>You are caught up in the modern metaphysic of the abstract individual,
>existing prior to and independently of all social relations.
>We do not have a history, we _are_ our history.
>P.S. If "socially constructed" means the same as "historically created,"
>why do we need both terms? Answer, "social construction" is a weasel
>term designed to dissolve history.
Modern metaphysic of the abstract individual... "we are our history." Now that's a monadic metaphysic understanding if I ever heard one. But, once again, I have found myself without a Party dictionary. I cannot fathom why you are interested, perhaps even determined, to establish a minimalist understanding of communication. Should we eliminate all lexical duplications?
And sure, I get it, the individual is an abstract reified category. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be at all interested in providing normative grounds through which to indicate what exactly is reified. Reality? Isn't that just as reified as the category individual? Let me ask this: when someone dies, have we lost anything or is death simply another reification and glorification of abstract metaphysics? I swear, every time you post I suspect you of crouching closer and closer to Derrida, with neuroscience on the sly.
we are the world, we are the children, we are our history, ken