“Uniqueness” is just an indirect way of saying “you’re swell!”
It is that.
But it isn’t just that.
The notion of individual freedom is one spread by ruling classes.
I think it’s less conspiratorial than that. It’s a notion spread by those physical contingencies most highlighted in the ways we commonly experience reality - there is no secret cabal deliberately scheming to predjudice certain ontic experiences over others; it’s an organic, collective process. Like Hegel said, there is no self-conciousness without lordship and bondage - yet we all aspire to self-conciousness (even you yourself, in contrasting ruling and subservient classes, are promoting both the notions of individuality and freedom). This is just how human conciousness operates - otherwise, there would be no attention paid to the fact that there is a class hierarchy in the first place - it would simply be what it is (lion eats gazelle - ecosystem persists unperturbed).
Language is dominated by ruling elites.
It isn’t about ontic experiences, it’s about the conceptual schemes we use to understand them and try to explain them to each other. In fact, what is an ‘ontic experience’ such as could be prejudiced one over the other?
I’m doing no such thing. That may be one of the many implications of such a philosophy, but I’m not promoting it.
It is what it is, because otherwise it would be what it is?
Nonsense.
The current ruling elites are sheep made to be slaughtered. They are as stupid as the cows they let graze.
Language is dominated by ideology itself. Whoever has the best ideas reigns supreme.
May the best man win …
A hermit with a great idea rules fuck all.
Language is a deconstructed mechanism. Ideology merely a word within a nexus of other words.
Like who? Webster? Language is not dominated at all - it evolves freely and fluidly through time and from context to context - it’s infinitely malleable - that some elites may use language to establish dominion does not mean that language is in any way dominated.
The conceptual schemes are formed on the basis of commonly shared ontic experiences (ways in which we receive and process information - the collective phenomenological overlap between agents - of these, we can choose to privelage some over others - dividing up the world into shapes first and then textures later, for instance). From the fact that some conceptual schemes on a higher level of abstraction are often entrenched as dogma and used as means of establishing dominion, it does NOT follow that the nearly universal human ontic experience of individual agency is somehow the product of empowered elites, as you suggest.
unwittingly perhaps - but you can’t make politically charged statements wherein our concepts about indivual freedom become the tools by which we are subjugated without reinforcing the notions that we are both seperate and otherwise free agents.
If human conciousness did not operate on the twin platforms of individuality and freedom, there would be no such conciousness at all. There would be no awareness of any hierarchy of classes and therefore no need for domination of one over the other. Hierarchy and dominion are products of our experience of individual freedom, and not vice versa. To say that prefabricated illusions of individual freedom are the tools by which our (then, supposedly illusory) individual freedom gets suppressed makes no sense. Either there is individual freedom, and we are right to conceive of ourselves as individual agents, or there is none, in which case there can be no such thing as dominion or hierarchy - merely a natural order. You can’t have it both ways.
I see you’re acquainted with Moses. 
Yes, but that doesn’t tell me what “ideology” necessarily means, does it?
i had a feeling you might appreciate that - where’s Joker? 
Watching from the distance as per usual. 
eerie . . .
Didn’t Moses lead some people? Possibly out of one land and into another, though I could be wrong about that. Hardly a hermit.
It doesn’t ‘necessarily’ mean anything.
Among others. Intellectuals, propagandists, spin doctors, advertisers…
It does not evolve freely. Indeed, such a phrase is a contradiction in terms.
How do you know the experiences are the same?
Prove it’s nearly universal. Prove it is a valid ontic experience as you describe and not just a convenient myth that is part of a divide and rule strategy.
Why can’t I do that? My argument doesn’t rely on the notions it is decrying. Though a dim witted and unsubtle reader might be led to believe that.
Consciousness doesn’t operate on a platform. You’re slipping into metaphors to describe something that, if it were universal and pure in the way you’ve suggested, would be easy to describe without resorting to literary devices.
Stop taking for granted the very thing I’m questioning, otherwise it doesn’t serve as a counterargument.
Just because we’re suppressed doesn’t mean we’d otherwise be free individuals. That’s a very diametric and binary way of thinking about this.
We aren’t free. We’re convinced we are by one of the forces that ensures that we’re not. We believe in myths propagated by some more powerful than us. One of those myths is individual freedom. We neither have to be free, nor unfree, to believe this. It just so happens that we’re not.
No ‘both ways’ about it.
So language is dominated by individuals and not the ruling elite…
Hmm, I think you just proved your own counter-point.
Like, real groovy dude?
All you’ve done is reaffirm the very thing whose existence is under scrutiny. Circular reasoning, however Cartesian, is still circular reasoning.
The point I made was that whoever is the most reasonable sets the standard for language trends, not the “ruling elite”.
And then you proved your own counter-point for me…
Did I miss something?
Also the originators of slang, people chatting on cell phones, novelists, message-boarders, etc.
[/quote]
a semantic point - you know what i’m talking about - make an argument
[/quote]
Because they are reported that way.
Prove it IS a convenient myth that is part of a divide and rule strategy. Okham’s razor.
This makes no sense. If you are decrying the notion that we are free and individual agents because it is the product of a manipulative group of some sort trying to establish dominion over another group, then you’re assuming that the freedom you decry as an illusion is real (together, that’s a logical fallacy) - otherwise, there would be no “dominion” to establish, and it certainly couldn’t be a conspiracy - it would simply be the way things are.
so you resort to name calling when someone points out an error in your reasoning?
[/quote]
Who says it’s pure? However, by definition, it’s universal among concious creatures - are you saying we aren’t, in fact, concious?
[/quote]
Do you seriously intend to deny that we experience ourselves as free and individual agents?
[/quote]
Then spell out how i should be thinking about it - it’s called discussion.
[/quote]
You seem to be making some kind of “Matrix” based argument - do you have any evidence?
The thoughts about anything can always be deduced from the thoughts about any other thing, if the thoughts about things can never be without uniformity.
What do you mean by “uniformity” of thought?