NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 07-31-2014, 06:42 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 243
Views: 59441

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
10-29-2011, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2011 05:21 PM by Dionysus.)
Post: #1
NonE's call about self-ownership
NonE:

I heard your call today on the show. You sure do know how to cause trouble. Tounge Is it your contention that "ownership" simply doesn't apply to humans and that one can neither own themselves nor own someone else; or do you think that although one can't own themselves, they still can be owned by someone else; or something altogether different? It's hard to deny that your "mind" receives "input" from the 5 senses of your body, and that in turn your mind sends "output" to your body as the cause of certain effects. Your mind has no direct connection to my body, and my mind has no direct connection to your body. This is non-controversial, right? So, if I say that my mind has "ownership" over my body, what's the problem?

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?

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 06:24 PM
Post: #2
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(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

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
Post: #3
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Quote:I possess myself, for sure.

- Do We Own Ourselves?



"Myself", I presume, meaning the physical/tangible human body? And ,"I", meaning what?

Are "You" more than the body "You" possess?







-NonE-Prime

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2011 08:04 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #4
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 07:23 PM)Kel Wrote:  
Quote:I possess myself, for sure.

- Do We Own Ourselves?

"Myself", I presume, meaning the physical/tangible human body? And ,"I", meaning what?

Are "You" more than the body "You" possess?

-NonE-Prime

I would say that "I" am the energy patterns of my livingness (if you wanna get all really weird and try and run me off the road and stuff), which is the spirit which is life (whatever the hell that is) as is manifested in my ... I was going to say Mind and Body, but I realize that that is manifesting the inaccurate duality the western mind has created which makes it impossible to grasp the essence of the answer that you want ... person. I am a person. I am an energy flow, a pattern of life which is manifesting itself in constant change and depends, partially, upon the mechanics of my body, but also is greater than that in ways that I can only guess at.

I am me. That includes my body and the choices that I make, and more. Those choices are a manifestation of that body, but are manifestations of more than just my body, too, so in a way I possess myself in that I am somewhat self directed, but also am a child of my culture, my D.N.A. and many, many more things.

You want something more, or different, from that? I don't know that I can give you that, nor if I did, that it would be any closer to any form of truth than what I've tried to lay out above.

- NonE

{addition} I'm thinking to myself, "what is a cloud?" Or a storm. It is a pattern that moves through and depends upon water molecules and air and heat and lack of heat and so on. You can't have a cloud without the water molecules, but the water molecules are not the cloud. A cloud is partially the environment in which it forms and partially the water. Does the cloud "possess" the water molecules that it is formed from?

{another addition} I have a sense that this response has been defensive in nature. I want to apologize for that. I'm not sure why I'm so triggered. The thinking remains, but if my defensive stance comes through, please discard it if you can. ;-)

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
Post: #5
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
NonEntity Wrote:{another addition} I have a sense that this response has been defensive in nature. I want to apologize for that. I'm not sure why I'm so triggered. The thinking remains, but if my defensive stance comes through, please discard it if you can. ;-)


It did come off as defesive. But don't worry, I wont will discuss discard it.

I was only attempting to pick your brain and find out just who/what in the hell "you" think "you" are.

You say you are not your body, but you posses/are in possession of/are possessing it. But, you do not own it. Who/what does? Anyone/thing? Was it a "creation"? Do "you" own what "you" create, or is it for others to possess/decide?


[tangent]
I find it ironic/tragic those who believe in a "higher power" feel they must tie it to some dogma/doctrine/deity/doG (as Eye2/I too(?) would say), and likewise those who oppose such belief in a "higher power" do so only with zealous angst at the same nonsense the religous fanatics tout.

I look at the world around me and all I see are creations/designs. Skyscrapers, automobiles, and electronics (oh my!) etc., these are clearly intelligent designs by intelligent beings. But all those elements those designs consist of predate man. Where did they come from? Were they designs? Look at "our" ecosystem, nervous systems', respiratory systems', are those not far more beautiful and complex? Do not they just scream, "Look at ME! Their was a thought behind me!" Is any action you take done without a thought, first? Is it really so silly to entertain the...ahem...thought...that you/"you" are the product of a thought? A conscious/intelligent being. Is this being "God"? Is he/she/it Yahweh, Krishna, Allah (Holla!)? Or are those creations of others' thoughts to explain the source of their own existence? For reasons of comfort, or in most cases, unfortunately, tools of manipulation.
[/tangent]






-NonE-Prime

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 09:20 PM
Post: #6
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 09:03 PM)Kel Wrote:  
NonEntity Wrote:{another addition} I have a sense that this response has been defensive in nature. I want to apologize for that. I'm not sure why I'm so triggered. The thinking remains, but if my defensive stance comes through, please discard it if you can. ;-)


It did come off as defesive. But don't worry, I wont will discuss discard it.

