[MD] From each... to each

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Craig]
I can see that if everyone says A is a "freedom fighter", then everyone will
look favorably upon A. And if everyone says B is a "terrorist", then everyone
will look unfavorably upon B.  But no one is going to say A is a "freedom
fighter" unless they already look favorably upon A & mutatis mutandi for B.

[Arlo]
Well, that's the point, isn't it? Under the mantle of "patriotism", whoever is
"on your side" is ALWAYS the "freedom fighter", and whoever is "against our
State" is always a "terrorist".

Do you think anyone would've voted for the Wiretap and Surveilance Act? Of
course, not, but the Patriot Act?! Sign me up! When Bush cut many regulations
restricting pollutants and emissions, he called it the "Clean Air Act". Would
the American people have bought it if was called the "Let Companies Get Away
With More Pollution Act"?

But this is a little different than what I was getting at. Namely, the totality
of your language (including its structuration metaphors, such as "argument is
war", and "love is journey") define not only what becomes salient, but also the
valuation of that salience.

You, because of your language and culture, see "inherent" relations between
"ownership" and "freedom", not because such an association IS inherent, but
because your language makes this association valuable. To the Indian, such a
relation would be absurd, but that is because HER values, expressed in HER
language, structurate "freedom" differently.

Many Indians see us as living "imprisoned lives", while we on the other hand
consider ourselves the "most free people in the world". Within these
perspectives, does one's metaphors begin, and from these one "labels" the
world.

You mention "causality", and I don't see it like that. I see it as
"structurational". Were it wholly causal, we would not have any evolution.
Structuration leaves way for abductive inferences (to use Peirce's word for
hypotheses) to have the potential to change the system, while providing enough
stability and permanence for the changes to last.

(This is why I reject both the "individualist" and "collectivist" views of human
nature, and prefer instead to focus on their interactivity.)

Arlo