: 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.You mean the indivisible (thus whole) entities that are individuals constitute, via their interactions, a secondary (and divisible) phenonoma described as society.
: My whole and precise point. to be an individual you need an Other.
You need, simply, to exist. Hence individual - un divided. To examine the individual is to exam facets of the whole. To examin society is to examin the interactions of individuals.
: 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.
Which would be the basis for individualism. Jut because you are not readily subjugating self to others does not mean you have to. Stranded alone the individual still forms identity via interaction with environment and via thought upon environment and those influences naturally occuring within himself.
: 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).
Or, by contrast, choose social networking according to individuated values - which does not require isolation. This is how most people operate. 'using' bits wich suit them, rejecting or ignoring others.
: My precise point is that the liberated individual will creates a couunter-mmove in the Positive state.
My precise point is that majority acceptance of any number of norms which act against individuality (ie the quashing of "'that is not me", the subjugation of self to others) are illegitimate both philosophically, and in consequence morally. You agree with this with the exception that you see the existence of money (as a store of value and exchange) and private ownership as necessitating the quashing of "'that is not me", which I do not. The reason - that being "me" requires that "me" generates productive effort to survive and that others do not have to undertake such for you, nor spare you their previous efforts in the form of a right to something.
: 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.
Do "we", I do not. I can readily perceive 'the market' in how I am interacting with others in just about every area of life. If people are perceiving it as alien then it is not the misinterpreted that is in error, but the misinterpretation.
: 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 Totality cannot be the full and free choices of its individuals where reality is the arbiter. I cannot choose to run 100m in 2 seconds and Mr Poor cannot choose to own a car. The dynamic is the same. For one to be a 'mad god' the other must be. Only some unreal place where will=outcome could qualify for a 'united Totality within out Wills'
: But at one time other such forms of Law were accepted, and they changed, why cannot they change again, to other unspoken undisputed agreements?
Because people have a specific nature, as something which is real (Aristotle) and are *not* infinately malleable. Reality being what it is a race which develops a norm of dancing for the purpose of collecting food would die out quickly (but might at least look cool meanwhile).
