NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 07-26-2017, 01:30 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 150455

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
05-24-2014, 04:59 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2014 08:45 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #241
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
i have no problem, via commitment to exercising critical thinking, a.) grasping and following the investment trail (again, as i blaze my own) and b.) transference of that 'energy trail' by voluntarily made verbal agreement(s) (gifting etc). Thus again, Mary clearly (?) knows such doesn't have a tooth tool fairy or invisible pink "Creator" (Triunitycorn) miraculously sprouting such up in a lawn, so her commitment to critical thinking and logical consistency leads her to query the investment pathways in this scenario as well, no?
Thus Mary finds that Bob's claim is still higher.? (Bob points Mary in the direction of Mr. Rogers, in the neighborhood, where the energy trail leads and confirmation of such is to be had by all the happy campers ZAPpers... in the Neighborhood Watch Arbitration Association, where gearheadhominemm NonEntity wwWhip Diozeus eye2i Marc Stevens acts as mutually selected arbitrator...)
[Image: questionmarkthinkerstickman.jpg]

Quote:I agree Bob has the higher claim as you stated it.

Just to be sure, by "as you stated it", do you mean the expression "higher claim"? And if so, do you feel there's a less aggression-stimulating form for it? Or perhaps by that, you simply meant the form of the reasoning, as stated.? (funny how forms can go; thus pardon any hypersensitivity to the word "stated" circa "Stated" circa "The State" = individuals acting upon beliefs stated...)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2014, 05:41 AM
Post: #242
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(05-24-2014 04:59 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Thus again, Mary clearly (?) knows such doesn't have a tooth tool fairy or invisible pink "Creator" (Triunitycorn) miraculously sprouting such up in a lawn, so her commitment to critical thinking and logical consistency leads her to query the investment pathways in this scenario as well, no?

There's your window to imagining/envisioning how individuals would act in a voluntary society.

I contend that roughly 99% of the time an individual knows what is not theirs. To clarify "theirs": I know the lawn ornament in Bob's yard isn't mine.

If an object can't be owned the object can't be stolen. The word stolen is predicated on ownership. Without ownership taxation is not theft.

--Andy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2014, 06:43 AM
Post: #243
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(05-24-2014 05:41 AM)Andy Wrote:  The word stolen is predicated on ownership. Indeed.Without ownership taxation is not theft. It nonetheless is a threat of violence against another.

I'm guessing you have a point you're attempting to make. Could you expand upon that so that we (speaking in the Royal form Wink ) might grasp what that point might be?

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2014, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2014 08:42 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #244
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
"Ownership" being a form, correct?

fwiw, i'm currently not choosing to think in terms of, thus steering away from using the word 'ownership' --any more than i am in terms of and using the word 'rights'; both are too easily prone to becoming religious incantations or dogmas upon which violence-- formed to be 'defensive' --manifests; and arguably the objective (voluntary association) can be obtained apart from such...?

When it comes to 'taxation' (speaking of religious incantation/dogma), aka taking, assess the claims (including the matter of authority/authorization equity/equality).?

Taboo is your buddy~ (forms aka words, not so much.?)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 06:06 PM
Post: #245
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Dionysus, Interestingly put. Non-E, I am glad to see you carry the gauntlet we so ardently threw back and forth so many years ago. I am more of the mind that "ownership" is a concept, defined and interpreted by its users to mean what they want it to mean (that meaning derived in the illusions we all muscle around in the pasty grey within what we claim are our heads (or not)).

I'm troubled with Dionysus' evaluation of ownership of "the self"; for we define the self with terms invented & agreed upon through the course of one's life in the intangible thing we call mind. The influences that formed our opinions about "ownership" and therefore "self ownership" spring from that thing we call "I". The illusionary lines that are drawn around the things we perceive as owned inside the "mind?' of the self, mean nothing to the "mind?" of a different self (entity?). It is when the two minds are at odds about what is or can be owned where the force comes out to play.

Perhaps, as Non-Entity postulates, "ownership" is related between entities; that neither have substance or merit outside of the thing we call the self. We try to prove that we own "the self". So if there were one "self" the question would not have been expressed because there is or would not be a contrary opinion.

