: You yourself, sweet Joel, have used Synechdoche thusly- you refer to 'tribalism'- which is a society where the tribe is the most significant part, in which even capital had to pay homage to the polis. If you accept the existence of 'tribalism' as a term, you must accept capitalism as a term on the like basis.Yes, I have used such . . . but watch. Just like words such as "IMF", "restroom", etc. "tribalism" is a social word used contextually in both informative and arguementative statements as they reflect the interactions of the mind with the social world of ideas, forms, etc. But make no mistake, there is no distinction of "tribalism" found in nature but rather of human beings dialoging together to find methods of socially discussing ideas. And this is where the difference lies. "Socialism" and "capitalism" are not part of the objective and social world of meaningful dialog and can only communicate the internal psychological states of the individual expressing them. This is why "borg" and "Cristoprotoclum" can describe "socialism" as both desireable and undesireable because in their own individual conceptions of the term they both are completely right . . . and completely wrong (this, by the way, is another example of Kant's antimonies). Terms like "socialism" and "capitalism", unlike "IMF" or "poverty", convey no socially meaningful ideas, and cannot be used to rationally discuss propositions, ideas, and theories. "Capitalism" and "socialism" are merely propagandistic terms used to bludgeon others about as "evil" or "anti-social" and not only add nothing of social relevance to a discussion, but are active hinderances to meaningful dialog.
It should be obvious by now that I consider you, Lark, et al, as nothing more than neo-tribalists. I'm quite sure I could draw numerous similarities between your personal belief systems and hopes to the structure of ancient tribes . . . making a convincing case. But I do not make this claim as it would merely come from my personal viewpoint and not in keeping with the conventional and, thus, social use of the word "tribalism". Hey, it's been tempting to simply refer to you all continuously as "neo-tribalists" and stoop to the level of propaganda by using such terms as these, akin to "capitalism" and "socialism". By doing this I'd further gum up the arguement even further than it already is. So, I tie one hand behind my back and limit myself to socially relevant words such as "IMF" or "restroom" to make my arguments, as to use the world "tribalism" to describe your views would merely be a reflection of an internal, psychologcal state of my own. Thus, to ascribe "tribalism" to you would be anti-social on my part. In the same way, ascribing "capitalism" to me is anti-social as it merely conveys an internal, psychological state of your particular mind's making and, therefore, individually meaningful, but socially meaningless.
: Does this strike you as grounds for a proper truce? Rather than the complete surrender you demanded of me?
I never demanded your surrendur. Rather, I asked you to quit trying to set up your beliefs as based upon objective reality and admit that your "ought" stems totally from you particular mind's particular belief system.
EX1: "exploitation" is a term expressing (not arguing or informing) us of a particular internal episode; it is not part of social discourse, but, you set it up as objective reality through the M-C-M analysis which is nothing more than an extension of your particular mind's particular value system. Make not mistake, the M-C-M is neither informative nor arguementative.
EX2: "relative poverty is harmful to society" is laudatory (for positive discussion) as it is clearly expressive and obviously intended as such from the speaker. It does not set up itself as possessing foundation in objective reality.
MOST of your arguements, unfortunately, fall into the first (EX1) category. And as such we are beating our heads against a wall since you continue to insist that your value systems and beliefs are based upon objective reality.
Basically, I'm asking you to follow the same rules I put up for myself when arguing on this board: respect your opinions for the opinions they are, and nothing more. No one can ever prove their opinions are based upon reality.
Oh, and I appreicate the new addition to my vocabulary. It's not often that someone brings up a word I've never heard. But, I want to reiterate, and summarize my post, that my issue was not with using a synechdoche, as I admit I do it all the time, but rather the usage of wholly personal (expressive/communicative) words such as "socialism" and "capitalism". Let's start using social (informative/arguementative) words such as "IMF" or "relative poverty" (although the last one's iffy). Shall we?
