I’m not sure what ever gave you the impression I was “bugged” by you. You’re the one who laid claim to being “very pissed off, and frustrated. Vexed even.”
I’m also not the one who resorted to such childish rudeness (yet, ironically I was the one accused of it by the very person doing it.) Again, perhaps you should really be looking at, and questioning your own actions a bit more closely.
And as I was trying to explain to you before, perhaps you should explore the possiblity that there is a legitimate reason the same thing is brought up again and again, completely independently of one another, from completely unassociated parties…that perhaps that points to the possibility that there is some validity to the claim being made…that perhaps continuously resting on the notion of “jeez…what is wrong with everyone?” is probably not the most advantageous course of action.
The fact that you honestly can’t imagine how anything about the way you’ve interacted in this forum (where multiple people have asserted you’re doing the same thing, so much so that they wanted you banished) only reinforces my point that perhaps it would be wise for you to actually look into the conversations you’ve had and come at them more from a “is it possible I’m really a troll?” angle as opposed to barely even glancing over them from a “what is wrong with everybody?” angle.
And with the way you’re keeping up with this, it’s leading me to believe that you’re either really dedicated to the role, or that you honestly do troll-ee things without even knowing it. And if it’s the latter, again, that only reinforces my suggestion to look at the way you interact, but from a different perspective than the “knee-jerk reactionary” one of “why is everyone attacking me?” you’re used to. (And also possibly refrain from knee-jerkingly claiming other people are knee-jerkingly reacting.)
No worries. Yeah, if your body part is removed, you still own it unless you sell it or give it away for free (donate). I think you deny simple voluntary interaction between people, that’s why you disagree, that people can own things (yeah, body is a thing too). Or you ok with owership of external objects but disagree with ownership of body parts and as a whole? That would be inconsistent view.
Since we’ve been corresponding, I’ve a distinct impression I was typing to an arrogant, condescending prick. First line,
“Was that a conscious effort to avoid saying “your”?”
Starting with a spelling correction just screams “douche” to me, so forgive me if I’ve been a little on edge (Now that’s flaming, padna). Then right in with the “troll” thing, a huge rigamarole I’ve already been through here, which is also complete bullshit, by the way.
Also, way to completely dodge my question,
“If you folks aren’t mad at me for flaming (at least initially), and you aren’t mad at me for asking questions, then what are you mad at me for (or, why are you accusing me of trolling)? Is it because I don’t have enough confidence in my opinions and aesthetic preferences to tout them as “facts”, or “truth”, or “a position”? What is it, besides “you’re being a troll”?”
No answer, just some personality coaching.. Thanks, but I typically don’t take social lessons from guys who can’t interact without making it extremely apparent that they are so far up their own ass they can smell their breath.
Kick me off, I don’t give a shit. Go fuck yourself.
No, I beleive that such categorizations like “body” are illusory distinctions. What may define as a “body” can be deconstructed (through an exremely unpopular method like socratic questioning, for example) to essentially become meaningless. Also, I disagree with the concept of “ownership” vis a vis “possession”. Call it a Stirnerite fetish.
I wasn’t trying to correct your spelling. Perhaps you missed the part in the post directly before that one (i.e. the one you were responding to) where I pointed out:
“…this whole time everyone has been using all the “your’s” that directly imply a claim over something. They imply an individual consciousness outside of everything else, and they recognize it as such. To claim that “you**r idea of ‘ownership’ is a delusion” is a self-contradiction…along the same lines as what Hoppe’s argumentation concept points out.”
In other words, I was making a relevant point about the act of people actually using the word “your”. And in the very next post (the post in which you were responding to what I had just said), you leave off the “r” in a place where the word “your” would go.
Apparently, it was insulting of me being open to the possiblity that you could be that clever. Apologies.
I’m sorry that even a (perceived) spelling correction effects you on such an emotional level. I’ll take that into consideration in the future. (But if that’s the case, it might be wise for you to reconsider how much time you spend the Internetz…I must warn you, things get much worse than that.)
Nice to see you’ve finally looked those terms up.
Read the page again. The troll assertion (which wasn’t even more than a statement that I was beginning to consider that possiblity) didn’t come until after your response to that post.
