social or societal climate.
Also, all the billboards, advertising, campaign slogans, and ever-
present intrusion of various media reaching our senses, can greatly
affect people thus creating a sort of common mentality or "popular
culture", driven to zombified thought, heavy consumption, manipulated
tendencies, etc. So, laws (as paper-encoded) plus physical
constructions exist separately from people, while notions of behavior
and propriety exist within people, associated with a given culture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed" |
|
| Title: Re: Society and individuals |
22 Dec 2006 12:12:57 PM |
|
|
Well, there is a sense in which society is independent of its parts,
the individuals. Here, in America, the society founded after the
Revolution and secession from the British Empire has survived even
though all the individuals that formed that society are now dead. In
fact the parts die off and are replaced and supplemented in various
ways but the society continues. Take away all the individuals, all at
once, and, you are right the society, too, would vanish. But take away
any one individual or even all of them over a period of time and the
society persists. In that way it *is* independent of its parts.
Ed
Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
Hey Group,
In political discussions references to "society" are often made. But
some people give the impression that they think that society has some
kind of independent existence outside the existence of its parts, ie.
human individuals.
Take away the individuals, and the society disappears.
This leads me to ask this: Then society must be defined as *something*
that is more than the sum of it's parts, i.e. more than the sum of the
individuals in the given society.
But what is this "surplus"?
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
http://titancity.com/blog/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
