Thinking in Singular

I think a lot of confusion in thinking and discussing comes from failing to recognize one crucial requirement for having clarity: singular. What I mean by this is that it is absolutely clear what we are talking about, a single thing, clearly defined and described AS SUCH, without vagueness and room for guessing around. Otherwise we’re trying to “focus” on two or more things at once and that is no focus at all.

The effect of such lack of focus or clarity is that we basically don’t know what we’re talking about and end up making judgments that are terribly at odds with reality. Yet this ends up leading our action in false hope for desired positive results. Focusing on singular and thinking in singular rather than plural, is a key to precise thinking.

This came to me when I was trying to explain why I don’t believe in the existence of a “collective” in reality and thus why I don’t believe in “collective rights”. The argument is that the “collective” is in fact solely a mental abstraction describing multitude or plural. Two or more human beings can then be described as a collective. Two or more trees can be described as a collective (and synonymously a “forest”, another similar mental concept) and two or more cells can be described as a collective (or synonymously a multicellular organism).

As such this mental abstraction is similar to numbers. The only difference between saying “collective” and saying a number like “4″ is that in the former you don’t specify exactly how many, merely that there are more than one (plural) whereas in the latter you’re specifying how many. But a number 4 itself doesn’t exist in reality. Looking at 4 people you see “4″ in your head merely because you have the mental capacity to count. If you didn’t then you wouldn’t have the mental concept of “4″ to use in your description of what you see. Same goes with the concept of a “collective”. You see “more than one”.

But does a collective actually exist in reality? This isn’t the same question as the question “do individuals referred to by “4 people” exist or “do cells referred to as an “organism” exist”. It is a question like “do 4 people exist as an individual” or “does a forest exist as a tree” or “does an organism exist as a cell” or “does a molecul exist as an atom” and so on.

The formula is: Does a plural of X exist as a singular X where X is equal? The answer is always inevitably negative because it is:

  • A contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
  • Many cannot be without the one. Plural cannot exist without a singular, but a singular can exist without a plural

A plural of trees cannot be a tree, it can be an individual forest. A plural of cells cannot be a cell, but it can be an individual organism. A plural of atoms cannot be an atom, but it can be an individual molecule. A plural of human beings cannot be a human being, but an individual society, for lack of a better term, or something else that we as human beings cannot from our vantage point exactly determine, or perhaps nothing at all; end of line as far as that type of form is concerned.

So when it comes to the concept of a collective it may be an useful abstraction sometimes, but it is clear that a collective of X cannot have the properties of X and itself is not X. It instead becomes something else that is again itself individual; unique. Or nothing else. This is why it makes absolutely no sense to think in terms of there being a human “collective” for the good of which individuals should sacrifice expecting that this good would somehow trickle down to more good for all.

Additionally, the object of focus can never be anything other than individual, singular. Even when trying to somehow point to a “collective” that exists in reality we end up describing “it” as “it”, a singular thing, thus further validating the individualism rather than “collectivism” of its nature or at least showing ourselves unable to, when we actually begin thinking with such precision, actually pin point the “collective” in reality when some voluntaryist challenges: “Show me the collective, where is it?”.

Granted, both “plural” and “singular” are mental abstractions, but it is pretty obvious that we cannot refer to anything in reality without going through the abstraction of a singular, even when we wish to refer to a “collective”. In other words, the only way to directly describe things in reality is through singular, not plural.

So it would appear that both our minds and the reality itself is naturally wired as individualistic rather than collectivist. There are merely multiple levels, one being fundamental to another which is fundamental to a yet another and so on possibly indefinitely, but an individual thing always comes first and it’s “collective”, as we would mentally describe it, only ends up creating another individual thing.

Collectivist is murky thinking. There is no precision in an argument which has collectives as its variables.

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Monday, March 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through this RSS 2.0 feed. You're welcome to leave a response, or a trackback from your own site.

  • mr reply

    But if an individual organism is an abstraction for a multiple individual cells, and an individual group is an abstraction for multiple individual organisms, how come we grant rights to individual organisms (of the human type), but not to individual cells or individual groups?

    I know individual cells do not have the ability to ask for rights (although that might be our fault because we don't understand their method of communication), but individual groups do have that ability.