So does the persuasion that has formed us (therefore our opinions) throughout our lives have anything to do with this? I believe yes. Over the course of time we have agreed to many things that have been told to us, even though we never undertook the analytical measures to determine if the claims had substance. Example: Atoms exist! I never trusted atoms...they make up everything. All kidding aside. I cannot prove to you that atoms exist. Now if I sat down and worked out all the proof I could muster, all the proof is opinion. It is my opinion atoms exist even though there is what is called scientific proof to support it. Is not the scientific proof still opinion? The atom was a concept that Democritus had come up with to explain the substance of matter (yet he had no experimental proof). All that followed him, built on his concept.

It wasn't until the invention of the "cloud chamber", where scientists used a thin gold foil and shot helium nuclei at the foil that sometimes the particle shot at the foil deflected at a large angle. Again it was hypothesis with some supporting experimental data. In this instance, it was about something we all perceive as matter but even matter is an agreed upon term to cognitively express our collective opinion. So did we prove atoms exist?

Therefore does the "self" exist exterior to the reality it believes itself in? As the late, great comedian Robin Williams expressed, "Reality...What a concept!" I think he was on target with that statement.

Dionysus, can you prove the "self"? What is the self? The self in my opinion is the culmination of analysis done by the "mind?" to believe or disprove any concept that we encounter; even when it is something as simple as the concept the sky is blue.

It is an agreed upon belief, which has about as much validity as if I said, "The sky is nitrogen." I'd be about 78.084 % correct as far as the agreed upon concept of what comprises air is concerned. Why is "the sky is blue" a conceptual fallacy? Because in fact the sky is mostly black, with the exception of when the sun is present on the side the observer is on and at that time the true color is obscured by light passing through the mostly nitrogen composed atmosphere changing the frequency of the incoming light to what is generally agreed upon as blue (though blue could mean just about any light frequency entering our eyes, we just decided collectively that the color is blue). But did we collectively agree or did we just accept blue as the color taught to us, which in turn was taught to them, on and on back in time to that moment when one entity pointed up into the sphere of gases over us and uttered "bloo" or whatever derivative?

Frankly, whatever "thing" that sits in the background of what we call "self" & "mind", that picks & chooses between the concepts we agree or disagree upon, is the self. It is difficult for me to articulate the self without addressing all the experiences and choices that have been made to form the opinions that are adopted, not only by the singular but also the multitudes. Most based on little or no empirical evidence, such as the concept of "ownership" and for that matter "self ownership", which without the agreement of the masses would have no necessity to be proved or disproved.

I can almost hear Non-E hyperventilating.

The more I have thought about this ownership thing the murkier it gets. I still don't believe it exists other than a concept and when did a concept become anything more than a concept? When force is applied.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 07:31 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #246
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Aren't all words (or do i type it as "words"?) concepts (too)? And aren't all words conceptualized to save time ultimately? "save time", how's that for a conceptualization?! --yet, isn't it? (even if the time saved is part of a con scam? and a mind fuck?). Aren't words merely a communication shortcut, a form of communication compression? Where akin to most digital audio compression, it's inherently "lossy"?

Ah, but the possibilities with purposing to think in terms of probabilities, contrasted with thinking in terms of dichotomies. Yins and yangs☯ My but all the hues and nuances between 0 and 1. Yet all the more to fight less over☮? Who tends to fight more, the one thinking in terms of "this is right", or the one thinking "this is probably right"? (where "right" is more desirable than "left" --including being left behind?)

Isn't "the sky is blue" more probable than "the sky is green"? (partly depending upon how both terms are "defined" aka agreed to?)
And isn't "blue" merely a shortcut, communication wise? And isn't the sky being blue versus black a mere con attempt to stir up a fight? "Naturally"? How true probable is it that "the sky" is both "blue" and "black"? Like the "earth" is both "flat" and "spherical"? Ah, that theory of relativity --where it's all relative? Or the word We have...what is it...? Perspective? (and it's twin, perception?)
Being in the moment, beings in the moments. Probably more productive than thinking in terms (of the word for the concept) of "eternal"?

"Self" too (or in this case, "Self2"?) being a mere shortcut? A means of expanding the possibilities of communication between selves "being". Where one of the things about "being", is that the shortcuts --that "We" take the shortcut of expressing as "words"-- have to diligently remain mere probabilities. Probably "have to" (as relative as that is)? The probability that another "self", like unto "my" self, as "i" measure, defines-- as i did.? Probability, that by it's very adherence, perpetually allows for possibilities --negative and to positive, yins and yangs within yin and yang infinite? And the potential of and towards "murkiness"?

