I read from the context that notimp is using the term: "society" in several different senses.
In the general sense that "society" is used and in the more limited sense where the term "community" is seen used.
Or even in the more limited sense where "community of interest" is the term used.
In other words, this forum can be described as a "community of interest".
As I am using it above, a group of persons who share a common interest.
Which brings me to the term: "person(s)".
For this discussion, I mean either a natural person or a corporate person.
Using my viewpoint, the corporation known commonly as "Amazon" is an individual person.
At the same time, a corporation can be a group of natural persons.
Ignoring the possibility of internal conflicts, I would be comfortable calling that group of natural persons a: "community of (self-)interest" also.
One question raised is if this forum is a: "community of interest" or a: "community of self-interest".
Hopefully, I'll get around to that question before I am done writing this post.
Starting with the most general, and common, use of the term: "Society", is the topic: "Can an individual person (natural or corporate) change society?"
I can't just write: "yes" and get on with it (the discussion). I have to share my viewpoint of why I would write: "yes".
Benjamin Franklin published a maxim in the 1757 edition of Poor Richard's Almanack commonly referred to as "for want of a nail".
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/...hard-s-almanac
This describes a chain of circumstances representative of what would become known as the "Butterfly Effect" in chaos theory.
It was Edward Lorenz who, in connection with his work on weather models, that first formally described what is known as the "Butterfly Effect".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
The illustration in the right margin of that page does look like a butterfly, but that is not where the name came from.
The caption of that illustration gives a good, general description of what is meant by the term: "Butterfly Effect".
In the body of that page is a quote taken from Lorenz's 1963 paper:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Edward Lorenz
One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a sea gull's wings would be enough to alter the course of weather forever.
The controversy has not yet been settled, but the most recent evidence seems to favor the sea gulls.
|
If a hard science theory can be applied to a soft science question regarding change in society, then I have to answer "Yes" to the topic question above.
An individual person (natural or corporate) can change society.
The main difference between a hard science and a soft science is the nature of measurement used.
Although a hard science, mathematical equation can not be stated to apply Lorenz's theory of a "Strange Attractor" to the factors involved in social change, anyone reading discussion thread posts can see it at work.
How the responses seem to 'vibrate' in increasing degrees of divergence from the initial topic.
One can easily visualize those topic divergences, if plotted, to have the appearance of that illustration in the top right margin of the wikipedia page.
Visualizing the variations in divergence from current social structure during the course of social change is much harder.
But discussion of what may be a trigger or triggers of those variations is still possible.
This introduction to my viewpoint is just one more flap of a sea gull's wings in the overall topic(s) of this thread.
= = =
Comments on point 3 "Structural implications" - -
One person's (a corporate person, itself a community of self-interest) known as: "Amazon"
vs.
One person's (the community of interest represented by the member's of this forum) effect on the structure of e-book publishing.
- - - -
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notimp
Now from then on you can focus all the available time on your hands to deliver the best individual product support to Amazon customers (which wont ask the questions we'd like them to ask, because - see above), but you will do so mostly because of hedonistic reasons ("I like to be useful, to help others, ..") - but not because it is really in your self interest as a society to do so.
|
I read: "society" as in a "community of interest".
This forum, which forms a "community of interest", is not a "community of self-interest".
That is, there are no share interests here in perpetuating the community.
The shared interest is in technology as a pass-time hobby.
In this forum, the interest forms around the Amazon Kindle product.
Members come (when they share that interest and have time on their hands) and members go when their interest(s) change or they no longer have "hobby time" to spend.
This forum does not concern itself with the structure of e-book publishing.
At least not directly.
The major concern here is the usability of the Kindle e-book reader.
If that causes the Amazon Kindle product to reach a broader audience, then it is just an artifact of what we are doing here.
If the Kindle product reaching a broader audience means the increased influence of the Amazon vertical monopoly in e-book publishing, then that is just some of the baggage the product brings with it.
Which is beginning to read the same as:
"For want of a nail ..."