Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!amdahl!ames!eos!aurora!agate!oreo!carrier
From: carrier@oreo.berkeley.edu (Stephen Carrier)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Individualism - Reality or Myth?
Keywords: myth groups reality
Message-ID: <7705@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 15 Mar 88 22:12:36 GMT
References: <779@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> <1081@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: carrier@oreo.UUCP (Stephen Carrier)
Organization: Math Dept., UC Berkeley
Lines: 99

>  tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
>> chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Chief Dan Roth)

>>However, are we not reducible to a description of oursleves (whether
>>functional, material, mental, behavioral, spiritual, or some combination)?
>>Each of these characteristic puts us in a group.

Each of these characteristics _incidentally_ puts us in a group.  It is
not necessary to derive a sense of identity from the groups that one
belongs to. One point of individualist philosophy would be that it is a
bad thing to do so.

The most common group identification in the world today is the ethnic
one so I will go with that for a while. (Or maybe it is religion?)

Some examples of deriving identity from a group would be:  I am a man
(woman) and proud of it. I am a white man (black, asian, native
american,...) and proud of it. To point to the `achievements' of your
ethnic group and be proud of them is pathetic. Also, to be ashamed of
the `crimes' of your ethnic group is a different kind of pathetic.

This is to be distinguished from respecting or condemning the
achievements and crimes of others, without trying to take false credit
or false blame for them. It is also different from trying to draw on
the experiences of others who face problems similar to your own, such
as discrimination, by imitating them or by adopting their philosophy.
But if you need to feel worthwhile then do something worthwhile.

Besides the pride/shame factor, there is the problem of political
settlements between ethnic groups (affirmative action), genders
(comparable pay (sic)), labor and employers, landlord and tenants,
etc., all of which negate the individual nature of complaint and
conflict and seek to impose group settlements according to political
power play.  The underlying assumption behind _all_ such settlements
seems to be that the individual doesn't count for shit, and that
`fairness' only means something when applied to _groups_. Anyone who
doesn't want to be part of groupist power-plays, who wants to address
their personal problems without crying `oppression' to the governments,
really doesn't have a chance in this lawyer-bound groupist society. (I
guess I exaggerate for effect, but it isn't getting any better.)

>>Our individual selves are defined by the groups that we belong
>>to, not by separating ourselves from these influences.

>I suspect this post is just to get an interesting discussion going.  I
>can't believe that he really believes this.  Regardless of whether
>that is true, here's my response:

I do believe that he really believes this. Because "Our individual
selves are defined by the groups that we belong to" is
anti-individualism in a nutshell and is seriously believed without
question and without reservation by very very many people. Sad but
true. So true that sometimes if you try to tell them what it is that
you believe in contradistinction to what they believe that they can't
understand what you are talking about!

Tim Freemans's response remains appropriate:

>The basic question is what a "group" is.

>I could assume that a "group" is a set of people.  In that case, if
>you know all of the groups that I belong to, you do NOT have a
>complete description of me.  In the presence of enough computing
>resources and knowledge of physics, a complete description of me would
>allow you to know what I would do next.  Listing all of the groups of
>which I am a member does not let you know whether I will be inhaling or
>exhaling at noon tomorrow, so it is not a complete description of me.

There is much grist for philosophical mills here. May I point out that
my social security number is sufficient to uniquely define me as a
human being.  This is very different from _being_ my social security
number.

I think the important thing is that the individual has _value_ as a
individual and that the individual's value is _not_ the same as their
value to `society', as collectivists would have it. The uniqueness of
individuals is an incidental fact.  That diversity is a social value
might be a belief of some `individualists' although not the ones who
deny that their is such a thing as `society'.  (These are beliefs of
mine. That diversity is a social value and that `society' exists.)

.
.
.
>when you try to interact with me you should focus your
>attention on my behavior, rather than the groups you think I'm a
>member of, because you have more accurate information about the former
>than the latter.  If you want to deal with people, you had better
>treat them as individuals regardless of your philosophies.

This could be an anthem. Thank you. Although it is not the accuracy of
information about group-membership that is important, but the
relevence. Group membership is easy information to put on a punched
card, for example, and that is what bureacrats know about you. Hence the
oppressiveness of bureaucracy.

     Stephen Carrier

ucbvax!bosco!carrier