tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post2536690038558126870..comments2024-03-13T18:40:13.083-04:00Comments on The Most Arrogant Blog You've Ever Read: Another Ambiguous UtopiaGrace Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14264853432416470702noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post-6021525497585393102010-08-12T23:35:16.387-04:002010-08-12T23:35:16.387-04:00I think that any society that is a society and is ...I think that any society that is a society and is also uncategorically utopian is in fact a utopia, so I'm okay with that.<br /><br />I don't know if I can accept the use of the term "utopia" to describe something temporary, though. If it's really utopia, then it shouldn't hold the seeds of its own destruction. I mean, okay, I'm not the boss of English, and I don't get to decide what words mean. But, for me, at least, I wouldn't want to use the word "utopia" for that kind of situation. Otherwise, I feel like you're broadening the meaning too much, losing the use of the term.<br /><br />In addition, thank you for your kind words!Grace Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14264853432416470702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post-11114749204707578862010-08-12T22:07:21.175-04:002010-08-12T22:07:21.175-04:00Responding to your first comment first, yes, I thi...Responding to your first comment first, yes, I think we are having different concepts of social, here. For me, when I saw social, I read it as meaning "having to do with society" (as defined, perhaps, on Wikipedia, as mentioned in my post). Therefore, by "social" I meant something far broader than "socializing" but rather everything that makes up the boundaries of society. Since we speak of "utopian societies," to me this felt redundant - you can't have a "utopian individual" - it makes no sense as a concept - so in order for a thing to be utopian, it must be a society. In other words, the unit that we talk about when we talk about utopias is always already the society.<br /><br />But socializing is obviously not equivalent to society, and is also a perfectly valid referent for the ambiguous adjective "social." So I think I have a better grasp of your meaning now.<br /><br />In response to your contention that "a social utopia cannot be legislated into existence," I have some confused thoughts. I think there is a sense in which this is obviously true, which I come across when I read "people still exclude each other, patronize each other, hurt each other's feelings unnecessarily, and so on." Obviously there is no way to legislate a society in which these things are not true into existence. On the other hand, I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether it's possible to have <i>individual people</i> without these things occurring, so your sense of "social utopia" may fade into my sense of transcendence - in other words, I can't really imagine people who are still people having the kind of existence you're discussing here, so the only kind of social utopia I can imagine is one in which society is destroyed entirely through a process of transcendence. OTOH, I can also imagine socializing being better than it is now (without being perfect), which I might be willing to call a "social utopia" (or perhaps a "socializing utopia"?) - but then I'm less certain that it's <i>obvious</i> that you can't legislate it into existence - surely law plays at least some role in defining people's spectrum of possibility? That doesn't mean I disagree with you; it just means I'm not absolutely certain I agree.<br /><br />Oh - and as for the society that is utopian except for the flaws in its socializing - I think I follow you there, except when you list the social flaws as a "price to pay." Since we already have these flaws in our own, non-utopian society, it doesn't seem to me as though the flaws are a price that needs to be paid in order to have the qualified utopia? After all, if these flaws were the price, then how come we haven't already paid and gotten our otherwise perfect utopia?Grace Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14264853432416470702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post-24833628168034399702010-08-07T00:28:50.729-04:002010-08-07T00:28:50.729-04:00Now -- this is probably not at all what Tannert an...Now -- this is probably not at all what Tannert and Altenberg (the article is actually officially by Tannert alone, by the way, but Tannert decided to fill the part I quoted so fast and thick with quotes from Altenberg that I decided to give Altenberg co-credit in *my* quote of Tannert) mean by "social utopia". What my guess is as to what *they* mean is a society, probably a very temporary society judging by their idealized-rave-party context, that's uncategorically utopian, but, the way in which it's utopian, the way it even got to *be* utopian, is exactly through the dominance of the "social", in my sense of being of-or-relating-to-socialization. Like, I think they're saying that a great dance party can be utopian exactly *because* everything that's not social is, finally, blocked out. So, to sum up, one of their "social utopias" is certainly going to be a "social utopia" by my definition; but, also, I suspect that their concept of social utopia is far narrower than mine.