: Always thought you'd have to resort to bombing eventually. As long as there wont be a land logic army following?
No, but perhaps a logic peace treaty that could have been had months ago without the logic bombing...
: Lets call it "humans exist within a social network" without making leaps into the dark
Thats what being meant, humans in a social network, a single word to describe all. Implcitly, a Social being is make up of individuals, the indivisble humans that constitute the parts of the whole.
: As the collection of all those humans networkinf activities. Not as a seperable, superior precursor.
Indeed. Precisely my point- and further, that 'Individual'(of the -ism variety) and state are exactly abstractions from this unity within teh whole. Individual and state are abstractions that represent the seperation and elevation of those parts. State is the 'collective' abstracted and elevated over istelf, alienated, and likewise the concommittant 'individual' is its partner, alienated and abstracted.
: Knowing it 'internally' means knowing the individual people who happen to be networking thus creating something we can call society.
: There is no attempt at isolation, as per John Stuart Mill, the individual being sovereign over himself does not have to become his brothers keeper nor his slave.
Not are they responsible to thoers, and only are 'whole', 'unique' and soveriegn by dint of opposition to the 'state' and the perceived 'mass'. My whole and precise point. to be an individual you need an Other.
:There is no denial of influence but a rejection of the "therefore youre ours" conclusion held by many. The individual does not "recognise itself in the totality" the individul recognises itself as a whole - it may see others as a totality but not itself, it does not view itself as if from a 3rd party (well, for me certainly - I dont say "im a such and such bit in society")
Imagine society as a mirror, the Liberal individual sees the Mirror, the collective other, and cries out 'that is not me!' If they recognised themself *through* society, they would say 'That is me!', those are the choices. We may only know ourselves by teh world around us and in relation to it.
: Because there is no "Being" only the networking activities of individuals an authoritarian state seeks to mediate these activities into a specific set of criterion and rules.
The Being is the free interaction of individuals, however, when Individuals set themselves apart from the being, differentiate and repudiate social networking (as the true rugged individualist/Robinsonades would have you do).
:What Mill railed against was societal norms (ie the commonly held beliefs and activities of many other individuals), what libertairan types rail against the the enactment of those 'norms' as well as the personal convictions of politicians, into coercive unprinciples laws.
He railled against *some* societal norms, not recognises himself in them, he will have accepted many otehrs, and not realised it. And precisely because Libertarians reject rules, and prefer Will of individuals, within 'social networks of individuals' tehre necessarilly arises a state to 'check' that freedom of will, you yourslef positted that model of teh state Against Nikhil regarding building planning- teh state may only interfer to stop us hurting and imposing on others. My precise point is that the liberated individual will creates a couunter-mmove in the Positive state.
: Replace with the networking activities of individuals
Same thing :)
: The "inhuman" market is a result of human networking and valuing. It is as "inhuman" as what goes on at parties, As "inhuman" as the act of choosing and discrimatory valuing.
But we treat it, like a God, like a tribal fetish, it is our own work, and yet we relate to it as an alien Thing, as a system of regulations we see ourselves *against* rather than through.
: If you hold the market to be a "mad god" then you must also hold the "Totality" likewise.
But Totality is the full and free choices of the indivduals that are its sum, the Market is the abstratced restricting state that counter-poises the free will of the Individual. The state/market is Totality. The question is, to we unite Totality within out Wills, or do we abstract and alienate it into the Bourgeois state?
: What did you mean by "esent"?
Resent. Bum :(
: The unspoken agreements are basically an agreement not to do battle over every little thing (except in nightclubs!) and to accept a means of exchange as valid on the understanding that it is stable as a retainer of value. All the other ones around personal relationships are not as relavent to this. I would contend that having observed people as being 'used' to certain things does *not* mean they would accept and agree to *anything* (implicit in this is that humankind have a specific nature). The idea of "each from their ability to each to their need" being one such proposal.
But at one time other such forms of Law were accepted, and they changed, why cannot they change again, to other unspoken undisputed agreements?