I was only attempting to pick your brain and find out just who/what in the hell "you" think "you" are.

You say you are not your body, but you posses/are in possession of/are possessing it. But, you do not own it. Who/what does? Anyone/thing? Was it a "creation"? Do "you" own what "you" create, or is it for others to possess/decide?

Did you read my linked article? I can't imagine you did if you ask me what you asked above, but maybe you did. If that article doesn't convey my thinking on the matter then I don't imagine I can do better.

[tangent]
I find it ironic/tragic those who believe in a "higher power" feel they must tie it to some dogma/doctrine/deity/doG (as Eye2/I too(?) would say), and likewise those who oppose such belief in a "higher power" do so only with zealous angst at the same nonsense the religous fanatics tout.

I look at the world around me and all I see are creations/designs. Skyscrapers, automobiles, and electronics (oh my!) etc., these are clearly intelligent designs by intelligent beings. But all those elements those designs consist of predate man. Where did they come from? Were they designs? Look at "our" ecosystem, nervous systems', respiratory systems', are those not far more beautiful and complex? Do not they just scream, "Look at ME! Their was a thought behind me!" Is any action you take done without a thought, first? Is it really so silly to entertain the...ahem...thought...that you/"you" are the product of a thought? A conscious/intelligent being. Is this being "God"? Is he/she/it Yahweh, Krishna, Allah (Holla!)? Or are those creations of others' thoughts to explain the source of their own existence? For reasons of comfort, or in most cases, unfortunately, tools of manipulation.
[/tangent]

I know the argument, but really, it fails on simple logic, regardless of whether or not there is a god or whatever form of intelligence there might be. You seem to be asserting that the world is too complicated NOT to be designed by a superior intelligence. Okay, but then by that thinking there has to be a GREATER superior intelligence to have designed THAT one. As the story goes, "it's turtles, all the way down!"

I have no proof there is not some godishness out there, but your argument fails, regardless of the facts of the matter. Doncha think?

(Or maybe I'm answering an argument that you didn't make. In which case, I apologize again.


-NonE-Prime

All I know is that life is quite mysterious and I don't know how it works. To claim to have the answers to something as apparently unknowable seems to me the height of hubris. I don't understand why it is that we humans so often are simply incapable of saying, "I don't know," and letting it be okay not to know. We seem to be wired that way, and I don't know why... ;-)

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 09:34 PM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2011 09:36 PM by Dionysus.)
Post: #7
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(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

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
Post: #8
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

Okay. I'll wait. And I apologize for "jumping all over you." I don't see how self-ownership can be a "special case," but we'll see. I will note, in passing, that the difference between "possession" and "ownership" in a society of psychopaths is exactly zero difference, wouldn't you agree? It that's so, it would appear my argument stands.

I'm reminded of when I was a small child and our family owned a company that manufactured certain products which were not patented. I asked my dad why he didn't patent them and he explained that in order to patent something you have to give up the recipe, the plans, and that the patent only lasted for a certain time and then the whole world would have instructions on how to make your product, because YOU'D GIVEN them away. So "we" maintained trade secrecy on "our" (I was just a little kid then, but it was my family) products.

I think the same thinking applies to "owning" something in the sense you describe in the communist society. Your "ownership" would not be "ownership," it would only be secret possession.

And, sure, I may be playing word games here, but words are tools we use to facilitate thought and communication, and what I'm doing is attempting to understand just what it is, this thing we call "ownership," so if I am coming across slightly different than the way others use the word, it is because I am attempting to get to the root of the concept for which we have been applying the word "own." It is the concept that I'm concerned with clarifying, not so much trying to make a claim on the word. I don't need to be "king of the mountain," so much as to clearly understand a more fruitful way of associating amicably and fruitfully with other people.

