> Emergent things have structures, but do the structure make the thing emerge.
I can't follow this sentence.
> Sciences that ignore individual agency, even if it is just to keep things simple for the mathematics that we understand and can compute, or now get computed and aunderstand, and despite it being the basis of what they study, are likely not very scientific, or at least badly incomplete.
Watch your spelling errors! But this I understand and agree with.
Mind you, sometimes you *can* ignore individuality if the differences average out; quantum mechanics is a big deal on the scale of picometers, but average out the wave functions of a trillion particles and Newtonian physics dominates by the time you reach millimeters.
> And here, loyalty is a mere commodity, and sin of the non-obedient are a pathway for control by a hierarchy’s boundary riders.
I think I have a pragmatic enough understanding of shady dealings to understand what this means - when you do something you'd rather the authorities never discover, a third party can blackmail you. I doubt most would get this right away, though.
> In socius based work a particular/discovered/invented structure is given a determining explanatory power.
The link you give isn't helpful, and I still have no firm sense of what a socius is.
> Usually fairly straight structuralism would say something like the "infrastructure" is what is really there (e.g. capitalism processes as uncovered by Marx, or some motherfuckery by Freud if talking about a single human’s unconscious as an object) and “ideology” as the lies we tell ourselves that everything is alright and good under heaven (what is repressed).
I lost track of things here, and couldn't pick up the trail with a house full of kids.
Maybe you're presuming that your readers have some kind of background in philosophy that I lack, but I'm a physicist with a background in psychology, and when I read this I feel as though I'm auditing some graduate level course in an unknown field.
> Emergent things have structures, but do the structure make the thing emerge.
Are some "structures" epiphenomenal/by-products to the pathways that create them? Some find a structure and think their description of the structure indicates how it came about, in ye olde structuralism this is the default, so a lot of arguments take pace over the description and not the process, this can be an error of investigation. If one deliberately ignores the bitsy bits then (which can be done for good reasons) then it is more attractive to think what you describe is how it came about.
> And here, loyalty is a mere commodity, and sin of the non-obedient are a pathway for control by a hierarchy’s boundary riders.
added to: And here, loyalty is a mere commodity, ( a commodity if a pile or heap of something, where each grain of sand is uncounted, unnumbered, un-named) and the sins of the non-obedient are a pathway for control by a hierarchy’s boundary riders, as useful examples to other grains of sand.
>>>>> In socius based work a particular/discovered/invented structure is given a determining explanatory power.
>>>The link you give isn't helpful, and I still have no firm sense of what a socius is.
I added the following definition of the function "socius":
I’ll use socius to abstract away from the form/usage "society", as such it refers to those ‘structure’ used to explain or change the world (control it perhaps), and where the world studied is limited to the structure of society as an object in itself.
>>>>> Usually fairly straight structuralism would say something like the "infrastructure" is what is really there (e.g. capitalism processes as uncovered by Marx, or some motherfuckery by Freud if talking about a single human’s unconscious as an object) and “ideology” as the lies we tell ourselves that everything is alright and good under heaven (what is repressed).
>>I lost track of things here, and couldn't pick up the trail with a house full of kids.
I have a house full of #vanlife German backpackers...
Yeah, I am mixing my ye olde structuralisms, Infrastructure is what Marx describes of capital, , in Das Kapital. In effect it's secret sauce. Infrastructure includes not just the physical means of production but the laws and social processes that support it. Often this description of it is unknown to the participants in the economy that alienates them, unknown particularly tothe poor and precariat, the lumpen-proletariat, and are given religion as an opium to cope. ( Marx has discovered this with a Hegelian dialectic made materialistic.) In addition to this people's own view of how the world operates is an ideology. (Mary Douglas disliked how Marxists then ignored people's own choices, why do some, even when educated by Marxist stuff, still choose to be ... Trump supporters against their own material interests...)
The structuralist claims to know stuff, and can save you… just listen, but they don't...
Freudianism has sort of an opposite vector into the world, repression creates agreeable social beings, (but it can go off-rails). The unconscious is the real mass of contesting Oedipal structures where a healthy balance must be found between id/ego/superego. Here help can be provided and save you. One could very crudely map (overload) superego to ideology. I could crudely map superego to why we should, that worlding thing. I have now digressed. Here society is not required.
Here the world is not required. In Marxism, worlding is not required. Leave than world-building to the march of history
> Emergent things have structures, but do the structure make the thing emerge.
I can't follow this sentence.
> Sciences that ignore individual agency, even if it is just to keep things simple for the mathematics that we understand and can compute, or now get computed and aunderstand, and despite it being the basis of what they study, are likely not very scientific, or at least badly incomplete.
Watch your spelling errors! But this I understand and agree with.
Mind you, sometimes you *can* ignore individuality if the differences average out; quantum mechanics is a big deal on the scale of picometers, but average out the wave functions of a trillion particles and Newtonian physics dominates by the time you reach millimeters.
> And here, loyalty is a mere commodity, and sin of the non-obedient are a pathway for control by a hierarchy’s boundary riders.
I think I have a pragmatic enough understanding of shady dealings to understand what this means - when you do something you'd rather the authorities never discover, a third party can blackmail you. I doubt most would get this right away, though.
> In socius based work a particular/discovered/invented structure is given a determining explanatory power.
The link you give isn't helpful, and I still have no firm sense of what a socius is.
> Usually fairly straight structuralism would say something like the "infrastructure" is what is really there (e.g. capitalism processes as uncovered by Marx, or some motherfuckery by Freud if talking about a single human’s unconscious as an object) and “ideology” as the lies we tell ourselves that everything is alright and good under heaven (what is repressed).
I lost track of things here, and couldn't pick up the trail with a house full of kids.
Maybe you're presuming that your readers have some kind of background in philosophy that I lack, but I'm a physicist with a background in psychology, and when I read this I feel as though I'm auditing some graduate level course in an unknown field.
> Emergent things have structures, but do the structure make the thing emerge.
Are some "structures" epiphenomenal/by-products to the pathways that create them? Some find a structure and think their description of the structure indicates how it came about, in ye olde structuralism this is the default, so a lot of arguments take pace over the description and not the process, this can be an error of investigation. If one deliberately ignores the bitsy bits then (which can be done for good reasons) then it is more attractive to think what you describe is how it came about.
> And here, loyalty is a mere commodity, and sin of the non-obedient are a pathway for control by a hierarchy’s boundary riders.
added to: And here, loyalty is a mere commodity, ( a commodity if a pile or heap of something, where each grain of sand is uncounted, unnumbered, un-named) and the sins of the non-obedient are a pathway for control by a hierarchy’s boundary riders, as useful examples to other grains of sand.
>>>>> In socius based work a particular/discovered/invented structure is given a determining explanatory power.
>>>The link you give isn't helpful, and I still have no firm sense of what a socius is.
I added the following definition of the function "socius":
I’ll use socius to abstract away from the form/usage "society", as such it refers to those ‘structure’ used to explain or change the world (control it perhaps), and where the world studied is limited to the structure of society as an object in itself.
>>>>> Usually fairly straight structuralism would say something like the "infrastructure" is what is really there (e.g. capitalism processes as uncovered by Marx, or some motherfuckery by Freud if talking about a single human’s unconscious as an object) and “ideology” as the lies we tell ourselves that everything is alright and good under heaven (what is repressed).
>>I lost track of things here, and couldn't pick up the trail with a house full of kids.
I have a house full of #vanlife German backpackers...
Yeah, I am mixing my ye olde structuralisms, Infrastructure is what Marx describes of capital, , in Das Kapital. In effect it's secret sauce. Infrastructure includes not just the physical means of production but the laws and social processes that support it. Often this description of it is unknown to the participants in the economy that alienates them, unknown particularly tothe poor and precariat, the lumpen-proletariat, and are given religion as an opium to cope. ( Marx has discovered this with a Hegelian dialectic made materialistic.) In addition to this people's own view of how the world operates is an ideology. (Mary Douglas disliked how Marxists then ignored people's own choices, why do some, even when educated by Marxist stuff, still choose to be ... Trump supporters against their own material interests...)
The structuralist claims to know stuff, and can save you… just listen, but they don't...
Freudianism has sort of an opposite vector into the world, repression creates agreeable social beings, (but it can go off-rails). The unconscious is the real mass of contesting Oedipal structures where a healthy balance must be found between id/ego/superego. Here help can be provided and save you. One could very crudely map (overload) superego to ideology. I could crudely map superego to why we should, that worlding thing. I have now digressed. Here society is not required.
Here the world is not required. In Marxism, worlding is not required. Leave than world-building to the march of history