NonE's call about self-ownership

[NonEntity]

(11-01-2011 05:52 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  I thought you were better than that.

Ha HA! GOTCHA!

- NonE

[Dionysus]

^^ No, you ARE better than that. Do I have to channel Marc on your ass??? "Factually speaking, what is a 'process?''"

ETA: Did you see the ETAs in my previous post?

[NonEntity]

(11-01-2011 07:37 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ No, you ARE better than that. Do I have to channel Marc on your ass??? "Factually speaking, what is a 'process?''"

ETA: Did you see the ETAs in my previous post?

The Estimated Time of Arrival was approximately one hour different from when it actually arrived, so why should I pay any attention?

- NonE

[zonsb]

(11-01-2011 07:37 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ No, you ARE better than that. Do I have to channel Marc on your ass??? "Factually speaking, what is a 'process?''"

ETA: Did you see the ETAs in my previous post?

The effectiveness of your communication is the response you get. I think should take him for his word. I empathize, we all get fooled from time to time. Also, good questions in your ETA#1.

--

[eye2i2hear]

(11-01-2011 10:17 PM)zonsb Wrote:  Also, good questions in your ETA#1.

I respectfully disagree (well, they may be good questions to you. but that's another e-primer). Rather than being 'good' (accurate) questions, I see it as a total frame job; a framing of the question --a con+fusion? Let's Taboo it, shall we?

(11-01-2011 07:37 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ETA: Lemme ask you point blank: Do you believe the state catfishes you? There's no debating that the state claims to catfish you (even if it doesn't explicitly say so, its actions speak louder than words). If you don't at least claim to catfish yourself to counteract the state's claim, it will fill the vacuum for you. And if you do believe the state catfishes you, why not just do what it tells you and be happy about it?

Oooh yeah, makes a ton of 'sense' (communicates something), eh?
Ok, any (selfishly enjoyable) hyperbole aside, factually, how would you refute that my Taboo version isn't as 'good' as the original? [pauses tape here...]

[/pause]
And I'd offer that the key frame job indicator is the necessary inclusion and thus use of the word: "believe". Why even get into needing/having to believe any such notion/catfish? Why not just k.i.s.s.? Why not just look for the use of coercion and violence --or as you expressed it: "look at Their actions" (speaking louder)? And maybe ask, who stands to gain by getting into a mental haggle (time and energy drain/black hole) over a mere belief issue?

Lastly, your mission Mr Phelps, should you decide to accept it, prove that the State Believers act like they own=catfish you, without using the word 'own' (or 'catfish')? Versus prove that They use coercion/aggression/violence/are acting logically inconsistent & irrational (equally first Tabooing those terms/frame potentials)...? ...as always, should you or any of your IM force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This post will self-destruct in five seconds.


[see also Taboo here]

[NonEntity]

Factually, what IS a catfish, Eye2?

- NonE

[zonsb]

I must be frank. I have always had difficulty grasping what you're trying to convey when you write a post littered with parenthetical() remarks and cutesie tangential commentary. I tire of it and just move on to the next post or thread. I'm just letting you know. Maybe it would have been better for me to have made this commentary long ago. I don't know. Here it is today.

- NonE-Prime2nd

(11-02-2011 07:01 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(11-01-2011 10:17 PM)zonsb Wrote:  Also, good questions in your ETA#1.

I respectfully disagree (well, they may be good questions to you. but that's another e-primer). Rather than being 'good' (accurate) questions, I see it as a total frame job; a framing of the question --a con+fusion? Let's Taboo it, shall we?

(11-01-2011 07:37 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ETA: Lemme ask you point blank: Do you believe the state catfishes you? There's no debating that the state claims to catfish you (even if it doesn't explicitly say so, its actions speak louder than words). If you don't at least claim to catfish yourself to counteract the state's claim, it will fill the vacuum for you. And if you do believe the state catfishes you, why not just do what it tells you and be happy about it?

Oooh yeah, makes a ton of 'sense' (communicates something), eh?
Ok, any (selfishly enjoyable) hyperbole aside, factually, how would you refute that my Taboo version isn't as 'good' as the original? [pauses tape here...]