Anyhow, I await your being more awake...

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
Post: #9
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
My assertion was only that many refuse to entertain the notion of an intelligent being/designer solely on the grounds of what theists claim "it" to be in their doctrines and the superstitions attached.


NonEntity Wrote:...I don't know how it works.To claim to have the answers to something as apparently unknowable seems to me the height of hubris....

...your argument fails, regardless of the facts...

...it fails on simple logic...



Ahh yes. By observing your lack of knowledge, you avoid its discussion, as there is nothing to discuss. You can boldly claim "my" logic is false, because you do not know wether it is or is not. A most curious trick indeed! Big Grin






-NonE-Prime

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2011 10:43 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #10
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 10:09 PM)Kel Wrote:  My assertion was only that many refuse to entertain the notion of an intelligent being/designer solely on the grounds of what theists claim "it" to be in their doctrines and the superstitions attached.


NonEntity Wrote:...I don't know how it works.To claim to have the answers to something as apparently unknowable seems to me the height of hubris....

...your argument fails, regardless of the facts...

...it fails on simple logic...



Ahh yes. By observing your lack of knowledge, you avoid its discussion, as there is nothing to discuss. You can boldly claim "my" logic is false, because you do not know wether it is or is not. A most curious trick indeed! Big Grin






-NonE-Prime
Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, but I pointed out what I thought it was that you were using as your logical explanation, and I then showed how it was circular reasoning. I also said that I maybe misunderstanding your point, so I don't see where I deserve the snide treatment. I'm attempting to have an honest conversation and I made my point as honestly and clearly as I knew how. If you have a fault with my logic, please show me. Or if I've misunderstood what you were attempting to say, please show me my error.

- NonE

{edit} Oops. Sorry to have replied a bit too hastily. Yes, I see somewhat more what you were saying. You make a good point. I think that the reason so many may act as you describe is because those who make the statements based on doctrines and superstitions are using circular reasoning and that is inherently dishonest, therefore somewhat deserving of contempt.

Sorry for jumping in to respond before fully engaging my brain.

{additional edit} Upon further reflection, I still think my statement holds logically. If something is so special it requires an intelligent designer, then ipso facto that intelligent designer would similarly require it's/his/her own superior intelligent designer and so on down the line to infinity. This negates the possibility of that theory.

I'm not rejecting the idea for the reasons I've mentioned. I'm rejecting it because it fails logically. At least as I see it.
(10-29-2011 09:34 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  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

I just read an article on Strike-the-root.com that is quite thoughtful and I think may go somewhat towards answering your concerns, Dionysus. If you'd be willing to read it before delving back into our discussion it may be helpful. Here's a tiny snippet:
Westenerd Wrote:All of these areas of society are dominated by constantly changing rules, lightning quick adaptations, enforcement, and acceptance by voluntary means alone.


I think that if you look at the concept of "ownership" in this context you may find that the idea of black and white delineation is really not found anywhere in nature, that all natural events are processes or parts of processes, and ownership can be viewed with somewhat more fluidity than the western mind tends to try and quantify and divide it.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-29-2011, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2011 10:49 PM by Kel.)
Post: #11
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
I apologize. Snide was not my aim. Just a little ribbin' is all.

I do understand your argument tho. To look at the complexity of our universe and declare it must be the work of intelligence does open the door to a chicken/egg scenario. Who designed the designer? Who designed the designers' designer? And on and on and on...

But does one design denote another? Not necessarily. I guess it depends on wether you consider it a "design" to begin with. But that argument could be used to refute the original premise. Just because we appear (to some) designed doesn't mean we were. However, it doesn't mean we weren't.


To argue that if we have a designer, then "it" must as well, only sets the argument up to be circular and nothing more. That same logic could be applied to you and I. Since our designs have designers (us), then surely we must have a designer as well. And the never ending cycle begins.

If we have no designer then we are the designer and all things begin with us. We are the "source". But if their can be a beginning, then cannot that logic be applied to another designer? "Our" designer, the "first", the "original"?

Perhaps that's confusing. My point, is that while I don't believe the complexity of the universe is "proof" of a designer, to reject the notion entirely seems arrogant/ignorant to me. If its based off the chicken/egg-circular logic, then it will always fail. I see that as a convenient cop-out, because now you can effectively write it off, but claim you don't know for sure. So I don't base it off that logic. To say their couldnt be is silly, because as you admit, nobody really knows.





