Definition Is Prior To Words
2005.08.07 1:48

Let's see what Morosoph says in previous JE -'Perfect Moderate'

Well, here's my take:
It's Blair's 'Communitarianism'. Since it's impossible to ask a body what it, as an emergent form, 'thinks', you need to nominate leaders.

Who said it's impossible? Just Morosoph thought it, of course it is possible so the verification of entire argument goes to dubious though.

That communitariansm exists in partial opposition to individualism

It's also his conviction and mere assertion, if we don't want to believe so we don't have to.

tends to blind adherents to the intrinsic problem of listening to such usually self-selected minorities. Consultation for the purpose of making workable policies and laws gives way to 'group rights': a big mistake,

It's his conviction, ok no problem, it is his freedom to simply think so but it needs what backs for it then

considering that the group's interests may not be shared by any of their members, let alone anyone else.

Unfortunately this is just a tautological statement similar in its contents, or simply repeating what he believes in another slightly different expression.

Integration with mutual respect has to be the best way, but neoLabour naturally wish to make it into something more...I've no problem with a sophisticated balance of interests, but to give power to society itself is, to my mind, the beginnings of fascism.

There' tens of thousands of miles away for any entity to have been bestowed some power to reach fascism, so certaily it is the beginnings of fascism, but it is the same as to say that to light a match is the beginning of big fire, in possibility yes but in reality it never likely to be connected with the rise of fascism, at all.

A community's interests, in short, can easily be opposed to the interests of the bulk or all of its members - and even the bulk of outsiders' interests!

This is a too oversimplified generalisation based upon his mere observation in very limited experiences he had, so first of all such generalisation is impossible, he went too far to say that the interest of community is opposed to not only it's member's but also outsider's. Now we are not talking about possibilities but what it is generaly thought. How come community's interest being opposed to everyone since those who concern are the ones who decide what the interest of comminity is and it is not the community that decides what the interest of members and/or outsiders. Apparently his problem is he tends to decide according to what the term he gave difinition, but honestly speaking we have to think it according to what the difinition the term might connote, the term doesn't belong to his difinition but it is the difinition that decides the nature of terms. All we can do is assume the connotation the term might mean according to our observation and not definitely that is us who decide the difinition of the term. Big difference.

As such, it is simply an alternative corporatism.

Fascism was known to another term for corporatism, again simply repeating.

If you follow the linked thread [slashdot.org], you'll see that I argue that Communitarianism is worse than the old large-scale giving power to large society, since consensus on the small scale is that much stronger, and accordingly more repressive.

In the same reason I mentioned above, there is his conviction first, in his mind consensus and repression are so close, so this is just another mere expression of his conviction. Of course there's no plausible connection between two terms.

I don't think that any of the pure philosophies get it right, but communitarianism is about community power, not democracy.

He is just playing word play in his thought, we are not certain whether communitarianism is about community power or not, let alnoe whether it's democracy. What we want is how the term relates to real community or not relates to democracy, this statement is perfect within his conviction but for us it doesn't make sense at all. Nonsense statement.

In fact it is styled in opposition to liberalism.

There are many terms here - communitarianism, decocracy, liberalism. He believes what relates what and what not, but we are not known yet what they are. Naughty statement.

I agree with you that corporate power is bad, but the group is no better:

His idea expands from corporation to group. He tends to think from terms to terms without attaching the difinition of the words everyone can agree with but only true of within his realm of word difinition, so just that perplexes us.

the dilution of responsibility that being part of the group involves means that democracy cannot be considered a reasonable ideal. Anarchy (no enforcement of property rights either) is better, although there are different flaws there.
Community will is not the right thing to enforce, and neither is corporate will. Both right and left are correct in criticising the other! A healthy community, like a healthy business, is one that serves the people; to hand power over to either outright without accountability is a mistake. Witch hunts of some form or other would be just around the corner...
Democracy is an important part of balancing people's interests, but the rare or unusual is an important part of the social dynamic. A healthy society would be one where the individual and society work symbiotically. Communitarianism isn't this: the reason why is in the name.

This type of thinking perplexes us again to the hell of riddle, please refrain from doing so again. We ought not to think something in the terms that connote but the very connotation the term might bring. Again totally different approach than he is doing.

Symbiosis is not the community finding a role; it is the community and the individual evolving together.

Any reasonable argument needs a verifiable clue but again this statement is based upon his idealistic view on symbiosis, again the difinition of the term symbiosis is walking alone without even being followed by its shade.

What's more, this symbiosis is better optimised for the general benefit, not the abstract that is the community.

Community is a concrete entity it's not deserved to be an abstract concept. As a political entity, community would often act as if it were a humans, not an abstract notion.

People may need democratic regulation, but democratic outright rule is oppressive:

Again this is his slogan, we need an argument everyone can highly think of. If you think democracy is oppressive, please explain to us.

the people as a whole are no more enlightened than an individual; giving the power to the group solves no problems at all.