Nice to see you’ve taken my advice and actually engaged in some introspection, instead of just assuming it’s everyone else who is being irrational.
Not at all. I had no problem responding the question discussion of the topic of the OP. I also had no problem responding to his response. In fact, I’ve addressed every single piece of every single post directed at me. They’re all even broken down into specific quotes with specific responses to each. If there is some question on the topic of this thread you feel is left unanswered lao, by all means, ask it. The only thing I can figure is this exchange here:
The notion that a person could honestly not see how asking between “the body” and “the mind” which one exists in the physical world and which one does not could be construed as trolling, is just baffling.
How am I supposed to know what you mean by that, you won’t answer! Also, way to answer how exactly I’m trolling.
“The notion that a person could honestly not see how asking between “the body” and “the mind” which one exists in the physical world and which one does not could be construed as trolling, is just baffling.”
It’s equally as baffling you expect me to be psychic.
Yes, seriously. I do not understand how either the “mind” or the “body” does not “physically exist”. Lest you are a disembodied soul, or some sort of monkey operated flesh puppet.
Then you’re going to have to share this special definition of “mind” you have, because in the dictionaries I’m familiar with, “mind” describes a consciousness (brought about by brain function). And those same dictionaries define “consciousness” as an “awareness”, or a “quality” or “state” of being aware. If you could demonstrate how a condition or state of being is a physically existing thing, I’d be much obliged.
An interesting thought someone else gave me has lead me to believe a quick look at Christian ideology will explain the basic premise of self-ownership. Your body is a temple, but instead of God’s temple it is some diembodied soul’s, or your employers, or someone else you’ve contracted it with, all of which is predicated on the belief that some kind of metaphysical entity “owns” your embodied self, and not that they are one in the same or at least overlap so much it’s hard to draw a line.
In the words of someone more clever than me, expect a religious response to questions of religious belief.
Property is an intersubjective consensus. It does not exist in an empirical sense, any more than good, or evil, or your name, or the meaning of these symbols on your screen, or any of the other rules of the game you have chosen to play.
It is a living myth. It is only dead myths which appear useless and unintelligible now, and therefore mislead one to conclude that they were informed by some sort of chaotic insanity insufficiently connected to “reality”.
It is a projection of human minds - part of the mind itself, in fact - therefore it cannot be proven empirically. I accept that self-ownership is “true” because it appears to me to be the best social myth around at the moment for fostering human creativity. It is the essential building block of the most efficient economic system possible - the economic system which will grow to be the most complex. Such an economic system is as much a living thing as a biological organism, subject to the same laws of natural selection.
Biological organisms of human complexity, and the intersubjective systems projected thereby, are an inevitable consequence of empirical reality. If we fuck it up, if we kill every living thing on this planet in the next World War, it won’t matter, because the perception of time passing is a part of this game, and the same thing will happen over and over again until someone gets it right. It doesn’t matter how long it takes, greater and greater complexity will be persued over and over again until it succeeds. The acceptance of self-ownership as valid appears to be a necessary part of that inevitable process.
We’re going through this again? I say “does not exist in the physical world” (i.e. does not physically exist, have a physical presence) and you say “does not exist”.
This illustrates quite well where I’m at with this. The only difference is, in this case it’s the repitition and vagueness that are weighing more heavily. (Although you’ve done your fair share of addressing the person, in the form of direct insults, of course).
We’re talking philosophy here, not science. “Ownership” is typically treated as a moral/ethical concept. (I certainly treat it as such.) If you’re going to reject any division between body and mind, then you must logically reject any division between you and the rest of the universe. At that point, all distinctions breakdown and reasoning disappears.
I know you intended this to MaikU, but I define “body” similarly to him (if not the same), so I hope you don’t mind if I respond.
Did you see the link I included in my last post to you? It’s the Wikipedia article on the dualistic philosophy of mind. I thought it would help.
Do you consider all distinctions to be dubious? If so, why bother communicating at all? Why bother thinking at all? Both of those things require making distinctions.
What may be defined as anything can be deconstructed to essentially become meaningless. There is no ultimate meaning to be found anywhere. It’s “turtles all the way down”.