NonE's call about self-ownership - Printable Version
+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: There Is No STATE (/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Property (/forum-37.html)
+--- Thread: NonE's call about self-ownership (/thread-2836.html)
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011 02:00 PM
The way I take it, NonE is saying a body is much like a computer. It can only be possessed, not "owned".
But "you" are not the body. The body is not "you". Their is a "you" seperate from "your" body. I believe it is the "I am" you speak of; spirit/conscience/energy. This self awareness.
Does creation denote ownership? I purchased a phone, I possess the phone, I "own" the phone in the sense that NonE has laid out (others agree I do/ allow me too), but I had nothing to do with its creation. Someone else did. Do they own the phone? Did they? Can they? If I create something is it "mine"? I possess it, its formulation is entirely dependent upon me, but do I "own" it?
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-30-2011 02:17 PM
Yes, I "catfish." As you alluded to before, I think this is a problem of definitions. Your definition of ownership (including that of oneself) has approval of society at large as a prerequisite, while my definition of self-ownership does not (although I agree with your definition when it comes to non-self-ownership). So, which definition is true? Is it possible that both are true, and that there are different "spheres" of ownership that can exist simultaneously (and conflict with each other at times)? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care??
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-30-2011 03:18 PM
(10-30-2011 02:17 PM)Dionysus Wrote: NonE:
Well, as I said somewhere above, what I'm attempting is not for a definition of the word, but rather to understand the underlying concept for which the word is merely a pointer. Does that make sense?
If it does, then you will understand that it doesn't matter whether or not I call it "ownership" or "catfish," the reality is the relationship between the stuff I value and how other people treat that stuff. You can define your "catfish" to be anything you want, but unless the other people around you understand and respect your definition all you are doing is talking to yourself.
So if you want to talk to yourself, cool. Go for it. But if you want to understand your relationship with the world around you, that's a different thing. THAT is what I'm trying to understand.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-30-2011 04:18 PM
(10-30-2011 03:18 PM)NonEntity Wrote: So if you want to talk to yourself, cool. Go for it. But if you want to understand your relationship with the world around you, that's a different thing. THAT is what I'm trying to understand.
Well, I am my own best company. Okay then, I put it to you: Is the relationship you have with "yourself" different than that with the world around you? If so, why so? If not, why not? What are the properties of ownership? Are those properties present with self-ownership?
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-30-2011 04:54 PM
Self ownership is an oxymoron.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-30-2011 05:03 PM
^^ Dem's fightin' words where I come from!!! Good thing we're not where I come from.
ETA: Did you read Mike Peinovich's article? He makes a convincing case:
Yes, you really do own yourself
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011 08:09 PM
Since ownership is a mental construct, would it be correct to say that self ownership is a state of mind? Consider the sense of self ownership that a slave would have (or more correctly, the lack of). Ever have that nagging sense of obligation toward someone? Or that inability to refuse someone's request? Is that merely the bounds of self ownership (the state of mind/mental construct)?
What about those poor Stockholm Syndrome affected statists? I'm sure they would.discover self ownership if they could muster the wisdom to tell the state to fuck off.
BTW, ownership is more demonstrated by the willingness of someone to defend their assertion, rather than anyone else's willingness to recognize that assertion. Thus ownership is a battle of wills.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-30-2011 09:05 PM
(10-29-2011 05:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote: NonE:
I could have swore I heard NonEntity say his head was gonna esplode
Law of the jungle -- eat or be eaten -- is a matter of self preservation. Self preservation is instinctual. How well does an animal defend/protect itself from being killed? There are no rights and no ownership in nature. No right to life. No right to self defense/protection and no right to self preservation. Rights and ownership are products of reason. They are created by reason and thus brought into existence by agreement among conscious beings.
At the individual level, probably ninety-nine percent of people agree with the right to life/self-ownership. They don't initiate force, fraud and coercion. The one percent that disagree by their actions of initiatory force, threat of force and fraud are mentally-deficient.