    You might say it's really the spokesperson of the group that demands the rights on behalf of the rest of the individuals in it, but then you might also say it's your lungs, larynx and tongue that demand rights on behalf of the rest of your body.

    Collectives are very capable of acting as individuals, so I don't see why rights cannot be granted at that level of abstraction.

  • admin

    But if an individual organism is an abstraction for a multiple individual cells, and an individual group is an abstraction for multiple individual organisms

    I didn't quite say that. Singular or individual is an abstraction for "one". Multiple or collective is an abstraction for "more than one". If you're speaking of an individual organism you're speaking of an individual organism, not two or more things at once. Either you speak of an individual organism or you speak of a multitude of organs or cells.

    The reason is that you could, for example, count each tree from different forests and talk about them as a multiple of trees, but clearly they wouldn't form a forest themselves. So the above distinction becomes necessary.

    how come we grant rights to individual organisms (of the human type), but not to individual cells or individual groups?

    Because of exactly what I said in the article. The individual is unique: So when it comes to the concept of a collective it may be an useful abstraction sometimes, but it is clear that a collective of X cannot have the properties of X and itself is not X. It instead becomes something else that is again itself individual; unique.

    A group of humans doesn't create a human. It's impossible. So you can't grant human rights to a "group of humans". You can grant it only to individual humans.

    And a human individual is a very different thing from an individual cell or an "individual group". We know an individual human has rights; he claims and defends them. He communicates self awareness etc.. the whole "animal rights" discussion linked before.

    We can't say the same for cells or a "group".

    You might say it’s really the spokesperson of the group that demands the rights on behalf of the rest of the individuals in it, but then you might also say it’s your lungs, larynx and tongue that demand rights on behalf of the rest of your body.

    Organs are merely carriers of communication, like sound speakers. The actual communicator is the mind (energy patterns in the brain) without which the organs are as good as dead. I wouldn't say the same for a group. I can communicate on my own full well. I don't need to have a spokeperson or a leader to be who I am. In fact just the opposite may often be true.

    Collectives are very capable of acting as individuals

    That's again like saying "plural is capable of being singular". Again this is a reason why you can't speak of the same thing as both at once. If you're speaking of an individual, name its properties and then we can perhaps determine if it can have rights or not. If you're speaking of a collective, though, we can't have a serious discussion (no clarity can be had without singular).

    A human individual, an organism with a brain containing a self aware mind, can have rights. A "group of organs or cells" however is something else and is quite undefined put that way, could be anything, could or couldn't have rights. And a group of cells isn't a cell itself nor has same properties as the cell.

    You see human individuals having rights and just somehow assume then that:

    A: A group of humans can be an individual something else.

    B: That this individual has the capability of having rights.

    When in fact a group of humans might never form any actual individual form and even if it did it would be something entirely different than an individual human, something you don't know well enough to assume can have rights or have the same kinds of rights as a human.

    Yet by insisting on this, you would sacrifice rights of actual human individuals for this vague vision of yours.

  • mr reply

    This is not a vague vision, but everyday reality. For example a nation is a collective of humans. Nations have rights (indeed different from human rights) both in interaction with each other and in interaction with individual humans.

    The analogy is actually quite nice: a nation will attempt to correct groups within it that are damaging the whole, just like a human with a cancer would get a doctor to cure or remove it. A nation that is attacked expects sacrifices from its army to defend it, just like an attacked human won't mind some scratches on his hands to prevent more serious damage to other body parts.

    Is a nation an illusion of those who consider themselves members of it? I bet you will say yes. But then again, aren't "you" an illusion that your brain cells have?

    Maybe you dislike the idea of being part of a larger "individual"? I can imagine it feels much more powerful to be the top abstraction instead of just another gear in the machine. With (I would expect) a lot of difficulty, you could stop being a part and become a stateless individual, and my best wishes to you if you succeed. But you have to understand that your preference doesn't mean the "individuals made of individuals" do not exist, and that others such as myself think that not being part of a collective is a horrible idea, because it would take away something I see as fundamental to being human.

  • admin

    This is not a vague vision, but everyday reality. For example a nation is a collective of humans.

