status quo assumed preferable

Flint · 04-07-2006, 03:10 PM

. . . Is the ultimate goal of society to oppose diversity?

SteveDallas · 04-07-2006, 03:20 PM

Say more. What are you asking? By suggesting that "society" has a "goal" (whatever that goal may be) you're giving "society" human-like characteristics in a way that I'm not sure is reasonable or useful.

Flint · 04-07-2006, 03:35 PM

Society is a collection of humans with human-like characteristics.

04-07-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Society is a collection of humans with human-like characteristics.

***From Wikipedia:

Quote:

A society is a self-perpetuating grouping of individuals occupying a particular territory, which may have its own distinctive culture and institutions. …
The social sciences generally use the term society to mean a group of people that form a semi-closed social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to the group. More abstractly, a society is defined as a network of relationships between social entities. A society is also sometimes defined as an interdependent community...

Etymology

The English word society emerged in the 14th century and is derived from the French société. The French word, in turn, had its origin in the Latin societas, a "friendly association with others," from socius meaning "companion, associate, comrade or business partner." Thus the meaning of society is closely related to what is considered to be social. Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual concern or interest, a common objective or common characteristics.

*** I am one of those annoying "ancients" who likes to back my opinion with valid sources and quote them or "plagarize" (NOT!) as some newer members have put it. If this annoys you, please feel free to put me on ignore.

PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?

lumberjim · 04-07-2006, 03:45 PM

society, like water, seeks it's own level

lumberjim · 04-07-2006, 06:58 PM

some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't.

Beestie · 04-07-2006, 07:04 PM

If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?

Elspode · 04-08-2006, 01:37 AM

Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope.

skysidhe · 04-08-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

. . . Is the ultimate goal of society to oppose diversity?

It really depends upon your definition of the word 'society' and 'diversity'.

Personally having experienced opposition in a closed internet society where honesty and it's questions are put down and abuse is praised and upheld I find your question somehow strange and out of place.

I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first.

Flint · 04-08-2006, 05:41 PM

"PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?"
@marichiko: Sorry, your joke request got lost in the shuffle. Fire away.

"some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't."
@lumberjim: Agreed. Observations of that particular phenomenon are quite interesting, but, to me, not quite as interesting as observing an individuals knowlegde, or lack, of the "ebb and flow of things" on the interior side of their interface with the world. It is at that critical point where the individual's perceptions can become skewed, yet it is that same critical point which we, as observers, are lacking in direct knowledge, and therefore where our own perceptions can become skewed. All things being relative, we have to admit that all any person has to go on are their own skewed perceptions.

"If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?"
@Beetsie: Clever. I like that. You revealed an internal paradox to my hypothetical query which did, in fact, render it "moot" if taken at face value. I tried to get it out in as few words as possible, as generically as possible, and in avoiding interpretable specifics I shot myself in the semantic foot.

"Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope."
@Elspode: Refered to in nature as homeostasis. There is homeostasis within cells, multi-cellular organisms, and also, as you point out, in multi-organism collectives. The two states you describe remind me of one of the driving forces in my life, which is to nullify, to the highest degree possible, the level of inevitable chaos by over-reaching for an impossible to atain level of logical order, the result of which turns out to be somewhere in the middle. An example, or application, of this would be reducing the amount of mental stressors by catagorizing, simplifying, and dealing with compartmentalized factors as opposed to overwhelming individual details. You get a less fine-tuning but more big-picture. And, I don't think I should have to specify this, but human beings should always be dealt with as individual details. The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.

"I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first."
@skysidhe: I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied. I'll give you three guesses.

04-08-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

"PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?"
@marichiko: Sorry, your joke request got lost in the shuffle. Fire away.

Sorry, your response got lost in the shuffle.

My joke is really quite appropriate in this thread and in light of recent events on the board. Its a humorous take on how a society or a group responds to a large influx of "outsiders."

In recent years the population of Colorado has increased by what seems like several orders of magnitude. Native Coloradoans have been overwhelmed by the surge in population growth and the resulting rise in real estate prices caused by a large influx of Californians and Texans with money to burn. With that background, here's my joke:

****

A Coloradoan, a Texan, and a Californian were all sitting in a little Colorado bar having a drink together. The Californian finished off his white wine spritzer, and to the astonishment of the other two, threw his wine glass at the wall, shattering the glass into a 100 broken shards. The Californian smirked and announced, "In California, we have so much money, we never drink out of the same wine glass twice."

The Texan, not to be outdone, gulped his shot of Jack Daniels, threw the shot glass at the wall, and said, "In Texas, we have so much sand, we never drink out of the same shot glass twice."

The Coloradoan stared at the Texan and Californian, chugged his can of Coors, crumpled it up, and drew out a gun and shot the Texan and Californian. He announced to the rest of the bar, "In Colorado, we have so many Texans and Californians, we never drink with the same ones twice."

****

Diversity does not come easy to ANY group!

Flint · 04-10-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

A Coloradoan, a Texan, and a Californian were all sitting in a little Colorado bar having a drink together. The Californian finished off his white wine spritzer, and to the astonishment of the other two, threw his wine glass at the wall, shattering the glass into a 100 broken shards. The Californian smirked and announced, "In California, we have so much money, we never drink out of the same wine glass twice."

