Destroy My Belief System, Please!

The point being: does it mean anything if two organisms agree, or if they disagree? If nobody does the agreeing or disagreeing, it means nothing. Like two cars or two computers cannot agree with one another, can they?

I see: your concern with "agreement" between beings is more a matter of values or significance than with the actual ontological reality of the beings (qua egos) agreeing or whatever they may be doing (qua agents). As I see it when two people agree or disagree it is simply a matter of the occurrence of agreement/disagreement, not a demonstration of the existence of agents; that demonstration is something unnecessarily added.

Is it fair to say that all translates to: I do NOT know...but I am unwilling to acknowledge that I do not know, so I will talk around it?

And you know that, how????

I find it amusing that social structures can exist without subjects...
One may debate how many personalities one subject has, the nature of ego being a construction and all that, but one cannot argue the existence of a system which is the subject. For all that matters the nature of one individual is no less social then groups of people. Denying one is just as good as denying the other.

The centre of debate is not the nature of the "I" existing or not existing but on which manner it exists...we discuss the form by which there are properties.
Are properties, emergent phenomena, always present as a set of layers of relations, ad infinity, organised as build upon each other without end ? Or there must be a final property, no matter how abstract, on which all other relations from which other properties arise, get a foundation, a causal justification in an unfolding growing Universe ? Towards where would this Universe grow if such Universe by definition is the collection of everything ? A top down approach would rather gather all possible phenomena in a set of data which is pure law and has no justification other then it exists and its true. The mathematical ordering of this structure is not subject to time constrains and thus in it there is no building no processing no causality which results in conforming the nature of properties to pure law without reason. In this light causality is not distinguishable from non causality as the mathematical ordering of phenomena can fully simulate a causal relation where there is none. If it goes full circle and the end meets the beginning the structure of reality would look like causal circular from an inside time perspective and limitless. But in fact it would just be a collection of a finite amount of laws, a stream of organized data which bottom line is no more abstract nor different from language itself.

"Agreements happen"... I see. There are also moments when "stupidity happens"...

You are yet to explain why social constrains are more important then genetic constrains.
Or better said, why causality on which relations are founded is more important reporting a social enviroment then reporting genetic relations expressed in the individual.
Or further still why there should be a causal nexus at all either way.
As it can be argued things just are what they are. Where in the hell is the construction if there is no nature to anything ? When nothing has identity, when nothing has properties what is there to be build upon ?...
Ego is said to be a construction, the result of social conditioning, "languaging" etc...and yet no one explains what is the foundation of the social itself, so that something like egos can emerge from its workings operating upon something which is said to be nothing, to not exist. The fact of the matter is that there cannot be conditioning without something to be conditioned in the first place. The subject ego cannot arise purely from social conditioning without the subject having a ego potential per se in the first place. The subject is in itself a unitary system, awareness or lack of awareness on egos aside. Ego even if partially socially conditioned is just yet another expression of this unity. And for that matter societies themselves form unites which differ from each other. Colective memory is their ego.

Agreement happens because it can happen, its mathematically settled, and not because agents decide to agree by their own volition. Volition must always express the agents nature which could not be chosen by the agents themselves.
In fact Nature as a whole is not something that can be chosen. It simply it is.

If everything you say is predetermined by biology and society, why should i pay any attention to what you say? I might as well pay attention to the rain falling, or the wind blowing... or to people who do no consider themselves robots.

Fil, you say you find it amusing the social structures can exist without subjects. It seems to me that the analytical construct, "social structure", exists in terms of the analytical structures, "statuses", "roles" and "rules", but it does not need the existence of existential (subjective) subjects. When I focus on "my" reality as pure immediate experience I do not find it to be happening TO a subject. "I" AM those immediate experiences, not the abstraction they are supposedly happening to [sic]..

Fil, you say you find it amusing that social structures can exist without subjects. It seems to me that the analytical construct, "social structure", exists in terms of the analytical structures, "statuses", "roles" and "rules", but it does not need the existence of existential (subjective) subjects. When I focus (mainly in meditation) on "my" reality as pure immediate experience I do not find it to be happening TO a subject (ego). "I" AM those immediate experiences, not the abstraction they are supposedly happening to [sic]..

It could me that you miss yourself.

Perhaps, I certainly think we all should, pay more attention to the rain falling the wind blowing, just as to what people are being.
it seems to me that analysing intention for purposes of responsibility works better for quick convenient justification and stress relief.
Requiring accountability says more about those who demand it then it could ever possibly say about the subjects it can focus.
Whatever is the case, this is just my honest best possible opinion on the matter given the amount of information and processing power that I possess at the time on which I am writing this reply.

Nice wind.

I don't know about Ego and awareness, as awareness without control it is nothing worth debating...but it certainly can be argued that the "experiecing" itself it is "you" nonetheless...
Society is, reflects, the mingling collection of these multiple "experiencings" from individuals and feeds back to each source in a continuous readjustment cycle on both ends.
Society and individual spontaneously build from each other.

C'est bon ça, non ? Allez hop...

I am pre-determined not to pay attention to determinists.

I can empathise with that justification.
See ? ...a rational answer always pleases me !
I am easy to please...
When you are joking you get to be rationally convincing. keep at it !

Great. That gives me less pangs of guilt for ignoring you.

Oh dear, do you feel guilty ? Mostly I ignore you without blinking...
Do you see what believing on volition can do to your self esteem ?
If this western obsession with responsibility keeps pacing up with the ever increasing amount of information we have to process nowadays the rate of suicides will be off the roof in 20 years time ! Well...that's natural selection right there !