-NonE-Prime

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-30-2011, 12:31 AM
Post: #12
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 10:48 PM)Kel Wrote:  I apologize. Snide was not my aim. Just a little ribbin' is all.

Ribbin's good. 'Specially with hik'ry smoke.

- NonE

Ribbin' Wrote:Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....

It's called the Federal Reserve (which ain't Fedral and ain't got nuthin' in reserve, datz why for the other penny. See?)

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-30-2011, 04:35 AM (This post was last modified: 10-30-2011 04:37 AM by zonsb.)
Post: #13
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-30-2011 12:31 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Ribbin's good. 'Specially with hik'ry smoke.

Who you be callin' a hik, Willis? ...And what you be smokin'?

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-30-2011, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 10-30-2011 01:15 PM by Dionysus.)
Post: #14
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 10:14 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(10-29-2011 09:34 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  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

I just read an article on Strike-the-root.com that is quite thoughtful and I think may go somewhat towards answering your concerns, Dionysus. If you'd be willing to read it before delving back into our discussion it may be helpful. Here's a tiny snippet:
Westenerd Wrote:All of these areas of society are dominated by constantly changing rules, lightning quick adaptations, enforcement, and acceptance by voluntary means alone.


I think that if you look at the concept of "ownership" in this context you may find that the idea of black and white delineation is really not found anywhere in nature, that all natural events are processes or parts of processes, and ownership can be viewed with somewhat more fluidity than the western mind tends to try and quantify and divide it.

- NonE

I read that article the day it came out. Good one. I didn't really consider it in terms of ownership and property rights, but I see how it can be. Thanks.

But I did manage to think of a statement that I think/hope negates non-self-ownership, and it's really fundamental: If self-ownership didn't exist, then I would not have the feeling of "I am;" but I most definitely do have the feeling of "I am," so self-ownership must exist. If something or someone else owned me, they or it would have my feeling of "I am," and if nobody or nothing else owned me, there would be no feeling of "I am" to have. Now, one can argue that the feeling of "I am" is not relevant here, but I don't see how that can be. If everyone in society said I didn't own my computer, let's say, I'd have to begrudgingly accept it when a mob came to take it from me. But if everyone in society said I didn't own myself, and a mob agressed against me using that as justification, I would knock their goddamned teeth out in self-defense instead of laying down and dying, which is what I would surely do otherwise. Sorry for being so... periphrastic.

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-30-2011, 01:57 PM
Post: #15
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-30-2011 01:12 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  But I did manage to think of a statement that I think/hope negates non-self-ownership, and it's really fundamental: If self-ownership didn't exist, then I would not have the feeling of "I am;" but I most definitely do have the feeling of "I am," so self-ownership must exist. If something or someone else owned me, they or it would have my feeling of "I am," and if nobody or nothing else owned me, there would be no feeling of "I am" to have. Now, one can argue that the feeling of "I am" is not relevant here, but I don't see how that can be. If everyone in society said I didn't own my computer, let's say, I'd have to begrudgingly accept it when a mob came to take it from me. But if everyone in society said I didn't own myself, and a mob agressed against me using that as justification, I would knock their goddamned teeth out in self-defense instead of laying down and dying, which is what I would surely do otherwise. Sorry for being so... periphrastic.

Very interesting point, Dionysus. I guess in a way it gets back to semantics. I certainly understand your point and your perspective. But let me ask you, just because you feel you "own" yourself, does that make ANY difference to the cop who pulls you over, or to YOU when the cop pulls you over and does whatever-the-hell he feels like doing to you?

As I tried to make clear in my article, "ownership" is a relationship. If you're on a desert island by yourself, it is totally irrelevant. It only has relevance when other people are involved. Just because you claim that you own yourself (as you describe above) and are willing to stand up for that claim (as you describe above), that means diddley-squat to the Mafia or the Gubmint or Ted Bundy. Ownership describes a relationship, not a claim. You seem to be confusing these two. What you think is totally irrelevant to someone who has the power to overpower you and simultaneously doesn't give a shit what you think. It only works when BOTH of you more or less agree that you have ownership rights in whatever the subject is, be it your own self or your lawnmower.

Capish?

- NonE

- NonE .).

"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)