As one ole fart put it: If you wish to communicate with me, first define your terms. Where those with the kindred spirit of ole Billy Bob Clinton, might here follow with: First, define "first"? Can you hear that? (define "that"?). Indeed, how many firsts are possible when it comes to communication; to actually communicating (accurately)? Probable? How probable is it that any two "being"s will define "first" precisely and exactly alike? About the same as they'll see the sky as blue --or (is it) black? Which came first, the "blue" or the "black"?

i'm probably confused. Shutup NonE. You probably are too (but not "2")? How probable(?) is it, that being confused can be a "good" "thing"? (have i taken too many shortcuts here?) Query: which more probably lends more to conflict, thinking you're probably confused, or thinking "you" "are" "right"? To accept the probability rather than assume non-probability? Don't most, when they (first) realize they're confused, tend to hesitate, to slow down, and even sit down, contrasted with resolutely intensifying activity, running full steam ahead?

It's probably a good time here, in case there's confusion, to remind that we're herein addressing primarily this tool known as words; more closely, word meaning(s). The emphasis being upon, words are not the referent; the map is not the territory. One can hammer home the referents --particularly here, if said referent is the "hammer" literal! Ditto if it's the "tree" --or more precisely the board, with which communication of what is mean by the word "board" can be "hammered" home as well, with a swift swing of such up the backside of the head (nyunk, nyunk, nyunk from Curly Joe, optional here). [Image: stooges.gif]
Where the only referent, empirically, there is for any word, is --for us alpha'beta chi AEnglishters-- the scribbles of ink flickering of pixels in the shape of "w"o"r"d". Writing contrasted with speaking offers great potential when it comes to our shortcutting shortcomings; when we're two to 2 too likely to give into the temptation "to be" Authoritative --instead of being mere authors awaiting agreement--as the contrast with conflict. "Read" is "read" when words are fashionings of air. Yet "read" is "reed" and "red" is "read" when the fashion is in ink and pixels. Oh but if we'd give such pause for clarification regardless of form.? [emphasis on the aspect of "fashion" with either form i.e. words are fashionable; wurd? cool~]

But damn you, We can't be having any of this confusion! There's clearly land to own!! "Their's" to conquer! To Nationalize, We state!! 2hell with the infidel savages We declare!! Man the torpedoes, full steam ahead...by God!! Ain't that the truth... (it says so right here in the dictionary/code/script'ures)...

[/i sits down here & queues up the old Temptations ironically named song here: Ball Of Confusion♪ ☯]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 07:57 AM by NonEntity.)
Post: #247
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
YO! Eye2! Datz some good shit you been smokin' man. WOW! Care to spred the welth around a bit? Wink

(09-01-2014 06:06 PM)tharrin Wrote:  Non-E, I am glad to see you carry the gauntlet we so ardently threw back and forth so many years ago.
...
I can almost hear Non-E hyperventilating.

Almost? ALMOST?!?

Dude. Your little booklet of "E" tickets is no longer valid here. You need to go back to the entrance and give us your DNA sample and then get chipped before we can allow you to prance around with your silly ideas. What, do you think time duzn't march on here in the Magic Kingdom? WAKE UP, MAN! You may have Ben asleep for the last twenty years, but THE MAN has not. WE OWN YOU! Bend over and prepare to be free.



P.S. Glad you're still alive and stuff! Wink

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 04:24 PM
Post: #248
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Oh Gentle Souls,

How I miss our mental flossing. I may not always be present but I never forget our meanderings. I have had limited time of late. Out, with nose against the grind stone. Surprised I have nose left.

Though I have sparse postings, believe you me, I never stop thinking about this subject and so much more of the subjects that we have broached & broken.

Eye. You are a poet of verbose but what a wonderful ride. None-E, my E-Tickets were punched a long time ago. Don't you remember the stuffing you knocked out of me?

I will stop by again soon. Had to change my password I hadn't been on in so long. Are you guys keeping Marc straight?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 04:54 PM
Post: #249
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Jaw Drop Wow, nice to you see you posting again Tharrin. I had put out a few years ago about doing a roundtable discussion about this issue. As usual, no one showed any interest. But, I don't learn too easy, so once again, I'll float the idea out there. Anyone interested in doing a roundtable discussion of this issue that we can record for a broadcast?

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 05:52 PM
Post: #250
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Marc, my caveat, is I think more clearly through my fingers. Here in the quiet of my computer station, I can take back a miscommunication without being hit on the head by Non-E, because it never reaches him.

It also gives me time to cogitate on what the others have posted. If the rounds are like a Jeopardy marathon I won't be of much use.

