society by Dictionary.com

[Psydox]

The first meaning given to the word society by Dictionary.com is :

The totality of social relationships among humans.

Now without looking at anymore definitions or adding any of our personal definitions let's discuss society.

The totality of social relationships among humans.

Imagine for a moment that you could step back far enough from Earth to view worldly social relationships among humans. Now taking that concept into consideration, how would you define society in it's totality ?

[Phil]

Originally posted by Psydox
The first meaning given to the word society by Dictionary.com is :

The totality of social relationships among humans.

Now without looking at anymore definitions or adding any of our personal definitions let's discuss society.

The totality of social relationships among humans.

Imagine for a moment that you could step back far enough from Earth to view worldly social relationships among humans. Now taking that concept into consideration, how would you define society in it's totality ?
A giant cluster f***.

[Psydox]

:wink8:

Ok then allow me to narrow the concept down to this :

Imagine for a moment that you could step back far enough from Earth to view social relationships among humans within the United States. Now taking that concept into consideration, how would you define the United States society in it's totality?


am I trying to get political ? .... maybe, maybe not.

participate in the discussion and we'll see how it all turns out :D

[Phil]

Originally posted by Psydox
:wink8:

Ok then allow me to narrow the concept down to this :

Imagine for a moment that you could step back far enough from Earth to view social relationships among humans within the United States. Now taking that concept into consideration, how would you define the United States society in it's totality?. . .

A colossal cluster f***.

[Phil]

I'm just kidding of course. Not quite sure what you're looking for here. A general definition of human society? American? More specific? What exactly.

[Psydox]

I want opinions of how you/others view US society when considered as a whole.

If you/others think of it as a cluster f**k that's ok by me only give me some specific reasons why you see it as such.

[Phil]

Over all, I think it is the greatest society of size the planet has ever seen. Sure there are flaws, and much much room for improvement. But considering the size of the population, it's framework is well suited for not only the logistics of progression, but also the maintenance of flexible and strong infrastructures.

I should also mention that I think there are other first world nations that are comparable.

[Psydox]

Ohhh an optimist :) this is a good thing. It is nice to see an opinion like yours considering how I suspect mine will be perceived. Heh....

I see US society as being diverse in many facets so much so that US society (tho great) is losing perspective. From this loss comes weakness of structure and soon we will begin to understand what Divided We Fall really means. For those of you familiar with the analogy of what it's like being caught in the eye of the storm, the current status of society within the US can be likened unto it. While being in the middle of the storm, a person (being the US society as a whole) can not fully comprehend what is around them nor can they see what is beyond it all.

The activity of current societies and formation of new societies is the storm which surrounds the totality. (Definition #2 from Dictionary.com is : A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.) The totality of society can neither fully comprehend the storm nor can it see outside of it. From this comes the blind spot in the totality of society. It is societies weakness from inability of the whole to comprehend it's parts and vice versa.

While the US society in it's totality can not see it's own weakness, it does for the most part speculate as to what that weakness is. This speculation comes from the various socities within the totality. One society may speculate that the weakness comes from another society and so forth. Disharmony, negativity, hate and destruction occur to the totality when in reality the weakness lies within itself divided.

Warning... if you have had enough of this ride then now is the time to get off because I get more convoluted as I go.......:what:

[Phil]

Originally posted by Psydox
. . .Warning... if you have had enough of this ride then now is the time to get off because I get more convoluted as I go.......:what:
'K

[Psydox]

What's this !! Nothing more than a simple "K" most distressing and much dismay. My heart was broken by Phil this day and yet I still have more to say ...

-Dr Seuss inspired-

"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

-Pink Floyd original-

[Prospero]

I'm not sure that society can be summed as a "totality" per se due to the fact that it's so striated and sectionalized. If anything, I think you could define society as a metaphorical organism with each group providing something necessary to the whole. Each would undoubtedly collapse without the rest (except those that live outside society, which is they would be able to survive without it) of society to provide support. The rich need the poor, the poor need the rich, the young need the old, the powerful need the weak, etc. Take any part away and it would collapse. And if society were to be visualized, I imagine with out looks something like a huge network with millions of nodes representing the smallest units of society: either friends or immediate families.

[Yahweh]

Imagine for a moment that you could step back far enough from Earth to view worldly social relationships among humans. Now taking that concept into consideration, how would you define society in it's totality ?
This is an easy one...

From the 4th book of Douglas Adams' inappropriately named Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Trilogy, I define society in its totality in only 2 words:
Mostly Harmless

[Psydox]

After reading your views, It prompted me to think once again about totality. I agree with Prospero in that the use of totality to describe society is perhaps inappropriate. My reasoning for this comes also from consideration of what the word totality implies. Totality contains the implication of being complete and society in my opinion is far from being complete because it does not remain constant long enough for that to happen.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Psydox
After reading your views, It prompted me to think once again about totality. I agree with Prospero in that the use of totality to describe society is perhaps inappropriate. My reasoning for this comes also from consideration of what the word totality implies. Totality contains the implication of being complete and society in my opinion is far from being complete because it does not remain constant long enough for that to happen.
First, society is constantly changing, I dont believe that implies that society is not the "totality of social relationships among humans", it implies the totality of human relationships among humans is constantly changing. Once we were "Fairly harmful", now we are "Mostly harmless", its communitive societal development.

Dont worry about the semantics of the word "totality".

Oh, and dont mix up the word "society" with the word "humanity". Societies differ from humanity because society has an implied association with the word "localized", humanity is more generalized as it refers to the totality of mankind as a whole (the human race).

[Psydox]

Once we were "Fairly harmful", now we are "Mostly harmless", its communitive societal development.

Yahweh would you elaborate on the above for me please ? I am curious to understand what you mean by "Once we were "Fairly harmful", now we are "Mostly harmless" part.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Psydox
Yahweh would you elaborate on the above for me please ? I am curious to understand what you mean by "Once we were "Fairly harmful", now we are "Mostly harmless" part.
Its a very generalized and vague statement open to interpretation.

Once we were fairly harmful...
Witch trials
Political Instability (such as the American Civil War, Mongols, etc.)
Crusades
Sadistic forms of torture were very common
There was even a period of time called "The Dark Ages"

Now we are mostly harmless...
We encourage equality
We discourage terrorism
People Innocent until proven guilty
Medical and Scientific advancement is nice
Of course there are a few idiots (some with a lot of power) who come and muck up the system.

Although we are far from a unified Utopian ideal society, I think its safe to say its better to be alive today than a few hundred years ago.

[Psydox]

Ahhh ok Thank You 8)