Yeah, the ‘membranes’ term is a bit awkward in my mind, but vastly preferable as a choice for this technical jargon we are trying to establish as compared to the already too-many-meanings / overloaded term of boundaries.
I do think that some people mean something more like an actively defended border when talking about their social boundaries (not that I am sure I approve of this generally). I think they are trying to say that they have drawn social lines in the sand, which, if you cross them, they will consider that to be a boundary violation such that they will take action against you, such as ‘cancelling’ you (criticizing you, and refusing to allow you to be part of their social circle / ostracizing you / requesting that their social allies also ostracize you, perhaps taking legal action against you if there is grounds for a lawsuit). In some cases, this social boundary setting may be even more similar to a defended national border, in that the person setting the social boundaries makes a precommitment to use nonlawful coercive force / violence against violators. For instance, an angry individual saying “if you say <x> one more time, I will shoot you with this gun, even though it means I will likely be sentenced to life in prison.” My point is that there is something of a gradient, and there is a clear ‘this is a social boundary’ in some cases and in others it’s being used more like a metaphor, trying to make the weaker thing seem like the stronger thing, in a Motte & Bailey sort of way. I agree that focusing on the stronger meaning is the important thing, I just wanted to point out that it’s a tricky line to draw sometimes.
I do think that some people mean something more like an actively defended border when talking about their social boundaries
To be clear, I don’t think social requirements and membranes are unrelated. Actually, I think for anyone who is sufficiently conscious, if you violate (or attempt to violate) their «membranes/boundaries», then they will treat that as a violation of their social requirements (colloquial ‘boundaries’). In the limit of courage, there is that convergence.
I think they are trying to say that they have drawn social lines in the sand, which, if you cross them, they will consider that to be a boundary violation such that they will take action against you, such as ‘cancelling’ you (criticizing you, and refusing to allow you to be part of their social circle / ostracizing you / requesting that their social allies also ostracize you, perhaps taking legal action against you if there is grounds for a lawsuit).
I wouldn’t naturally call this «membranes». Now, it is of course in any individual’s power to define how they interact with others (because they have «membranes/boundaries»). Sovereign agents can totally have their own preferences and choose to enforce them. For example, “I’m only going to talk to people who don’t yell at me when they get mad”— but this takes an extra step, and it’s different than «membranes/boundaries», which (I claim) is actually universal (ie: observable by all(?) observers) in a natural way.
In some cases, this social boundary setting may be even more similar to a defended national border, in that the person setting the social boundaries makes a precommitment to use nonlawful coercive force / violence against violators. For instance, an angry individual saying “if you say <x> one more time, I will shoot you with this gun, even though it means I will likely be sentence to life in prison.”
If this were allowed in the model, then I could “draw my boundary” to include you, and shoot anyone who I don’t like who tries to talk to you.
But no, I don’t naturally have sovereignty over you and who you talk to. (E.g.: you’d probably fight me back)
The sovereignty (autonomy) idea is important. I’ll have to write more about that in the future.
Also, how do I know that someone else is a sovereign agent? Well, because I can’t control them. I can control rocks just fine. I’ll run into trouble if I try to control other sovereign agents (eg people), though.
My point is that there is something of a gradient, and there is a clear ‘this is a social boundary’ in some cases and in others it’s being used more like a metaphor, trying to make the weaker thing seem like the stronger thing, in a Motte & Bailey sort of way. I agree that focusing on the stronger meaning is the important thing, I just wanted to point out that it’s a tricky line to draw sometimes.
I think it can be tricky, but I think there’s something real here. («membranes» are distinct from preferences)
Yeah, the ‘membranes’ term is a bit awkward in my mind, but vastly preferable as a choice for this technical jargon we are trying to establish as compared to the already too-many-meanings / overloaded term of boundaries.
I do think that some people mean something more like an actively defended border when talking about their social boundaries (not that I am sure I approve of this generally). I think they are trying to say that they have drawn social lines in the sand, which, if you cross them, they will consider that to be a boundary violation such that they will take action against you, such as ‘cancelling’ you (criticizing you, and refusing to allow you to be part of their social circle / ostracizing you / requesting that their social allies also ostracize you, perhaps taking legal action against you if there is grounds for a lawsuit). In some cases, this social boundary setting may be even more similar to a defended national border, in that the person setting the social boundaries makes a precommitment to use nonlawful coercive force / violence against violators. For instance, an angry individual saying “if you say <x> one more time, I will shoot you with this gun, even though it means I will likely be sentenced to life in prison.” My point is that there is something of a gradient, and there is a clear ‘this is a social boundary’ in some cases and in others it’s being used more like a metaphor, trying to make the weaker thing seem like the stronger thing, in a Motte & Bailey sort of way. I agree that focusing on the stronger meaning is the important thing, I just wanted to point out that it’s a tricky line to draw sometimes.
To be clear, I don’t think social requirements and membranes are unrelated. Actually, I think for anyone who is sufficiently conscious, if you violate (or attempt to violate) their «membranes/boundaries», then they will treat that as a violation of their social requirements (colloquial ‘boundaries’). In the limit of courage, there is that convergence.
I wouldn’t naturally call this «membranes». Now, it is of course in any individual’s power to define how they interact with others (because they have «membranes/boundaries»). Sovereign agents can totally have their own preferences and choose to enforce them. For example, “I’m only going to talk to people who don’t yell at me when they get mad”— but this takes an extra step, and it’s different than «membranes/boundaries», which (I claim) is actually universal (ie: observable by all(?) observers) in a natural way.
If this were allowed in the model, then I could “draw my boundary” to include you, and shoot anyone who I don’t like who tries to talk to you.
But no, I don’t naturally have sovereignty over you and who you talk to. (E.g.: you’d probably fight me back)
The sovereignty (autonomy) idea is important. I’ll have to write more about that in the future.
Also, how do I know that someone else is a sovereign agent? Well, because I can’t control them. I can control rocks just fine. I’ll run into trouble if I try to control other sovereign agents (eg people), though.
I think it can be tricky, but I think there’s something real here. («membranes» are distinct from preferences)