NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 12-18-2017, 03:20 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 168864

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
10-31-2011, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011 01:06 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #28
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(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?
...
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.

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).
[Image: bsod.gif]
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:
[Image: species-channelCatfish-lg.gif]
[Image: cat-fish-relay_gif-anime-0908201.gif?w=450]
pass the catfish, do not collect $200... Cool

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 'owning'/'catfishing'/moving his own lips) "I'm the owner here, can't you see?!"] It's a twinkling of an eye affair; one instant, one 'owns' parts, the next, the other does/doesn't??

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 States/Owners Catfish/Catfish Deniers]

So why muddy things up (in already murky enuff 'waters'), Catfish Self-Ownership Hunter with the likes of "owner" (or "catfish"/"property"), when simply examining claims, per the likes of degree, constancy, and biological relativity (personal pain/happiness) serves the general/universal purpose? And where reasoning, as seeking logical consistency, ultimately offers the obvious/norm ie the higher claim(s) [see 'the golden rule/yardstick' etal the 'all things being equal' rules?


* footnotes:
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 catfish tree; appeal to logical consistency, imho, nets the same potential with way less con+fusion; aren't pretty well the two options, to win by appeal to logically consistent reasoning, versus the appeal of coercion/violence (that control)?
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

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
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:48 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - eye2i2hear - 10-31-2011 12:56 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - soveREIGN - 11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


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