NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 02-23-2018, 01:20 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 174951

Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
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
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 - 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
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - tharrin - 09-01-2014 06:06 PM

Forum Jump:

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