<br /><br />I guess that also leads to the question, intriguing also in the context of *your* post at large: is it possible for a utopia to still be a utopia if one of the conditions for its utopianness is that it be temporary? I feel like I hear all the time about one of the glories of rock music being the fact that it's so of-the-moment, so "dispensable" as the phrase goes (I am not a fan of this word). I wonder if the same could be true of something that could really pass muster as a *society*.<br /><br />I'm sure there's more to say about this post, or about the earlier post of yours that this links to; but, most importantly, having just looked through this whole thing again: I'm in awe of the sheer *sweep* of the thing. Starting out with fantasies of escape from a menial job and end up with "this is irrelevant to transcendence because God is One" -- this is sheer awesomeness.<br /><br />Expect more from me soon...!<br />Lawrence/abangakuLoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01419111531405866678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post-33701192569685229312010-08-07T00:28:01.075-04:002010-08-07T00:28:01.075-04:00Hey -- I keep meaning to post on this, especially ...Hey -- I keep meaning to post on this, especially considering you're talking about *me* and all, but, wait a minute -- wow, it's been over a year. But hmm, now that I'm looking at this blog after months of absence -- maybe now I can post without having so much to say that I just won't say it any more?<br /><br />Because I do want to say why I don't think "social utopia", the way I (who am Abangaku, for anyone who stumbles across this year-old post and is confused) was using it in my post at least, is a redundancy. Because, I do think I'm using "social" in a different way from how you're using it -- actually, I'm not sure how you're using it, but when I talk about "social", I mean, on the level of <i>socializing</i>, and I'm not sure if you're saying that a utopia has to be social because there obviously couldn't be any such thing as an <i>antisocial</i> utopia, or because dealing with social features has to be something that's programmed in to the design of a utopia in order for it to be a utopia worth its snuff. But neither of these is what I'm talking about.<br /><br />I think I'm actually even using a different kind of adjective-noun relationship here -- maybe, with your background in linguistics, you can tell me what it's called. I mean a society that's utopian <i>as far as its social aspect goes</i>, the way that, say, "perfect couple" refers to two people who are perfect in so far as they're a couple, but it doesn't imply that the people, taken in their own rights, are perfect. And, again, I'm using the word "social" to refer to the sphere of socialization. So -- I guess I basically mean a society in which people socialize in "the best of all possible" ways.<br /><br />What I guess is interesting about this particular specification I'm making here about what "social utopia" means, is the consequence that no society can be set up as a social utopia; a social utopia cannot be legislated into existence. A social utopia exists on the level of habits and social mores, not on the level of laws, which don't have any jurisdiction here. It's the same gap between law and custom that means I can believe that certain forms of speech (hate speech, e.g.) should be socially <i>censured</i>, while still believing in their First Amendment rights to not be legally <i>censored</i>. I can even believe in a society that's otherwise utopian -- economically, politically, artistically and so on -- but that still isn't utopian socially -- in their day-to-day interaction, away from the grand protections given to them by being part of the society at large, people still exclude each other, patronize each other, hurt each other's feelings unnecessarily, and so on.<br /><br />Maybe that seems like a small price to pay for a society that's otherwise utopian; but, I feel like the ideal of a social utopia is still important, because in practice I'm a lot closer to making the world around me a *social* utopia than any other kind. Changing the world begins with yourself, or however that old Buddhist slogan goes.Loninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01419111531405866678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post-23513340430095669792009-08-29T19:27:20.499-04:002009-08-29T19:27:20.499-04:00Thank you!Thank you!Grace Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14264853432416470702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4980667756580975383.post-89369883102843036642009-08-29T19:08:08.001-04:002009-08-29T19:08:08.001-04:00wow!!!! well thpught out!!wow!!!! well thpught out!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com