There we go. Jackson LaRose: “I don’t know whether or not hunger exists.”
“was that so hard?”
Where do I begin and where does social condiitioning end?
Social conditioning is not an atomic fact - how do you talk about social conditioning as “something in itself” - yet there is something that types, communicates, and contextuals. At root the atomic primitive force that can be put in a logical sequence of an inescapable social science.
Economics does not give a flying fig what the “I” is - it can’. In a science it is ultra social by nature. that’s the point. It is a process and a science that assumes extreme empiricism, and where the facts lie as they are… that’s it. You skeptic out of any science you want - biology and physics are just as shakey whan you ask “what a cell is” or “what an atom is”.
Other than that all I see is a 1st grade grammer question.
What gets rejeced is that there is no way to put “community”, “Ohio”, or anything else as a primitive force. Ohio doesn’t do anything, it is the result of intersubjective custom and a legal term. And if Ohio, Community, o Social conditioning could do something - we would treat it as everything else in the market process… A primitive force / atomic fact that acts all and all unto itself, for itself, and in it’s in it’s own intrest as it happens/ manifest (at every point every manifestation is unique and it’s own force) and no different from anything else we talk about - so nothing changes… Even if “community” was it is logically an equal proposition to anything else that can be asserted, no more or less.
“Physical world” to me means this plane of existence, perhaps the space-time continuum (although a definition even this broad may fall short). John James introduced the term into the discussion, though, so he may have a better one.>>>>
ok, what is a “plane of existence”? Or a “space-time continuum”? I am afraid I dont understand your answer. Consulting John surely will not help me discover what you believe “the physical world” to be, since you clearly do not subscribe to his worldview.
Social conditioning is not an atomic fact - how do you talk about social conditioning as “something in itself” - yet there is something that types, communicates, and contextuals. At root the atomic primitive force that can be put in a logical sequence of an inescapable social science.
Methodological individualism, tho it is a valid way to view groups, cannot alone explain the actions of groups. See:
http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf
And seriously, you’re talking to me about a first grade grammar issue, with that grammar? Yes, it is a grammar issue. That’s been my point the whole time.
It is a process and a science that assumes extreme empiricism, and where the facts lie as they are… that’s it.
Uh, no? Wasn’t it Mises that said something to the effect of “observable data cannot overwrite economic law?”
You skeptic out of any science you want - biology and physics are just as shakey whan you ask “what a cell is” or “what an atom is”.
Ya, that’s kinda what Heisenberg was saying.
Ohio doesn’t do anything, it is the result of intersubjective custom and a legal term
Ohio still exists, and if I break Ohio law, I go to Ohio courts. This is the problem with taking MI too far; people are far too quick to act as if, because groups don’t act, groups don’t exist. Sorry, but they do, and the cumalitive effect of the individual actors alone cannot sufficiently explain the group.
Methodological individualism, tho it is a valid way to view groups, cannot alone explain the actions of groups.>>>>
didnt I read in another thread that you are a metaphysical materialist? How do you resolve this alleged belief with your belief that “groups” of people have characteristics that all characteristics of all members of said group cannot account for?
that you are a metaphysical materialist? How do you resolve this alleged belief with your belief that “groups” of people have characteristics that all characteristics of all members of said group cannot account for?
If it happens, it happens. Just because the effects are unseen doesn’t mean they don’t exist; consider Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
(You know… a few years ago “metaphysical materialist” would have seemed a contradiciton in terms to me . That word “metaphysics” has been severly disused in popular discourse.)
JJ,
No, it was not hard, but as I said,
If you feel “I don’t know” is meaningful enough for you, then good. It doesn’t do much for conversation, though.
Malachai,
Plane of existence? Hm, I’d have to say, “the sum of my perception over the time of my consciousness”. True, John’s opinion may not shed light on mine, but I’ll warn you, I’m not sure I believe the physical world is anything!
Then don’t. But I don’t see how we’re necessarily talking past each other.
A group can monopolize control (i.e. exclude outsiders from it), now can’t it?
Please prove this - if you can. If you refuse, I’ll conclude that you wrote this as just a more sophisticated form of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING!”
I feel I can only translate the above as “I can’t stand people pointing out logical inconsistencies in my positions and I refuse to even entertain others’ semantics when they’re different from mine.”
How is “social conditioning” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) not a part of you? Just because it didn’t ultimately originate from you doesn’t mean it’s not a part of you. Otherwise, by your reasoning, none of us actually exist, because none of us is sui generis. In fact, there’s no part of us (physically speaking) that didn’t come from something/somewhere else.
What I fail to see is how this obviates the notion of “individual human being” as a concept that people can hold in their minds.
What makes it “incorrect”? What makes it “legitimate”? Can you describe this process? Can you describe this “society” or “community”? Being so vague doesn’t help your credibility one bit, IMHO.
In your view, how is one society/community delineated from another? How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate oversight? Again with the weasely vagueness.
Wow, it seems that we even define “semantics” differently. My own definition is “the mapping between words (i.e. sound-forms) and mental concepts”. What’s yours? You’ll notice that, under my definition of “semantics”, your statement “how you describe things defines how you understand them” makes no sense, as the concepts stay the same no matter what words are used to label them.
Any stated concern or interest about my well-being, sincere or otherwise, has no place in this thread as far as I’m concerned. If you honestly cared about my well-being, I think you would’ve already gone ahead and PMed me instead of bringing it up publicly like you have. That’s why I see this “concern” as just an attempt to “get under my skin”.