[/pause]
And I'd offer that the key frame job indicator is the necessary inclusion and thus use of the word: "believe". Why even get into needing/having to believe any such notion/catfish? Why not just k.i.s.s.? Why not just look for the use of coercion and violence --or as you expressed it: "look at Their actions" (speaking louder)? And maybe ask, who stands to gain by getting into a mental haggle (time and energy drain/black hole) over a mere belief issue?

Lastly, your mission Mr Phelps, should you decide to accept it, prove that the State Believers act like they own=catfish you, without using the word 'own' (or 'catfish')? Versus prove that They use coercion/aggression/violence/are acting logically inconsistent & irrational (equally first Tabooing those terms/frame potentials)...? ...as always, should you or any of your IM force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This post will self-destruct in five seconds.


[see also Taboo here]

-NonE-Prime2nd

[eye2i2hear]

(11-02-2011 07:28 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Factually, what IS a catfish, Eye2?

Hey, what IS a fact, Catfish? {edit: see footnote below}


'er, it is what it is... (e-e-e-e-prime pump that for me, aye?!)

*seriously* tho: it IS what it is = relative to conflict potential & it's resolution (potential)?
Element-ary. Common. Common ground. Obvious/relevant to the (needed) senses, common/'universal'/universe-alls. (and it is so much more... but folks just don't tend to get all up in arms 'bout the likes of that --arms taking usually comes with belief/s... the state of mind prompting the state of affairs (f)actual, etc) No? Know?

--NonidEntity2

{edit} footnote:

(ditto that for 'catfish'...)

[Dionysus]

Sorry, eye2. I knew I shouldn’t have used the dreaded “b” word (“believe"). I personally try not to “believe” anything— I either know or don’t know. I was just trying to ascertain where NonE was coming from. I quote from one of my favorite books:

“To exist as an autonomous being is to resist the guidance systems imposed upon the self from outside. It is to clench one’s plastic fist in rebellion, for only so will it turn slowly back into flesh. The humanoid escapee begins to exist, to experience authentic existence, in the moment he begins to resist.”

I try to resist the state/collective as best I can. And based on NonE’s writings, it’s obvious he does too. Everyone on this board does to some degree. My question would be: where does that resistance come from? Doesn’t it come from that nonphysical part of you (call it spirit) for which self-ownership is intrinsic? That’s all I’m really saying. The state/collective can make all the ownership claims on me it wants, and even take physical possession of me, or use force and coercion to try to obtain my allegiance (and even when I do comply with the state/collective, it’s only by choice after doing a “cost-benefit analysis" of not complying). But they’ll never be able to touch my “essence.” Try as they might, they cannot steal my dreams-- because I choose to have dreams. I guess like NonE said, it’s all about choice.

[NonEntity]

(11-02-2011 08:46 AM)Dionysus Wrote:  Try as they might, they cannot steal my dreams-- because I choose to have dreams. I guess like NonE said, it’s all about choice.

Dionysus, You might want to go over to Marcstevens.net and explore. Marc has this interesting theory... that the state doesn't exist.

On another moonbeam, have you ever read The Way of the Peaceful Warrior, by Dan Milman? (sp?) I read it years ago and it did something no other book that I can recall has done for me, it got me high. Literally. I was on some kind of interesting high that lasted for several days. It's a fun book. He then went on and tried to become some kind of guru and I never did much like anything he did after that, but for some reason that book was a magical experience for me.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(11-02-2011 08:46 AM)Dionysus Wrote:  Sorry, eye2. I knew I shouldn’t have used the dreaded “b” word (“believe"). I personally try not to “believe” anything— I either know or don’t know. I was just trying to ascertain where NonE was coming from.

~kewel beans
thanks for sharing the thoughts with me~

Quote:My question would be: where does that resistance come from? Doesn’t it come from that nonphysical part of you (call it spirit) for which self-ownership is intrinsic?