    You're repeating the fallacy from your previous post. A "nation" is just a synonym for a "group of humans" which you counted based on arbitrary conditions (like their ancestry or place of birth). You therefore still aren't speaking of a coherent individual, just of an arbitrary count of people. And again, counting a bunch of trees from various places doesn't suddenly make a forest.

    The analogy is actually quite nice: a nation will attempt to correct groups within it that are damaging the whole, just like a human with a cancer would get a doctor to cure or remove it. …

    An arbitrary count of humans will do what? Garble garble..

    When someone on the news claims a nation said or did something I usually see an individual human being in a suit (which other call something like "The President" or "The Premier") actually saying it, doing it or ordering other individuals to do it. Each of them is perfectly capable of refusing the order just as he is perfectly capable of stepping down and beginning a private life. What happens to your "nation" if they do that? The Great Collective dies and we are all dead too?

    Clearly, not. And if we're still alive after that all you can do is rush to make a yet another similar concept to describe the new "order" as a yet another collective. But obviously the truth is that you have no clue as to what exactly you make up and whether you make up anything.

    It's similar to the christian god of the gaps fallacy. When they don't know or can't explain something they say "it's god, god did it", but the truth is that they simply don't have a clue. Once science explains it the gap becomes that much smaller and some of them begin to realize that they perhaps shouldn't ascribe so much of who they are to some god, but simply be as what they are and want to be as human individuals.

    You're making the same mistake. You want to believe in a collective of some sort so come up with these fallacious entities to serve as that collective, and then wish to sacrifice others to this god of yours.

    Is a nation an illusion of those who consider themselves members of it? I bet you will say yes. But then again, aren’t “you” an illusion that your brain cells have?

    No, because individual brain cells are something entirely different from me. Cells are consisted of subcellular components. That's what defines them, the thing which they are consisted OF not the thing that they MAKE UP. If individual cells were somehow aware they probably wouldn't have any idea that they're a part of this huge organism we call a human being nor would that be required for them to be what they are and still play the role that they play.

    The cells aren't *corrected* or coerced into being "right" so that the organism can live. If they were you could just force a cell to all of a sudden be what it needs to be for the purposes of your health, but that's not how it works, is it? You have to "incentivize" them so to speak, follow a certain process known to work, a curing process. Give them what they want so to speak in order for them to be what they naturally must be.

    In other words, it is not the good of some "collective" that the good of the individual depends on. It is the good of the individual that the good of the "collective" depends on, whatever such a "collective" exists as individually. We don't HAVE to know. We simply have to be what we are.

    Can you understand that? You're getting it backwards.

  • mr reply

    Obviously I don't understand and get it backwards, because all you wrote just convinced me you're deliberately creating your own blind spot so you won't have to see the obvious.

    Either you're not making any sense at all, or I'm the one who's not making any sense at all, cause I see no points I can understand as being counterpoints to my own, which makes it impossible to debate. You might as well have said something like "but birds are blue!".

    I'm sure we'll have opposite opinions about which one of us is nutters. I give up.

  • admin

    Aww.. it can't be that hard to grasp. I had a third party read it and even though he didn't read the whole discussion he grasped what I said.

    And I'll venture to guess you did too.

    because all you wrote just convinced me you’re deliberately creating your own blind spot so you won’t have to see the obvious.

    You'll have to do a little better than that and substantiate that claim. ;) There's no easy way out of this one. Discrediting me as intellectually dishonest isn't that easy.

    But suit yourself.

  • mr reply

    You appear to be claiming that trees that grow in the same place are much more strongly related than humans that live in the same nation.

    The only interactions between trees in a forest are competition for sunlight and water, and some protection from wind.

    Humans in a nation also compete for resources and may protect each other. In addition to that they also interact in many other ways.

    I could see your point if you would say a forest isn't really an individual thing, but a nation is. You're claiming the opposite.

    Just look at this:

    You’re repeating the fallacy from your previous post. A “nation” is just a synonym for a “group of humans” which you counted based on arbitrary conditions (like their ancestry or place of birth).

    Place of birth would make them a group of humans from one place…

    You therefore still aren’t speaking of a coherent individual, just of an arbitrary count of people. And again, counting a bunch of trees from various places doesn’t suddenly make a forest.

    … the analogy of a nation would be a group of trees from one place, which we would indeed call a forest.