I do believe I am paying attention. When John James asked Jackson LaRose whether hunger exists, I took it as him asking whether the mind (i.e. the nervous system) receives signals from the body (i.e. outside of the nervous system) that it interprets along the lines of “need to eat something”. John James can correct me on this if I’m mistaken, and I’ll gladly stand corrected.
Cry me a river.
You fundamentally misunderstand (or it deliberately misrepresent?) methodological individualism, it seems. Groups can only be said to exist insofar as individuals believe in them. That is to say, groups only exist as concepts in the minds of individuals.
A group can monopolize control (i.e. exclude outsiders from it), now can’t it?
Yes. And that is something entirely different than public access.
Please prove this
Self-evident, bro. If you live in a society, you will be subject to some form of regulation.
How is “social conditioning” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) not a part of you? Just because it didn’t ultimately originate from you doesn’t mean it’s not a part of you. Otherwise, by your reasoning, none of us actually exist, because none of us is sui generis. In fact, there’s no part of us (physically speaking) that didn’t come from something/somewhere else.
Omg you inferred my position and got it right, for once! Good for you
What I fail to see is how this obviates the notion of “individual human being” as a concept that people can hold in their minds.
You can hold it as a concept if you wish. I find it to be dated and insufficient.
What makes it “incorrect”? What makes it “legitimate”? Can you describe this process? Can you describe this “society” or “community”? Being so vague doesn’t help your credibility one bit, IMHO.
Whatever rules you have to live under in the society you live in. Whatever norms you are subject to in whatever society you live in. It’s called the law, and other various social norms; sociology 101. The society/community is a group of people who directly or indirectly effect each other through their actions; sociology 101.
I’m not worried if you think I’m credible. I certainly don’t think you are. Still love ya tho
In your view, how is one society/community delineated from another? How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate oversight? .
Sometimes they intermingle, but generally it is pretty apprarent where one community begins and another ends. Catholics at St Williams are a different community than Protestants at “New Bible Fellowship.” Il/legitimate is distinguised by the established legal and social norms of any given society; sociology 101.
Wow, it seems that we even define “semantics” differently. My own definition is “the mapping between words (i.e. sound-forms) and mental concepts”. What’s yours? You’ll notice that, under my definition of “semantics”, your statement “how you describe things defines how you understand them” makes no sense, as the concepts stay the same no matter what words are used to label them.
Semantics:
- The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
- The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: “such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff”.
See what I mean about making your own definitions up? That is in no way MY problem. I think what you are defining as semantics is (incoherent) probably closer to syntax.
I’ll not speak on your anger any more. Your life is your concern.
Cry me a river.
You should join me, it would make you feel better. Or keep flaming me and find yourself ignored. It doesn’t really matter to me. I love ya, and care about ya; but not so much I’m going to let your negativity ruin my day
You fundamentally misunderstand (or it deliberately misrepresent?) methodological individualism, it seems. Groups can only be said to exist insofar as individuals believe in them. That is to say, groups only exist as concepts in the minds of individuals.
Strike 2. Keep flaming and become ignored.
As I said, MI is a good way to look at groups. But the individual actions alone of its members are insufficient to describe the group; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you don’t like my criticism of MI, that’s fine. But please, get some self-respect and stop inferring onto me what you want me to be. That’s not very libertarian, dare I say.
But earlier you talked about “community control”. Now you’re changing your tune? Tsk, tsk, tsk… not very consistent of you, is it? Then again, when has a pesky thing like consistency ever stopped you?
Try again. What are you afraid of?
Yet you contradict yourself at every turn. That apparently doesn’t matter to you, though, given your psychopathic embrace with self-serving inconsistency.
Another nice non-response. Try again. But if you’re not going to take this seriously, then why should I?
Am I supposed to be intimidated by this? Come on, you should know better. At the very least, try harder.
You’d fit right in with the Supreme Court judge who refused to define “obscenity” and simply said “I know it when I see it”. We don’t need no steenkin’ consistency/explanations/definitions/logic!
You “make your own definitions up” just as much as I do. The fact that they may be in agreement with anyone else’s also-necessarily-made-up definitions is irrelevant.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve proven my point, perhaps without even being aware of it. Oh well, too bad for you I guess!
But oops, you just did again! Oh you must think you’re so clever…
If it happens, it happens. Just because the effects are unseen doesn’t mean they don’t exist; consider Dark Matter and Dark Energy.>>>>
if the effects are wholly unseen, then how are you aware of them to ascribe a cause?
Additionally, this may answer a question but it doesnt answer my question. Which is disappointing, because I really want to know how a materialist can believe that groups of people have some essential characteristic that is not found in a survey of all of said group’s members.
I agree that “metaphysics” has been abused of late. This probably has to do with the ascendance of materialism and the corresponding lack of discourse on metaphysics as differentiated from physics.
But the individual actions alone of its members are insufficient to describe the group; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.>>>>
can you provide some examples?
Go ahead. Make my day. I’m not intimidated in the slightest, understand?
Too late.
Right, still not intimidated. Even if you ignore me, I’ll still respond to your posts - every single one of them.
At this point, I don’t think I’m inferring onto you what I want you to be. I’m inferring what you are. If that bothers you, see if I care. And more importantly, see if I’ll stop.
You fundamentally misunderstand (or it deliberately misrepresent?) methodological individualism, it seems. Groups can only be said to exist insofar as individuals believe in them. That is to say, groups only exist as concepts in the minds of individuals.
Correct, he did this in discussion with me too:
Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.
Then I told him:
There is no literal, collective “society.” Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot “do” or “allow” or “determine” anything: “it” cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 of Man, Economy, and State.
And he had the audacity to tell me:
Hey, why don’t you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.