That's based on 1) man produces more than he consumes and, 2) by acquiring new knowledge of the laws of nature man can increase his control of nature. The excess production and control of nature can and usually does assist in the self preservation of other humans. Combined, they are a lone man's/woman's best means of self preservation.
The primary reason for agreement is self preservation of the individual. A secondary benefit is preservation of a community.
Government is mentally deficient men and women attempting to provide services at the barrel of a gun.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 06:58 AM
(10-30-2011 09:05 PM)zonsb Wrote: The primary reason for agreement is self preservation of the individual. A secondary benefit is preservation of a community.
How is it the populace can get it so right on the one hand, yet on the other, be so mistaken or deluded?
The creation/invention of the conscious mind was not an evolutionary process. Nature doesn't contradict itself. Man can contradict his instinct for self-preservation and it requires his own creation/invention of the conscious mind to do it. Conscious man can harness control of nature in ways that nature alone couldn't do in but one in a quadrillion years. However, with infinite time, anything that can happen -- no matter how remote the possibility -- will happen infinite times. Which has a greater probability: Nature alone accounts for our Universe that begot conscious beings, or, conscious being(s) harnessed nature to create a universe that begot conscious beings?
It is so sickening to comprehend the most powerful force known to exist has been manipulated to undermine itself. And so unnecessary.
http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread.php?tid=2830&pid=19559&highlight=responsible#pid19559' Wrote: Myself? ...I just accept that humans are inflicted with varying degrees of vestiges/remnants of the bicameral mind. Some more than others. As for the human species? ...I'd say the human species is still plagued with vestiges/remnants of the bicameral mind.
Sometimes human death is a consequence. That too, is so unnecessary given conscious man's ability to harness control of nature for his benefit and the benefit of others. Death is a necessary function of evolutionary process, but not for the supreme controllers and creators of new realms of existence.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-31-2011 10:50 AM
(10-30-2011 04:54 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 12:00 PM
(10-31-2011 10:50 AM)Dionysus Wrote:(10-30-2011 04:54 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
- Nice. Requires consciousness to make the argument. See my above post.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 12:24 PM
(10-30-2011 05:03 PM)Dionysus Wrote: ^^ Dem's fightin' words where I come from!!! Good thing we're not where I come from.
Mike Wrote:Self-ownership is a normative concept. It is a statement about how things should be. To say that you own yourself is equivalent to saying that it is right that you own yourself. It is right and proper that you should be the one to decide your actions for yourself and to control your own destiny. You should have the right of exclusive control over your body and mind. It is a statement about ethics. But these ethics are not subjective or arbitrary. They are necessarily implied by the facts of human action, specifically the action of argument.
Yes, and the moon SHOULD be made of green cheese. So what? Wanting something to be true does not make it so.
NEWS FLASH! THIS JUST IN...
The moon owns itself! It claims that it is just right that it should be so. Russians protest, claiming that the moon belongs to them.
Full story and latest update at 11.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - eye2i2hear - 10-31-2011 12:56 PM
(10-30-2011 03:18 PM)NonEntity Wrote: Well, as I said somewhere above, what I'm attempting is not for a definition of the word, but rather to understand the underlying concept for which the word is merely a pointer. Does that make sense?
FWIW, I *cough*hack*spit*sputter*mutter* agree, generally, with NonEntity on this one. And 'yes', I've read Peinovich's article and found it anconvincing.
"own" and "owner" are words too easily set in stone, mental concrete relative to their being, factually, but mere concepts. Ditto, whether one is, or isn't one's brain/body (self-owner = oxymoronic, conscious/spirit/soul versus brain/body/entity). They appear but as mere claims ie states of mind --valuable to those seeking agreement and mutual value; not so much to those who aren't. Claims that are examinable as to extent/degree. The use or allure of force being a crucial aspect.
