So, you are saying that something that does not exist (Mind, ego, etc.) >>>>
this claim should be supported. It is not everyday that someone claims that minds are nonexistent. Egos too!
How are you thinking if you do not have a mind?
My utilitarianism is of the Misesian sort. Ethics/norms exist “objectively” only as inter-subjectively accepted societal norms within societies that have sustained themselves long enough to perpetuate the same norms. Something like societies pulling themselves up from the societal graveyard by their own bootstraps (ethics/norms). The groups picking non-flourishing norms (like, say, “It’s OK to kill whomever is weaker and eat them for dinner.”) don’t get to enjoy the benefits from division of labor, run themselves into the ground, and are not around to inter-subjectively compete in the market of norms. We are alive because of our ethics/norms, and these ethics/norms exist because we’re alive.
In all cases, the concept of property and ownership are temporal constructs. Whatever can be said of property or ownership is not meaningful in the absolute, as we are temporal beings, in an equally temporal physical universe. This is without regard to what we as individuals might otherwise have been before, or might continue to be, in any other framework, as all of this is quite beyond our empirical grasp.
“Property is an intersubjective consensus.”
On that vein I would go much deeper to the roots, in principle, and propose that Property is an “intra-subjective” consensus - a consensus of one - which requires no special intelligence, morals, ethics, or even second party acknowledgment, but rather only action by life (any life), to exist. If we wanted to go further, we could extend the concept of property and ownership to inanimates as well (e.g., the Earth is the property of the sun, which is the property of the milky way galaxy), and while that might have conceptual meaning, it would not be useful, because what all these question attempt to approach are the normative assertions surrounding property.
The concept of property, in terms of pro-active dominion of both space and physical mass, stems from, and extends to, all life. And here I am not yet referring to normative concepts of “property rights”, which is an entirely separate construct, since a priori, “what ought to be” can only be founded upon “what is”.
So, for example, it may be stated that a hole in the ground is the ‘property’ of the occupying mouse. However, both the hole and the mouse can become the property of a snake that later occupies that hole and kills and swallows the mouse. If we define property simply as a function of actual occupation and control, or “possession is 10/10ths of the natural law”, the assertion itself is indeed empirically both testable and meaningful (within the confines of a definition, even if the concept of a definition is not).
The reason the concept is intra-subjective is that it requires no external threat to exist. The mouse can be said to be in possession and control of its body and the hole in which it dwells irrespective of what might come after, including death, which would terminate this relationship.
Have you looked into the is-ought problem before? I fail to see how possessing something has any bearing on whether that possession is to be considered legitimate (i.e. not to be interfered with).
“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.”
Must I? I’m not sure how that follows. You’ll have to spell it out for me.
The is-ought problem is another way of saying “normative”. Morals, ethics, or the so-called “legitimacy” of property and ownership exists as an entirely separate construct, which I did not even address (yet). My only point had to do with what constitutes property and ownership in a way that is fundamental and universal.
Now let’s get a little bit into that part - the age-old power vs. authority vs. moral and ethical legitimacy debate.
The snake, just like the mouse, has no concept of morals, ethics or legitimacy of any kind, and yet property and ownership relationships most definitely exist. “Me hungry. Nice Hole. You food. Me eat. MINE.” All without an iota of consideration for fairness, deserving, legitimacy, contracts, honor, ethics, morals, or anything else. Humans do consider such things, albeit inconsistently, almost never universally, and usually only with other humans, and not to animals or other life forms (some strange exceptions notwithstanding).
Concepts like ethics, morals and legitimacy can be every bit as real (“what is”) as property and ownership - but only because we said so, and then acted upon it to make it so. Even then, “real” is not to be confused with “right”. Whether we call something an “inalienable” or “God-given” right, or attempt to argue that there exists some kind of “intrinsic” or innate morality or legitimacy on anyone’s part can only be asserted as a circular argument. This is irrespective of how many agree or disagree, respect or disrespect the boundaries asserted, invisible or visible, that stemmed from a commonly held or accepted paradigm.
Even so, I have no problem addressing moral or ethical problems, or even taking a stance. But I do not ever try to delude myself into thinking that I am dealing with anything but a human construct. In addition, these are things that I approach in the same way as definitions; that is, to look only at whether the construct is self-consistent, with equal application, and not self-contradictory in any way (i.e., has no preference of persons, and makes no attempt to be a special application of a rule or a law). However, even there I recognize that this my own rule, my own stance, and my artificial construct, like all others, regardless how much it is shared by others, or cleverly, passionately or persuasively argued or applied.
Please explain what you mean by “real meaningful basis”.
Legitimate is arbitrary. The snake (to steal Steven’s analogy) feels himself the legitimate controller of the mouse and hole.
And on body/mind duality. How is that not a false dichotomy? Is my mind part of my body… hell is my body even part of my body?! What does that even mean. This would explain why no mind, as of yet, has existed without a brain.
Must I? I’m not sure how that follows. You’ll have to spell it out for me.
I’ll second that sentiment.
Legitimate is arbitrary. The snake (to steal Steven’s analogy) feels himself the legitimate controller of the mouse and hole.
And on body/mind duality. How is that not a false dichotomy? Is my mind part of my body… hell is my body even part of my body?! What does that even mean. This would explain why no mind, as of yet, has existed without a brain.
And this is a very appropriate reponse to what has been going on. There is nothing wrong with this answer in context with what is going on. in the thread right now. A Misean should not be discouraged by such answers by the way.