Don't get me wrong, I love to palaver with the boys as much as the next guy. I'd rather be clear in my communication than stutter around trying to form a coherent thought.

This guy was interesting though

http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2014...le-nkwinti
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 08:10 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #251
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
tharrin raises an interesting consideration: why does a "roundtable discussion" have to be in verboral format? What about, say, a "webforum discussion"? Aren't they equally "round" enough, King Arthur? Wink
Which is not to say i don't recognize that there are cons along with the pros of such, but i do tend to think some too easily overlook similar cons with verbal dialog (e.g. some type-talk more comfortably and/or coherently, some speak-talk more comfortably and/or coherently).

i'd luv to hear other's thoughts on the pros & cons of each format.?


Skeptical [Image: idea.gif]
[side-thought: it's interesting that the forums i'm aware of have an "ignore" feature-- but not an "invite" or "accept" (and/or "expel"?) feature; where the latter would allow a thread to be exclusive, ie limit the size of the table round, per invitation or acceptance only to the thread, yet remain public ("live"/"broadcast")...? thereby, with it being public, those not invited/accepted still can read along, and if wanted, start their own such on the matter? (or, what if said Invitational threads had a time limitation, where once it expires, the thread becomes open to everyone?!)...]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-19-2015, 10:36 AM
Post: #252
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Good Day Patterns of Life

I actually like the description. Although, I tend to hold to the thought all life is in essence based on illusion. The illusion is how we perceive. The senses are in fact a vehicle by which we understand the world. The senses, also distort our perception of the world so there in is the illusion. We communicate with the world through a series of bio-electrical impulses along a series of conductors. We are to a degree physical if the definition actually defines a state of being. Perhaps the vehicle through which we maneuver through the world can be somewhat likened to our car or a manual robot at our command. Hard to say if that can be owned. Like all other possessions they are subject to influence by others. You only control the machine that is your body until the moment it shuts down, is shut down by another or succumbs to neurological maladies which reave the control from that which operates it. It is that "which operates it" which fascinates me.

Humbly Yours

Tharrin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-19-2015, 12:38 PM
Post: #253
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Eye

Round table discussions appear to be happening here.

Nice thing about this round table is we do not step on each other in rapid fire succession here as we would say on a conference call.

Do you not agree?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-19-2015, 01:24 PM
Post: #254
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Yes, I don't nonagree.

Someone tell Marc his audio is not hearable.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-17-2016, 09:30 AM
Post: #255
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 09:34 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  
(10-29-2011 06:24 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(10-29-2011 05:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  P.S.-- I have not read your STR article (or if I did, I forgot it). Where can I find it?

ETA: Found it:

Do We Own Ourselves?

When you've read it, come back. Although I think I've pretty much said it all there and don't really think there is anything I can add, except if you don't understand something I've said and need me to clarify it for you.

- NonTroubleMaker


Quote:Ownership is a social construct. It is not something one can proclaim. Rather, something like trust, it must be earned. It is something that is granted to you by others. Entreaty, not declaration, is its potting soil.

I can't really argue with that. And actually, I pretty much said the same thing in previous threads, but I did a poor job wording it and you jumped all over me. I realize that if you lived in a communist society where everything belonged to "the people," it could not be said that you outright own anything since it could be confiscated for the "good of the people" as they saw fit, and at best you'd only be allowed to have possessions, but only so long as it was deemed beneficial by the collective. Similarly, if you lived in a society where everyone else was an amoral psychopath who could forcibly take from you whatever they wanted, at best you'd only possess something in between being robbed. But when it comes to self-ownership, I think it's a special case. I could make any number of statements of the form: If self-ownership doesn't exist, then X; but X is not true, so self-ownership must exist. But it's late and I'm tired, so you'll have to wait until later. Wink

eYe dragged this thread up from the depths so I will avail myself of the opportunity to comment further. Dio made reference to communism as perhaps the opposite of ownership in that the communists seem to proclaim that everything is owned by everyone. I have to say that perhaps the problem with communism, versus say the Somali Xeer system, is that they still believe in ownership. Because of this belief they still feel the ability to forcefully control, even though they may feel that it is the mass who are allowed to engage in this aggressive stance. Just as"rights" don't exist, ownership doesn't exist. There is stuff, and there are people, and respect is one way of dealing with this, force is another. How you choose determines whether you will go to heaven or hell. (Okay, that last sentence was because the devil made me say it! Devil Prod )

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)