I don’t think society is blind to this distinction, but it is rarely drawn so cleanly.
In the world of social realities, there is well-known memetic protection advising away from being overdependent on the social reality alone. The children’s tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” can be taken as an actor with social power asserting something bizarre, with many people entertaining/allowing this social reality, but this being obviously insufficient to change reality.
There are important inherently intersubjective concepts (like money, fun, and human value?) that seem more grounded in the social reality. That doesn’t mean the all the power of the casual stance cannot be used in the study of these things there, but that their intersubjective social perspective origin should not be neglected.
What’s weird about money is that it’s like the emperor held up a piece of paper and said “This is worth as much as (a piece of gold). Also, anyone other than me who makes these will be executed.”
Because the pieces of paper aren’t backed up by gold. If a piece of paper was just a token representing a piece of gold, then the price of gold (in pieces of paper) would never change.
Of course, you can’t eat gold either. There’s a very long chain of inference between actual use of things and the various exchanges (often theoretical) to get to a value. “value” is fundamentally what you’d give for a thing you don’t have or what other people will give you for a thing you do have. It’s not intrinsic to any good or currency.
I like this perspective.
I don’t think society is blind to this distinction, but it is rarely drawn so cleanly.
In the world of social realities, there is well-known memetic protection advising away from being overdependent on the social reality alone. The children’s tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” can be taken as an actor with social power asserting something bizarre, with many people entertaining/allowing this social reality, but this being obviously insufficient to change reality.
There are important inherently intersubjective concepts (like money, fun, and human value?) that seem more grounded in the social reality. That doesn’t mean the all the power of the casual stance cannot be used in the study of these things there, but that their intersubjective social perspective origin should not be neglected.
What’s weird about money is that it’s like the emperor held up a piece of paper and said “This is worth as much as (a piece of gold). Also, anyone other than me who makes these will be executed.”
Why is that weird? Instead of carrying gold around just carry these promising pieces of paper that guarantee value.
And everyone agreed. Probably not at first.
Because the pieces of paper aren’t backed up by gold. If a piece of paper was just a token representing a piece of gold, then the price of gold (in pieces of paper) would never change.
Of course, you can’t eat gold either. There’s a very long chain of inference between actual use of things and the various exchanges (often theoretical) to get to a value. “value” is fundamentally what you’d give for a thing you don’t have or what other people will give you for a thing you do have. It’s not intrinsic to any good or currency.
Food and Water seem valuable.