First, i'd wish to note that I share this from a present state, and intend to reflect further upon it, as to accuracy. That said, I actually find 'self-ownership' redundant, if not a tautology; but mostly, as already shared, a (mere) belief. It seems, experientialy, i simply am my self -and subsequently, recognize and relate to other selves (e.g. you) as such. And I mean that from that sense of 'spirit' (or state of mind/mine/human 'being'). The resistance seems for me to be simply in the ignoring of, or violating logical consistency and in irrationality, followed by the inherent literal consequences of the likes of 'pain' (e.g. discomfort, labor), both psychological and physical (state of being/actuality). I sincerely don't sense relevance or significance of thinking in terms of "self-owning". [again, I intend to do some reflection to see if indeed, I've ever thought in such terms, contrasted with very likely having spoken in such terms, say, per a having caught a meme/religious belief.]


ps: I own possess have a pdf copy [1.1meg] of the book by Millman, mentioned by NonEntity, if you'd like a digi-copy~ *caveat: that is, if you want to risk becoming like NonE* ;^)

[NonEntity]

(11-02-2011 09:53 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  *caveat: that is, if you want to risk becoming like NonE* ;^)[/size]

Hmm. How to E-prime that one?!?

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(11-02-2011 10:01 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Hmm. How to E-prime that one?!?

Leave me alone.

[Dionysus]

(11-02-2011 09:13 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Dionysus, You might want to go over to Marcstevens.net and explore. Marc has this interesting theory... that the state doesn't exist.

Marc... Stevens you say? Ain't never 'eard of him. What is he-- some type of guru or something??

And I'll check out that book when I have more time. Thanks for the heads-up.

[eye2i2hear]

"(ia)IFYC"

Jim Walker, in Confusing the Map for the Territory Wrote:[We can create symbols that point to nowhere but themselves and taken as fact outside one's body. Humans can think of themselves in the future doing all sorts of things before they actually do them. This of course produces desirable results such as creating tools, methods of gathering food, and art that allowed survival and a thirst for living. Generally these results outweigh the defects. As Victor S. Johnston put it, "The human brain did not evolve to accurately represent the world around us; it evolved only to enhance the survival of our genes." But if a thinking defect can result in a catastrophic violent event, we could let the defects of our thinking overrule the benefits. These defects emerge out of our ability to create images and symbols. We can create images of unique animals that don't exist, including monsters, serpents and gods. We can even think of them as all powerful and strong. One can create all sorts of characters: the little people-- leprechauns, and the big people-- giants, and distorted scary [entities] like demons, ghosts and devils. And not only can we develop mental images of these monsters and gods, but we [can] attach emotions to them as well. Productively we attach emotions to symbols of thought that reflect external reality (family members, friends, animals, and objects). According to Johnston, the combination of emotions with symbolic thought produces meaning. But with this capacity comes the ability to develop meanings for things that do not exist. Little girls develop the ability to attach emotional feelings to dolls, and pretend that their toys live. Little boys learn how to pretend to hunt and fight and attach emotions to them. We learn feelings of desire, fear, and wonder by wandering to the limits of our play. Imagination allows us to create technology, mathematics, and art, but with it can also come terrifying thoughts that could cause harm to us. We grow to learn the difference between most of our thoughts and what they represent, but most of us get fooled into believing the reality of some things that don't exist at all.

If we fail to understand the difference between what occurs in our minds and what occurs outside our minds, we can confuse the symbols for the things they represent; we have the capacity to act on things that exist only in our heads while believing they exist [or should/"has to" exist] outside our heads. Now if only one person in a group believes in a non-external thing, we usually label him deluded, crazy or insane. But if most of the group believes in the same non-entity, then the majority can rule out the non-believing minority. Depending on the belief, this can result in a belief-system taken from superstitions, ideologies or fictions taken as facts and passed on from generation to generation.

--Jim Walker, in Confusing the Map for the Territory
http://www.nobeliefs.com/MapandTerritory.htm
[bracketed/bold text, mine -eye2i]

*footnote: the author done good, until he got off into that bit about a group believing in the same NonEntity; pffft, who'd be ingoranus enough to engage the likes of such?!?

--Non-idEntity2