The Texan, not to be outdone, gulped his shot of Jack Daniels, threw the shot glass at the wall, and said, "In Texas, we have so much sand, we never drink out of the same shot glass twice."

The Coloradoan stared at the Texan and Californian, chugged his can of Coors, crumpled it up, and drew out a gun and shot the Texan and Californian. He announced to the rest of the bar, "In Colorado, we have so many Texans and Californians, we never drink with the same ones twice."

Diversity does not come easy to ANY group!

I finally found and read this - it's difficult to have a polite conversation in the midst of all this bickering! Anyway, when I was in Colorado several years back, I noticed this strange phenomenon of negative feelings about Texans, which I finally have an explanation for. Thanks. What's funny is, people would say "You're from Texas?! You don't seem like a Texan." I like the joke.

04-10-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

I finally found and read this - it's difficult to have a polite conversation in the midst of all this bickering! Anyway, when I was in Colorado several years back, I noticed this strange phenomenon of negative feelings about Texans, which I finally have an explanation for. Thanks. What's funny is, people would say "You're from Texas?! You don't seem like a Texan." I like the joke.

Thank you. The stereotypical Texan in Colorado is a loud mouthed braggert with lots of money to burn and a bunch of pals named Festus, who go around shooting cows because they can't tell the difference between them and deer. Thus, we are impressed by Texans who have even the minimum of social graces and refrain from shooting livestock. People get sterotyped everwhere. Its just the natural ways of a society faced with an onslaught of "outsiders."

Flint · 04-10-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

we are impressed by Texans who have even the minimum of social graces

Believe me, your idea of the typical Texan couldn't possibly be anywhere near as bad as mine, knowing what I know from living here.

skysidhe · 04-08-2006, 05:56 PM

No it is NOT 'as implied.' My implication was personal obviously. Maybe you are speaking of societies of the world then? American? What kind of society?? I would like a thoughtful answer. Oh and please dumb it down for me. I'm not quite as willing as Elspode to slice and dice all that and make any sense of it.

Thanks

The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.

Then we are a society of bigots. #1 We were born to catogorize. and #2 the word 'bigotry' and it's application is amiss. It isn't the 'big picture' answer.

For you to use the word 'bigot' implies a group of people with defined characteristics and isn't logical to denouce catogorizing in the same breath catogorize.

The language is too confusing. I'll let the smart people figure it out

04-07-2006, 03:35 PM	#3
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Society is a collection of humans with human-like characteristics. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

04-07-2006, 03:45 PM	#5
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	society, like water, seeks it's own level __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

04-07-2006, 06:58 PM	#6
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't. __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

04-07-2006, 07:04 PM	#7
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot? __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

04-08-2006, 01:37 AM	#8
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

04-07-2006, 03:10 PM	#1
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	status quo assumed preferable . . . Is the ultimate goal of society to oppose diversity? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

04-07-2006, 03:20 PM	#2
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	Say more. What are you asking? By suggesting that "society" has a "goal" (whatever that goal may be) you're giving "society" human-like characteristics in a way that I'm not sure is reasonable or useful.

04-08-2006, 05:41 PM	#10
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	"PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?" @marichiko: Sorry, your joke request got lost in the shuffle. Fire away. "some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't." @lumberjim: Agreed. Observations of that particular phenomenon are quite interesting, but, to me, not quite as interesting as observing an individuals knowlegde, or lack, of the "ebb and flow of things" on the interior side of their interface with the world. It is at that critical point where the individual's perceptions can become skewed, yet it is that same critical point which we, as observers, are lacking in direct knowledge, and therefore where our own perceptions can become skewed. All things being relative, we have to admit that all any person has to go on are their own skewed perceptions. "If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?" @Beetsie: Clever. I like that. You revealed an internal paradox to my hypothetical query which did, in fact, render it "moot" if taken at face value. I tried to get it out in as few words as possible, as generically as possible, and in avoiding interpretable specifics I shot myself in the semantic foot. "Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope." @Elspode: Refered to in nature as homeostasis. There is homeostasis within cells, multi-cellular organisms, and also, as you point out, in multi-organism collectives. The two states you describe remind me of one of the driving forces in my life, which is to nullify, to the highest degree possible, the level of inevitable chaos by over-reaching for an impossible to atain level of logical order, the result of which turns out to be somewhere in the middle. An example, or application, of this would be reducing the amount of mental stressors by catagorizing, simplifying, and dealing with compartmentalized factors as opposed to overwhelming individual details. You get a less fine-tuning but more big-picture. And, I don't think I should have to specify this, but human beings should always be dealt with as individual details. The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry. "I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first." @skysidhe: I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied. I'll give you three guesses. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

04-08-2006, 05:56 PM	#15
skysidhe ~~Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.~~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 6,828	No it is NOT 'as implied.' My implication was personal obviously. Maybe you are speaking of societies of the world then? American? What kind of society?? I would like a thoughtful answer. Oh and please dumb it down for me. I'm not quite as willing as Elspode to slice and dice all that and make any sense of it. Thanks The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry. Then we are a society of bigots. #1 We were born to catogorize. and #2 the word 'bigotry' and it's application is amiss. It isn't the 'big picture' answer. For you to use the word 'bigot' implies a group of people with defined characteristics and isn't logical to denouce catogorizing in the same breath catogorize. The language is too confusing. I'll let the smart people figure it out Last edited by skysidhe; 04-08-2006 at 06:20 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)