Greetings Mark and Craig, There is much to say on this topic. It's an old favorite and a recurring theme so I'll just keep going as the mood hits.
> > Craig: > > > > There may be "values shared > >> by the members", but also NOT shared by other members. And not only > might > >> there be no consensus, there might not even be a dominant value. > John: One important point you bring to light with this critique, Craig, that I haven't emphasized enough is yes, choice is paramount. That is, a member of a group can always choose which values to adopt and a community only occurs with intention and a shared sense of a narrative being. As my favorite author defines it: "If, ignoring history, you merely take a crosssection of the social order at any one moment; and if you thus deal with social groups that have little or no history, and confine your attention to social processes which occur during a short period of time, — for example, during an hour, or a day, or a year, — what then is likely to come to your notice takes either the predominantly pluralistic form of the various relatively independent doings of detached individuals, or else the social form of the confused activities of a crowd. A crowd, whether it be a dangerous mob, or an amiably joyous gathering at a picnic, is not a community. It has a mind, but no institutions, no organization, no coherent unity, no history, no traditions. It may be an unit, but is then of the type which suggests James's mere blending of various consciousnesses, — a sort of mystical loss of personality on the part of its members. On the other hand, a group of independent buyers at market, or of the passers-by in a city street, is not a community. And it also does not suggest to the onlooker any blending of many selves in one. Each purchaser seeks his own affairs. There may be gossip, but gossip is not a function which establishes the life of a community. For gossip has a short memory. But a true community is essentially a product of a time-process. A community has a past and will have a future. Its more or less conscious history, real or ideal, is a part of its very essence. " I believe Mark weighs in on this point affirmatively. > [Mark weighing in, ..Burp] > > I think that there is fallacy in considering the societal level to be > the sum of individual levels. As individuals we exist in the > biological level (or organic, whatever). A collection of individuals > synergistically form the societal level which goes by its own > consciousness. This is similar to the cells making up our > consciousness. As such, we are speaking of group consciousness, not > individual desires all summed up and fought over in a political way. > Such values are not within the domain of the individual, although he > does provide basis for them, in the same way our cells provides the > basis for our consciousness. Some overarching structures exist > within the societal level that do not exist within the individual > level, such as synergism (more than the sum of the whole). > > Therefore while John is defining Society, he is not defining the > societal level. He does expand the definition with an "and the common > environment", but the exact meaning of this is unclear, and I don't > think it meant some kind of general archetype (ala Jung) inclusion. > John: Right. It's a big topic and the way I've oft made the distinction in the past is between a collective and a community. A community is more than a collective, when the individuals in a group intentionally choose to emphasize a narrative with a past, and a hoped-for future. Now admittedly, we do not exactly "choose" our environmental context. We're pretty much born into this world. Be we can choose to emphasize it or focus upon it, much like I pointed out to Ham about choosing to see trees as part of our breathing apparatus. Mark: > > Now John, when you state that life is good and death is bad, you are > not making a very good comparison. It would be more adequate to say > that birth is good, and death is bad, since both are single events. > John: Hmmm... I see what you mean. Semantical connotations and all that. Life in the sense I was talking should be contraposed with not-life. Sterility. There's no death on the moon! Your correction of distinctifying birth and death is helpful. Birth and death together comprise "life". Good point. Thanks. Mark: > > On the other hand, if you are saying that alive is good, and not-alive > is bad, this is also an unfair comparison. Principally because the > comparison is made from the alive side of things, and cannot consider > the not-alive side. Comparisons should be done with things that are > experienced in our alive state. Now, there are some who claim to have > experience the other side, and say that it is pretty good. Who knows? > Maybe we are really dead right now, and waiting for birth. Anything > is possible. > John: Well, I am operating from the "alive context". I've been thinking about this a lot from discussing it with Ham, and I'd say my biggest disagreement in practical terms is how he places value-cognizance solely in the domain of intellectual man. Biocentrism places value-cognizance as being life based, not man based. The realization of time and reality is a function of animal consciousness. Quality is that which brings life and life is that which realizes Quality - the Good. Therefore, "not-alive" in the sense I mean now - sterility - is about the best way I can define the bad. But good points raised, one and all. John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
