I think that this reminds me a great deal of the argument about chance versus determinism, where from one point of view the whole of the univers could (in theory) be extrapolated out from it's physical laws, and the other says that you couldn't- that chance or free will or whatever plays a role.
The question of whether you are more a part of a social organism or more a unit of your own is seemingly irrelevant. For from either viewpoint you can see a method by which it can alter the whole. It is my own surmisal that there are individuals who have enacted manipulation of the societal organism, and also that the social organism has altered the state of individuals. I think that the social organism has evolved where the individual peices can react to stimuli and transmit it to the organic mechani independantly-that the two are indistinguishable or equally true. I think you could really build an accurate model from either view, and that it might not be so much a distinction of reality as a distinction of personal opinion. I am, however _extremely_ open to correction
---joe dees <joedees@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:48:15 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Here's my definition, for what it's worth:
> >
> > Individualism is the idea that the individual is ontologically
primary and
> >exists in her own right and for her own sake; as opposed to the
view that
> >individuals are properly subordinate in some sense to the society
in which
> >they take part.
> >
> >Dick
> >
> Sounds more like autonomy to me.
> >
> >
> >
> Joe E. Dees
> Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>
>
>