Needless to say any more here.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Definition Is Prior To Words Preferences Top 6 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 6 comments 0: 6 comments 1: 6 comments 2: 3 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A measure of democracy is good...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.09 2:38 (#13271138) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
But pure democracy goes too far. The reasons are subtle, but hopefully some of your readers will be able to follow my argument [slashdot.org] in your earlier journal.
I'm too worn out to address all your points, so instead I'll link to my latest JE [slashdot.org], as I designed some levels for the game "Breakout" over the weekend :o)--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
Re:A measure of democracy is good...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.11 1:35 (#13286952) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
My JE -'difinition is prior to words' is dedicated to you, Morosoph.
You need to have the same dictionary we have when we are in argument. Your argument is entirely true according to your dictionary, whereas every dictionary we have has to have at least similar difinition, since your 'difinition' is different from ours, our argument never go with. We are not asking what your difinition of words is but what your opinon is according to our similar mutual basis of difinition, difinition is as such has to have at least similar meaning among participants of the discussion.
I believe that we have been always taking about similar attitude in a different language -but only because of the differences the words that connote differently from one another, as if we were talking something in a different position. I know what we have been pointing out is the same, as opposed to the superficial differnces in words, substansially we have been talking about the similar positon. Because I have been getting accustomed to think what the underlying meaning behind our verbalisation, simply I can tell.
I think you noticed it, you have no way but to be inclined to what you are based on.
All you have to do is talk to us tens of thousands of times more. Only that makes you awake what you used to and what you ought to be.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
A little clarity?(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.11 8:30 (#13290391) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
I'm about to go on a short holiday, so I don't know if I'll be able to reply further.
The kernel of my argument is that the democratic method systematically underemphasises some information. This is not a question of intent, but of the method itself: quite simply, there is only time to discuss so many things on the small scale, and the rest get ignored. Larger-scale things will be properly covered.
This means that the small scale, together with many aspects of potential action, are not taken into account. The large scale dominates the small scale consistently because of the bias, and so freedom suffers.
"Facism" might be a strong term, but when ideas that propagate well are promoted over those that propagate poorly, we end up with the rule of the former, regardless of which is actually better. Purer democracy means that ideas are promoted over people, although feedback will in time mitigate this effect, it cannot eliminate it, for the tendency of a rule-making system is to consistently bias towards too many rules. A constitution limit this somewhat, as can simple individual awareness that propagates steadily, rather than at the rate of the transmission of fashionable ideas.
True, there is a lot of opinion in my prose, but it is what I believe would be the true effect of some a system. I'm hoping that a description of the effects (according to my best analysis) will help wake some up to the dangers of it. I believe that most of the effects that I project are explained somewhere. Rule overload is the biggest: something that we see in democratic systems today. Hence the need for balance: mostly mavericks making a nuisance of themselves.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Mirror Image(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.11 23:34 (#13294395) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
When we look at the mirror, the mirror reflects ourselves very clearly. We can know how ourselves are except of course at the mirror right and left are reverse. You are insisting that the democracy is unable to reflect our wills well as if mirror cannot reflect ourselves well. All you need to do is to take into consideration the feature of democracy as we do in the case of mirror.
We cannot blame mirror as it does not reflect ourselves as we are. Democracy is a humble apparatus to pick up, collect and form the majority will but it is the best way.
You are merely overly exaggerating its inaccuracy democracy itself inevitably has, but indeed most of all should be an ignorable ones.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Mirror Image(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.16 5:46 (#13324773) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
You are merely overly exaggerating its inaccuracy democracy itself inevitably has, but indeed most of all should be an ignorable ones.This is because existing democratic systems have evolved taking the implicit problems into account. Only so much law can be passed in a given period, and as such it needs to be prioritised so that in most regards we remain free.
What I am criticising isn't the democracy that we're used to, but rather pure democracy, where the degree of democratic rule is maximised, and two people cannot form a contract (for example) because all decisions are centralised. An idea, even a beneficial one such as democracy, can be pushed too far. And I get the impression that this is precisely MH42's intent.
Certainly I am in favour of some contracts being null and void, but the demands of equality "at all costs" [slashdot.org] are that there is little freedom left for anyone. We are dealing with a concept pushed to an extreme, here, not the moderate form that you are (rightly) defending.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:A measure of democracy is good...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.11 2:03 (#13287178) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
You have to define the words as we do. You have to have the similar difinition as we do. Difinition has to be put prior to your starting to use the words, then we can argue at the same level - that's the meaning of my this JE - difinition is prior to the words. As long as you keep on staying at the same place, nobody seems to understand your argument -in the words based on the differnt difinition from others. We don't want to hear 'your difinition' of words to back your thought. Instead, we want to know 'your opinion' by using the same words defined by the same meaning.
There is no 'your' definition anywhere in the world including in yourself..
That's going to be your real 'breakout'.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters