Libertarian social profile

[David McDivittt]

The problem I have with groups and ideologies is that they define the
world and begin interpreting the world in terms of their own definitions.
Probably true with anything, and it's often said all reasoning is
circular. So long as realism or any contemporary variant of it is
involved, yes, reasoning is circular. A moral imperative for me is to
reduce this as much as possible, which means avoiding use of identity
concepts and an identity mindset as much as possible; not trying harder to
nail everything down so it can't move, and not trying harder to state "how
things are" as Rand and her realist predecessors. Definitions and words
must be made up to describe these things. Who's to say it was done
correctly to properly describe anything? What is "proper"?

It is a basic existential and individual question. How much do we accept
things being defined for us, how much do we step into a previously
existent, prepared world, and how much do we see self as creating this for
self? This applies to any subject where other people are involved:
science, values, politics, ideology, etc. Yes I did say "where other
people are involved". We either care about other people and social fabric
or we don't. Society cannot be totally written off, either. If we like
anything produced by society such as toys, technology, or literature, we
necessarily have a relationship with society and we have an interest that
those things will continue.

It is sometimes difficult seeing self as merely a participant in society,
a small spec influencing the overall dynamic to be, not what it's supposed
to, but what we perceive. Go ahead and subvert to physicalism if you want,
and spend more time searching for mystical, correct, true words to
describe it, but it might be obvious that the more society moves away from
rigid concepts, the more society evolves intellectually and the more
society creates. Pursuing new things requires giving up old ways of
thinking. Clinging to the idea physicalism represents insecurity. It
represents a want or need for an authority to define everything for you.
Reality is a statement of authority. Check that out. Consider each time
the concept of reality is used and see if there's also a semblance of
authority present such as criticism, trying to get someone to DO
something, or trying to get someone to think a certain way.

We do not have reality but a dynamic, and standalone individual selves
interact with that dynamic. Disagree maybe, but you'll have a hard time
replacing the dynamic with any authority structure as to what it is, what
it should be, or whether anything meets whatever potential or optimum.

It is OK to be an egoist, not that an egoist needs permission, but maybe
as egoists we can quit seeing a need to justify egoism. This is recognized
by refuting realism as illogical, and not being baited by realism any
longer. We can be social. We can not be social. It's what we want.

A better view of society is not one of slaves, but one of sentient beings
who learn to get along for mutual interests, and not that they even have
to. The word "slave" in this context applies in any case where we as
individuals are described, engulfed, or overshadowed by an idea of who we
are or what we should be.


--
dgm