[dmreedy]

That's all good and peaceful until two peoples' intuitions collide.

What is the process for reconciliation?

These "nonsense questions" are usually derived from an effort to find a common denominator of things which a society may agree on, beyond its component individuals.

[aschearer]

Personally, I don't see the issue. Perhaps you can help me understand? If two people / groups have different perspectives they can live and let live. If one person / group wishes to force it's view on the other then we have a problem, but nothing mysterious or metaphysical...

[dmreedy]

> If one person / group wishes to force it's view on the other then we have a problem

I would put it even more simply:

My view is that this valuable resource is mine. Your view is that this resource is yours.

How do we reconcile this?

edit: just in the interest of not seeming antagonistic, I'll elaborate further.

I assert that resolving conflicts like this requires either direct violence, or deference to some external framework. That external framework often defines terms like "just" and "right" and "good" and "true". These terms are kind of "meaning flywheels" since they don't have direct correlation to physical things. You spin them up by giving them continuous impulses of examples and then they carry the abstracted sense of meaning in themselves, becoming almost qualia-like. You don't know all the examples anymore you just know more or less what is "just".

This process is an act of mystification; you separate the meaning from the direct examples, and push it into a layer of linguistic abstraction.

Any measurement against those ideas then becomes a engagement with the mystic. You simply know "what is just". Any perception that these things can be rationally defined or deduced is simply the hangover from the older, mystical systems that impelled the original flywheels of meaning.

[aschearer]

Any number of ways. What's the issue here? This "problem" is commonplace. Even my dogs experience it, and they don't need metaphysics to resolve the tension!

If you want an abstract rule to follow that always works and is "just" come out and say so.

Personally, I'm partial to certain solutions and feel they're "more just" than alternatives I've considered, but ultimately they're just stories I like. I'm building some sort of Quine-ean web. What stays and what goes is an aesthetic choice. I'm cultivating something. There's nothing more to it than that... Just a life to author and reflect on.

[dmreedy]

I'm not saying I want it, I'm saying it is an ingredient to the function and survival of a society, especially as the number of members of a society grows and diversifies.

[aschearer]

This whole discussion highlights my original point. We're talking nonsense.

  > This process is an act of mystification; you separate the meaning from the direct examples, and push it into a layer of linguistic abstraction.

What does this even mean? What is "an act of mystification?" What does it mean to "push something into a layer of linguistic abstraction?" And who the hell is Quine and what does a web have to do with anything?

Anyway, it's great fun! I just wish we were sitting in comfy chairs with a drink...

With that said, back to the fun. I think you're suffering from binary thinking. In the event that two people want the same thing there are many options available. And even more stories that could be spun to justify them. "It's only just that..." or "I came first" or "We've always done it that way".

If we take the absolute worst case: zero sum, fleeing isn't an option, then it's a fight to the death. We all know this to be the case intuitively -- no mysticism involved. Fight or flight is deeply embedded inside us. Again, my dogs aren't confused by this dilemma. This is part of living authentically.

I think society survives and flourishes when it keeps such cases to a minimum. It's why things such as a the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and so forth have arisen.

Thanks for this thought provoking discussion! Sadly my lunch break is over~