    I know, trees stop belonging to a forest when you dig them out and move them to a different location. But if citizenship of a nation were defined by location, the same would hold true for nations.

    But citizenship of a nation however isn't defined by location, it is by a set of rights an obligations. How far does a tree have to be away from the rest of the forest to not be part of it? Any distance you come up with is arbitrary, even random! On the other hand the laws of a nation are derived from reasoning. Not random, and IMHO not arbitrary either.

    So you see, you're not making sense. At all. (Actually I expect you won't see, and will just write "garble garble" again, which means the same as "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".)

  • admin

    I am assuming a forest as an ecosystem which is clearly different from a bunch of lone trees scattered around. The trees don't have to have some sort of an arbitrary distance between them for us to call them a forest. They need to be close enough to form an ecosystem we know as a forest, whatever that distance needs to be. This happens naturally, without coercion.

    You're however trying to claim that the nation exists as an individual and then force people to conform to it so it can be that individual. That's just the opposite of how it happens in nature. Components just are what they are. Why can't humans be left to be what they are and have the ecosystem simply emerge? If there is any sort of an individual that collections of humans make up it will be what it will naturally be.

    Otherwise you ARE just trying to force everyone to live up to YOUR opinion of what that individual something is or should be. But newsflash Taco, you're not my god, at least any more than I am not your god, therefore you don't get to force me to conform to your "nation".

    I on the other hand do not assume I know what is the individual something I with other human beings through my interactions and existence create. I don't care and I don't have to care because to be a happy person I must follow my passion and my beliefs.

    You disagree all you want, but there's really nothing you can say to refute the simple fact that I am an individual human being who will sometimes think things you don't like me to think, do things you don't like me to do and be who you might not want me to be. That I CAN be those things is proof enough that your predefined "nation" is actually not some inevitable natural organism that all humans make up, which must "correct" me for being an anomaly in your system.

    I by my very existence as an autonomous being am spoiling your grand vision of what the world should be. I am an anomaly. And I enjoy it you know. So very much. And you might discover at some point that all people are potentially anomalies in this vision of yours. Because all are individuals just like me and, just like you (Yes, amazing isn't it? You can actually jump out of the box and BE more than your "society" wants you to be, try it, it's not as scary as it seems!)

    What will be, will be.

  • mr reply

    Don't you know that the whole earth is one ecosystem, and that the sub-ecosystems we see within that are based on the meaning we humans give to what we see? A forest and a meadow next to each other may have so many creatures moving back and forth between them that it would make more sense to consider them one ecosystem. We call the forest a forest and the meadow a meadow based on the height of the plants relative to ourselves. Which is arbitrary.

    I by my very existence as an autonomous being am spoiling your grand vision of what the world should be.

    LOL. You're the one who has grand visions. In a more recent post you can even be seen (almost) cheering for the destruction of economies and even human lives.

    I, on the other hand, have just my simple humble observations:

    1) It is possible to make money or gain influence through creative processes, but also through destructive processes.

    2) You would like to hand over the keys from the mostly (and mind you, I say MOSTLY) reasonable people to the most destructive ones, while thinking you're actually promoting the creative method.

    So no, you're not an anomaly spoiling the grand vision which I don't have, don't flatter yourself. You're just dangerous.

  • admin

    Don’t you know that the whole earth is one ecosystem,

    It may be so but that's just focusing on one of the levels of looking at reality, like focusing on a human organism instead of cells, or on cells instead of molecules etc..

    So there's nothing especially profound about what you said. You might have as well mentioned galaxy clusters as ecosystems of which Earth clearly is some minor part of.

    It doesn't change the fact that I'm autonomous and need not to live by your own rules to make up whatever I make up.

    LOL. You’re the one who has grand visions.

    Did I say I don't? At least my grand vision by definition involves only myself and those who voluntarily agree with me. Yours involves coercing other people to behave in certain ways against their will.

    In a more recent post you can even be seen (almost) cheering for the destruction of economies and even human lives.

    No you just see what you want to see. If you reread it you'll see I'm merely observing the inevitability inherent in action-reaction processes. And what's going on isn't destruction, but correction, and one I didn't have to coerce, it simply happens naturally. What is it correcting? The consequences of coercion, including the kinds of coercion you advocate.