That said, I find more value in thinking (reasoning/seeking logical consistency) in terms of occupancy/possession. Where it does, factually, seem clear enough (ie obvious/'self-evident'?) that each individual has the 'highest' (archy) claim when it comes to occupancy/possession/control/perpetuity/cause & effect/use of one specific, particular human ("their") body. [investment equity, amongst 'selves', being worthy of value consideration, too]
To follow the computer analogy, each 'self' is the computer's BIOS ('id'?). Then (typically/'normally') an OS runs on top of or along with that (ego/superego). But like with viruses, memes (and in some cases, literal/biological viruses, along with physical take-overs) can corrupt, interrupt, replace, or even destroy (for an 'other's' gain/control) both/either. And as well, the original OS (compare with Microsoft "BSOD" WinDOHS particularly) can delude it 'self' -tho generally, a reboot (or reflash/reinstall) is simple enough, tho not equally always easy (and time, data, and energy can be lost/consumed).
These OSys are networkable/linkable and can communicate with each other -aka agree to definitions of their terms/words. This is of course where most memes aka (potential) viruses can be spread. The only means of establishing/determining a (valued) program from a virus/devaluing meme, is to look at the original Architecture aka Nature/The Universe-alls (that in common via the common-senses).
Where we find, the likes of 'catfish' (or 'de bagre' or 'pesce gatto') and 'owners'. Wherein i find (and offer for) value in examining both of these, determining whether each or both are mere concepts (memes) or some elemental degree of (f)actual reality.
Ok, I pick up said 'catfish'/'pesce gatto', letting it flip about a bit, then pass it under his nose, and then smack NonE upside the head with it. While there's value in our agreeing it's 'catfish', it matters [sic] not whether it's 'catfish' or 'de bagre' or 'property' or 'owned' (or 'gizmo' or 'smelly-slimey-oucher'). [get ready for it]: it is what it is. Let me appeal to the facts of the matter of one:
pass the catfish, do not collect $200...
Now, let's test 'self-owner' (exclusive owner) likewise? One claims to own one's body exclusively. First examination: the state known as 'sleep' [optional, under anesthesia]. Where is the 'owner' (one definition: "in control") aka the claimer? [claimant being one controlling mouth, tongue, lungs etc aka to control/own speaking; to claim]. Hmmm, silent and 'out' of 'control'? Appears so. Only the brain is in control, so is it the "self" claimed?
OK, so next, more typically, said claimer/'owner' is awake. NonE steps behind ey and grasping ey's arms, lifts them up, swings them around etc. Does he 'own' (control) them? Does one screaming "catfish!" change the facts at all? Hasn't NonE exerted, and demonstrated a 'claim' (control)? A decree by degree? What about such an instance, factually, establishes one but not the other 'The Owner'? [imagines NonE also squishing that body's lips and miming (not '
Pass the 'self-ownership' ('exclusive control') test, (f)actually...?
[hint/clue/tip: are there parallel forum threads and a plethora of essays around debating whether the 'catfish' factually exists? the 'computer(s)'? or more significantly, are there wars going on over such existing --or not so much? The War Between The
So why muddy things up (in already murky enuff 'waters'),
a.) 'owner', as a mere 'word' for a concept, of course works fine as well, for 'highest claimant'; unfortunately, it's devalued/presently tainted by memes/as a meme; much like 'property' for things, as having elemental properties... ie both are 'obviously' fightin' words (rather than reasoning opportunity) when disagreement happens
b.) I realize the issue of slavery (by degree/decree) is a nasty one, and why there's an appeal to claiming self-ownership as being factual; I simply think it's the proverbial barking up the wrong
c.) on the matter of catfish wars/deniers, I'm aware of course there are those claiming not only are there no catfish, there is no "us", ie no/zero reality
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 01:17 PM
Slavery/initiatory-force is contradictory. Not because it violates an alleged ownership issue. Rather, it denies the individual freedom of expression which is key to self-preservation.
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 02:30 PM
(10-31-2011 12:56 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote: FWIW, I *cough*hack*spit*sputter*mutter* agree, generally, with NonEntity on this one. And 'yes', I've read Peinovich's article and found it anconvincing.
But Eye, it's a FACT. Don't you understand what the word "FACT" means? Am I gonna hafta whack you upside the head witha catfish?
P.S. FACT bears a very strange resemblance to "THE LAW!" (or, "it's in the BIBLE!")