"S"ociety from society

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

We have been duped by religious fanatics.

Social, from the Latin socius, meaning "companion, known associate."

An example of a society is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. These are a subset of individuals who knowingly and freely associate with each other for some purpose.

How then did our common language ever become polluted with the concept of "S"ociety, as defined by Emil Durkheim, and as frequently referred to in our political discourse? The "S"ociety that is leg liftingly referred to in these arguments has nothing to do with "companions, known associates", but to the theoretical agregate of all such societies--as if that concept had any meaningful purpose in the political arguments of free people?

The 'generalization' of the specific term 'society' has become so vague and diffuse as to be totally meaningless, and yet it is claimed as the basis of a 'science' not only taught in our public schools, but directing entire departments of our federal government.

This was done to promote a religious movement, Social Scientology, that was selling the religious argument "The State is God." Our state bought it.

We were over-run with a religious movement over a hundred years ago, and yet still rail on about 'separation of church and state' as if that wall had not long ago been toppled.

This was some slick slight of hand. But, look how clumsily it was hidden, if only we had actually looked:

"Society is not at all the illogical or alogical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only intheir permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them."

How could we have not seen this, and why did we let it happen?

reguarda,
Frediano