From: anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org (anwyn)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Libertarians, guns, etc. 
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:29:48 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Horned Owl BBS


In article <1992Oct7.175213.18836@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com writes:

  > 
  > I just skimmed the article referred to above. Corum, I think we ought to
  > let this idiot thread with Anwyn die. He (apparently) literally can't see
  > the forest for the trees, so he denies there is such a thing as a forest
  > (note carefully thought out analogy here). 

In a sense this is correct. "Forest" is a human abstraction that aggregates 
together the various elements that are said to make it up (trees, animals,
soil ect.) This aggregation a purely arbitrary human convention.
There is no underlying  "forest" reality. Instead there is a complex
web of _particular_ relationships between the elements that are said
to make up the forest. The "forest" concept is of no use to the
biologist by itself. Instead the biologist must study the _particular_
relationships between the two trees. (For example, perhaps tannin from the
oak tree has an effect on the maple.) Thus for a biologist, the
underlying reality in a forest is not the "forest" concept but rather
a complex mass of _particular_ relationships such as tannin. In this
sense the forest does not exist. Contrast this with the point of view
of a physicist studying the relationships of electrons. For him, the
concept "electromagnetic field" is not an arbitrary aggregation but is
said to explain the behaviour of the electrons. I maintain that the
way society is used is analogous to the way forest is used. The
individuals that are said to make up a community interact via a
complex mass of _particular_ relationships. For example, perhaps person
A buys a newspaper from person B. There is not underlying society
reality that determines how person A interacts with person B. (The way
a physicist would say that there is electromagnetic force that determines
how two electrons interact.) "Society" is a purely arbitrary aggregation
of separate things. It does not explain anything. That is what I mean
when I say that society does not exist. The fact that people have put
the word for this arbitrary aggregation in the dictionary is in no way
proof that the word represents an existing reality. 

The word "society" is not often used in genuine attempts to understand
reality. Instead, it is used in moralizing attempts to impose one's
values on another person or to justify coercing other people. That is
precisely what  Corum has been doing. He has said that he can
determine what "an acceptable level of consciousness" is for other
people. That is, because a given person is said to be a member of
society there is an acceptable set of beliefs that that person should
believe in. Many believe that membership in "society" gives the
alleged representatives of the mythical state the right to extort from
the person (in the form of taxes). 

However, if as I have been maintaining, society does not exist and
that the word "society" is merely a word to describe a purely
arbitrary aggregation, then all such moralizing arguments collapse.
In what way can being a member of "society" impose duties on me if there
is no underlying reality "society" and "society" is merely a word used
by certain people to describe a purely arbitrary aggregation? 
  >                                              He would not concede that
  > the definition you put in from the dictionary is acceptable, which makes
  > much of his argument a semantic game. He (I am assuming, from contextual
  > clues, that Anwyn is a "he") refuses to accept the idea that society is
  > the *organization* of his beloved "individuals", and so, acting in concert,
  > can be seen as (as lawyers have it) an "artificial person". I wonder if
  > he sees disease as individual nasty cells, or an operating system as a
  > bunch of programs, operating in isolation from each other. I think that
  > both of us have tried to suggest it's time for a reality check, but he's
  > as out on his limb as some newagers I know. *sigh* I've got better threads
  > to argue, than waste time on a pointless argument that no one else seems
  > to be interested in, with someone who will accept no counter argument as
  > valid (my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts!). 
But no counter argument has been made, only emotional appeals and
attacks on straw man arguements.
  > 
  > Btw, this is being posted, rather than emailed, because a) I want him to
  > see it, and b) see if *any* one else cares about/is fed up with this thread.
  > 
  >         mark
  > 
anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org	(Sysop horned Owl BBS)