    So don't talk to me about destruction, your philosophy is fundamentally based on destruction of personal values of others (what others are there?) for the sake of your own. You are the destructor, not me.

    1) It is possible to make money or gain influence through creative processes, but also through destructive processes.

    Yes, and I advocate creation, not destruction, unlike you.

    2) You would like to hand over the keys from the mostly (and mind you, I say MOSTLY) reasonable people to the most destructive ones, while thinking you’re actually promoting the creative method.

    If you would allow yourself to think outside of your box you would see that there are no "keys". Figures that's the sort of thing you'd come up with from your way of thinking. You see people as herds of automatons that need to be tweaked by coercion. I see them as sentient individuals that have a right to lead their own lives.

    So no, you’re not an anomaly spoiling the grand vision which I don’t have, don’t flatter yourself. You’re just dangerous.

    So says a guy who advocates holding a gun to someone's head if he disobeys rules he personally feels are "sensible".

    Your rationalizations simply don't change the fact that you're advocating violent coercion against people based on your own subjective beliefs. This is why all your arguments are bankrupt from the get go. At the same time as you like to call yourself an open mind who supposedly accepts he might be wrong, you're still willing to use violence against people to behave according to your own beliefs. There's an irrefutable and unresolvable fundamental contradiction there.

    The only way to resolve that contradiction is to either proclaim yourself as some sort of an all knowing god or to accept voluntaryism (in which case exactly because you could be wrong, you don't FORCE people to submit to your beliefs).

    Of course, you're doing neither, merely rationalizing in circles so you don't have to resolve the mentioned contradiction.

  • mr reply

    *sigh* you really don't understand my point of view, do you?

    I have no desire to force anything on anyone. All I want is that others don't force anything on me either.

    The problem is, the concept of property is a fiction, a thing that was invented because it was (and still is) convenient. If you don't think of property as absolute, then enforcement of property rights does mean something is forced on me.

    Of course, because of humans being somewhat egocentric at times, a completely getting rid of the idea of property will lead to major inconveniences – things disappearing again and again when you need them. So it's a useful concept to have. Just don't worship it as if it's a god, property absolutism will make everyone paranoid egocentric bastards, and some will become the bullies who justify the paranoia of everyone else.

    The existence of governments and democracy and taxes and also property itself isn't right, but at least the combination of all these things can be configured so the results will turn out not entirely unlike right. Of course there will always be idiots who tweak the system away from "not entirely unlike right" for their own selfish benefit, which will lead to a crash like we are experiencing now. These crashes are cyclical because humans tend to ignore what happened longer than a lifetime ago.

    I prefer cyclical crashes combined with some level of general injustice over the logical end result of giving control of everything to the market: you'll end up with one company owning everything, from the food you eat to the shoes (if you're so lucky to get them) you wear to the toilet paper you use to… well you get the point.

    Property is coercion. Therefore anarcho-capitalism is based on coercion. I will not tolerate more than a certain amount of coercion against me. If I wouldn't tolerate any coercion at all, you might call me a voluntaryist, but then I would somehow have to convince your chosen label doesn't apply to you while it would apply to me.

    But I'm a cynical pragmatist and also a conservative in the sense that I won't quickly support potentially dangerous changes, so I wouldn't label myself a voluntaryist. Besides, I don't like labels. You can keep your false label, I don't care.

    I wish I was cynical enough to not care when people promote coercion in the name of freedom and non-coercion. Thinking of it, this might be the kind of wish that is self-fulfilling. Guess what, The Secret is sometimes right after all :P .

    I'll link memeverse to 0.0.0.0 in my hosts file, to protect myself from what I might do in any idiotic optimistic moods.

  • admin

    So we've finally come to that, haven't we, AGAIN. :)

    All arguments in support of coercion failed, arguments which thus far never exactly focused on "property is coercion" view (which is telling), and what else is left? Make me into a coercer so that you can have a level playing field that you otherwise don't.

    But the fact is that even if you were right that property is coercion, while at the same time supporting it as necessary, you support even more coercion on top of that, completely unnecessarily.

    So whether I really am on the same playing field in terms of supposedly supporting coercion, or not, all of what I said prior with regards to the state holds. In other words, state enforcing property rights results in far more violence than individuals being responsible for that themselves.

