I never argue...I discuss. :-)

>You say we attatch labels to things in order to
>communicate, but these things come to exist as material
>objects before we can label them. These labels and our
>cognitive associations with them then really do inform the way
>we think.

Okay. For example, take the word sensitive. Depending on who you are and how you've been raised this could mean weak or very aware/astute. Because this is a quality, not a physical thing it makes it hard to know exactly what a person means when he or she says, "You're sensitive". There are other words that people use to label other people...and this goes beyond something like fruit. Some of these labels are used to divide people, to send messages that certain things have more value than others.

> cannot fathom how you can even suggest that I believe
>we are programmed like creatures in eggs.

Not you personally. I am talking in generalities, for this discussion.

>On an individual basis, this level of
>access to language varies but on a social level it holds
>true.

Sure.

>A baby cries out of reflex, not out of any social condition.

I disagree. After the first couple of weeks, babies use crying as a way to communicate. They pick up on cues such as the reaction on a person's face. They notice when they cry, gurgle, or smile something happens in their external environment. They learn to use their limited and sometimes non-verbal responses to get their needs met.

>Further, whether the word fruit comes
>from an authority or not, it exists as a concept to describe
>material things. Call unfufu if you want, it still exists as a
>socially agreed upon concept to understand a category of
>physical things.

Most often, the words, labels, or whatever come from people in some authoritative role. We want to belong, to be accepted, to communicate, so we use the same words. It does not make it "real" or true but it becomes reality, anyway.

>Right, the authority that places such value on "diamonds" is
>the market and the actors who control the market. The market
>is a concept that exists only under a

Yep.

>The sole purpose of all
>production under capitalism is commodification in order to
>realize monetary value on the market. We thus learn to
>fetishize commodities and conjure up all sorts of perverted
>ideals regarding their values. We lose sight of the things you
>mentioned (compassion, sensitivity, truth, etc.) because we
>live in a society where "value" has become synonomous with
>"capital".

Which is why I say that morals are for morons...in this society. Our value system is so skewed towards capital that concepts such as compassion or sensitivity is lost on the average person.

>Many argue, in fact, that the reason religion and
>belief in spirit is so attractive is because of the alienation
>that this system creates.

Unfortunately, the history of religion (most religions) is tied up in capital, too.

>Since we cannot have frienship,
>truth, compassion, love, here on earth we need to place those
>ideals on an external being and call it god or whatever. Then
>we praise it and fetishize it like we do commodities, only
>this we need not express in cash payment (although we know
>that's not completely true either).

To some (like me), God is not external. God is pure, undifferentiated energy and is in everything...but that's another discussion.