Comments on: Failing to See the Trees for the Forest http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/24/failing-to-see-the-trees-for-the-forest/ The Revolution Will Be Doodled! Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:11:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Dale http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/24/failing-to-see-the-trees-for-the-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-3536 Dale Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:14:00 +0000 http://anarchyinyourhead.com/?p=249#comment-3536 I don't deny those relations. The point you're trying to ignore is that people will interpret those things differently, particularly boundaries. I'm repeating myself, but what looks like two clusters of trees (two forests) to me and might get two names, might just seem like one cluster to you and be considered one forest. You could say every tree in the world is interdependent, and to some extent they could be considered so, and so there is only one forest in the entire world. The boundaries of the forests exist in our minds and we can reasonably disagree on them. Those boundaries do not exist objectively and it is absurd to say that they do. Clubs and organizations do exist for their members. They have a purpose. They can be described as collectives, certainly. As long as I can choose to be a member or not, then the club is accountable to me to some extent. The existence of this abstraction to me is validated by my acceptance of its existence. When I can't choose to be a member, it's not accountable to me and it is simply a group working together to enslave me. Any claim that it owns (can force membership) on all people within some abstract and arbitrary boundary that exists in the minds of some and not others, and that to avoid membership they must exit that boundary, is absurd and irrational and is simply a pathetic and contrived excuse for using aggressive violence against innocent people. I don’t deny those relations. The point you’re trying to ignore is that people will interpret those things differently, particularly boundaries. I’m repeating myself, but what looks like two clusters of trees (two forests) to me and might get two names, might just seem like one cluster to you and be considered one forest. You could say every tree in the world is interdependent, and to some extent they could be considered so, and so there is only one forest in the entire world. The boundaries of the forests exist in our minds and we can reasonably disagree on them. Those boundaries do not exist objectively and it is absurd to say that they do.

Clubs and organizations do exist for their members. They have a purpose. They can be described as collectives, certainly. As long as I can choose to be a member or not, then the club is accountable to me to some extent. The existence of this abstraction to me is validated by my acceptance of its existence. When I can’t choose to be a member, it’s not accountable to me and it is simply a group working together to enslave me. Any claim that it owns (can force membership) on all people within some abstract and arbitrary boundary that exists in the minds of some and not others, and that to avoid membership they must exit that boundary, is absurd and irrational and is simply a pathetic and contrived excuse for using aggressive violence against innocent people.

]]> By: Johnny Walker Purple http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/24/failing-to-see-the-trees-for-the-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-3535 Johnny Walker Purple Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:50:53 +0000 http://anarchyinyourhead.com/?p=249#comment-3535 No I am not talking about mental abstractions I'm talking about relational facts. The trees are interdependant on the ecosystem and other trees around them. There are observable relations between them. So when I observe that a human being relies on parents, neighborhood, national safety, international trade, and a whole host of interdependant relations I am seeing collective interests. Collectives exists as states of relation. You are saying that they must be a super-person or non-relative entity or nothing at all. I am saying that collectives are real and empirically verifiable because they are relative states of being. No I am not talking about mental abstractions I’m talking about relational facts. The trees are interdependant on the ecosystem and other trees around them. There are observable relations between them.

So when I observe that a human being relies on parents, neighborhood, national safety, international trade, and a whole host of interdependant relations I am seeing collective interests.

Collectives exists as states of relation. You are saying that they must be a super-person or non-relative entity or nothing at all. I am saying that collectives are real and empirically verifiable because they are relative states of being.

]]> By: Dale http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/24/failing-to-see-the-trees-for-the-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-3533 Dale Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:29:04 +0000 http://anarchyinyourhead.com/?p=249#comment-3533 You're talking about abstractions. I conceded the existence of abstractions in a certain sense and also conceded that they have value. The forest has abstract existence in many minds. What you've said doesn't counter my points. You’re talking about abstractions. I conceded the existence of abstractions in a certain sense and also conceded that they have value. The forest has abstract existence in many minds. What you’ve said doesn’t counter my points.

]]>