    Your "property is coercion" point is thus moot.

    Secondly, that point is a complete fallacy because your standing where you are, using your eyes to read this, refutes the idea that property is merely an arbitrary concept completely.

    Of course, in spite of your own very existence you deny that you own yourself. This must be the pinnacle of self-contradiction and absurdity, but there you are.

    Of course, because of humans being somewhat egocentric at times, a completely getting rid of the idea of property will lead to major inconveniences – things disappearing again and again when you need them. So it’s a useful concept to have. Just don’t worship it as if it’s a god, property absolutism will make everyone paranoid egocentric bastards, and some will become the bullies who justify the paranoia of everyone else.

    And that's the sort of thing this absurdity leads to. Pity I have trouble communicating to you exactly how paragraphs like above look like, so many vague concepts, so imprecise, so much hyperbole and rhetoric that I don't know where to start.

    Like for example; you say humans are "somewhat egocentric", which in itself is pretty vague (perhaps you're incidentally referring to the fact that humans actually own themselves and are therefore naturally self interested??), but you use this to justify the belief that "getting rid of the idea of property will lead to major inconveniences" where you use another subjective and vague word: "inconveniences". How do you know what is an inconvenience for someone?

    I mean, jesus, this is why I accuse you of imprecise thinking. There's absolutely no scientific precision in this, no pursuit of logical consistency and empirical evidence, just rambling, in a nutshell.

    And the rest of the quote is clear hyperbole and rhetoric.

    The rest of your arguing (and pretty much most of everything you usually say to me) is just more of that same kind of stuff.

    But let's observe, shall we..

    The existence of governments and democracy and taxes and also property itself isn’t right, but at least the combination of all these things can be configured so the results will turn out not entirely unlike right.

    "Not entirely unlike right".. wow, that makes it so clear, NOT. But that's apparently as best as you can describe your ideal: "not entirely unlike right". Of course judging from previously said "not right" is coercion and "right" is voluntaryism, but somehow combining coercive monopolies, mob rule and theft leads to less of "not right". Man, even if property is somehow coercion as you want to believe, layering on top this inefficient coercive regulatory system you call "government and democracy" cannot by far result in LESS coercion. This is ridiculous.

    Also, do I have to mention that "be configured" implies someone tweaking the system, and since all humans ARE a part of that system, who exactly gets to decide how it should be tweaked? BAM, we're back to the whole issue we've been discussing previously, where the concept of "property as coercion" is pretty much neutral.

    If you really believe in property as coercion then you would be far more consistent with yourself if your beliefs were anarcho-socialist. They believe "property is theft", but also understand that state is far worse of a thief. As said, at least they're consistent.

    You on the other hand are embodied chaos, cynicism and self-contradiction. You believe coercion isn't right yet want more of it to have less of it. And the only way to explain this is through some mental gymnastics involving the use of vague terminology as above (because that way you can more easily make them mean what you want them to mean), hoping I wont notice.

    If I wouldn’t tolerate any coercion at all, you might call me a voluntaryist, but then I would somehow have to convince your chosen label doesn’t apply to you while it would apply to me.

    Yes you would, but you didn't even come to that point, which is frankly sad. It's called making zero progress whatsoever, being perpetually stuck in your box.

    But I’m a cynical pragmatist and also a conservative in the sense that I won’t quickly support potentially dangerous changes, so I wouldn’t label myself a voluntaryist.

    As said earlier, it's not about sudden changes, but evolution in thinking.

    I wish I was cynical enough to not care when people promote coercion in the name of freedom and non-coercion.

    Given your incapability to process concepts precisely you haven't built a compelling logically consistent and empirically backed case for "property as coercion". So you have no basis for that claim.

    I’ll link memeverse to 0.0.0.0 in my hosts file, to protect myself from what I might do in any idiotic optimistic moods.

    I wish you did that. As much debating stamina I might have, as much as I liked a good intellectual challenge and as much as I didn't want to employ censorship even in my own blog, I don't appreciate it when you come here advocating violence and arguing in circles. You're not an intellectually honest guy so it soon ceases to be a fun challenge and turns into a perpetual ghost chasing (dead arguments resurfacing again and again in new forms).