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”.
False, as long as inter-subjective dialoge is happening it is impossible to escape meaning - skepticism refutations are old hat.
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.
Pardon? I think there are an awful lot of leaps here.
A) Philosophy very well could be considered a science (and universally was treated as such until British empiricist natural science hobbyists took over academic language)
B) Morality = non science = moral/ethical = discernable universal relevant concept =unable to distinguish between mind/body = logical conclusions? Did I read that right?
Birthday Pony,
I can understand the Christian perspective, due to the theological presupposition of a “soul”, i.e., a consciousness independent of the physical world, which controls some portion of matter for some portion of time. Since the mind/body duality is already considered a fact, it follows that one would consider the soul “owning” the body.
James,
Great post. Just to be clear, your position is that the concept of “self-ownership”, while a myth, is of vital necessity to the progress of society. Is that close? Would it suffice to instead just claim “I am”? Would that be enough?
JJ,
I wasn’t aware that you presuppose that things can exist outside the physical world. Are you claiming the existence of some supra-physical realm in which the “mind” exists?
Autolykos,
Very interesting post. I also treat the concept of “ownership” as an ethical/moral issue. How do you reach the conclusion that the mind body duality is necessary for reasoning?
Ah yes, why bother doing anything? I’m not really sure. I don’t think there’s really any reason. Welcome to the depressing world of Absurdism! I also agree that contemplation, as we are currently practicing it, does require an ego which classifies phenomena in an attempt to recognize patterns, and “make sense” of our experience. That being said, I believe that it isn’t the only way to practice consciousness:
z1235,
OK, I think I’m with you now. It’s more a “battle of the memes”. This society’s memes were what allowed poulations possessed by those memes to outcompete others. I would argue that we have reached these norms over a very long period of time, during which the memes themselves have mutated drastically. How does your position account for this? Since we are saying that our zeitgeist is clearly the most competitive, does that assume that the Austrian ideology is unfit, since it is so relatively unsuccessful in capturing hearts and minds?
Steven Douglas,
I would disagree that the concept of “property” is meaningful without a normative underpinning. Rental is a good example of why. I do agree that “property” removed from these normative assertions, would entirely equate to “possession”, rendering “property” itself meaningless as a concept. This is probably just a difference in semantics, rather than a difference in opinion. I’ve fallen into that mire before!
That second post was great!
“Concepts like ethics, morals and legitimacy can be every bit as real (“what is”) as property and ownership - but only because we said so, and then acted upon it to make it so.”
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1.1
Actually I was kind-of taking a shortcut. Sorry about that. What I meant was that, since you reject any division between body and mind on the basis that it has no ultimate discernible basis - as you put it, “a distinction that just isn’t there” - then you must logically reject any division between anything beyond the fundamental particles of the universe on those same grounds, since only those have an ultimately discernible basis for distinction. So there is no “I”, there is no “you”, there is no “this” vs. “that”, etc.
Do you honestly think I don’t understand that legitimacy is arbitrary? All concepts are arbitrary. That includes concepts like “snake”, “mouse”, and “hole”. So if you’re going to reject the concept of “legitimacy” altogether because it’s arbitrary, you must then logically reject all concepts. Good luck with that.
Many Buddhists also see the distinction between “self” and “other” to be a false dichotomy. After all, some of the atoms/molecules (oops, these turn out to be concepts too!) that are currently in me might later be in you, and vice-versa. From a certain point of view, they’re right. I suppose then you should reject the concept of “self” since it’s ultimately arbitrary.
On the one hand, thanks for pointing out the performative contradiction. You jumped the gun on it, though. I was going to explain it myself, in due time.
On the other hand, I think you misunderstood my statement about ultimate meaning. I said that it can’t be found anywhere. “Found” is the operative word. I even italicized it in the hopes that that would make its emphasis obvious. Apparently not - for some.
Now then, my point was that meaning isn’t a thing to be discovered or discerned. The phrase “turtles all the way down” is meant to express the notion that there’s no ultimate external foundation to stand upon.
Feel free to do so, but then we’ll be talking past one another. I don’t care what you think about “British empiricist natural science hobbyists” - it means nothing to me.
Nope.
I don’t reach the conclusion that the mind-body duality per se is necessary for reasoning. It’s the principle appealed to in rejecting the mind-body duality that’s at issue. This principle seems to be the notion of a real or true distinction, i.e. a distinction that’s written into the laws of the universe. However, nothing but the fundamental particles (or “building blocks”) of the universe could be said to have such distinctions, and those only from one another. It also entails a rejection of logical distinction, which is at least on the premise level is completely arbitrary. If I presume two symbols, be they 0 and 1, A and B, or True and False, you’re in no way obligated to accept my presumption.
Regarding what you claim as “alternative ways to practice consciousness”, I can’t help but note that consciousness is still required there. As long as a person is conscious, he’ll have an “ego”. Essentially I equate the two notions. Now the consciousness/ego might change its behavior, as in the “ego death” article you cite, but that doesn’t make it go away. In fact, one could interpret “ego death” as the ego feeling as though it’s expanded to become the entire universe, in which case maybe the term “ego ascendance” or “ego supremacy” might be more appropriate.
Ah, OK, I’m with you now. What you are driving at is pretty similar to Buddhist thinking regarding the Five aggregates. The ultimate begining of suffering (that is, distinction, classification, etc.) is the Ego, or concept of “self”.
Even fundamental particles could be indistiguishable. Doesn’t String Theory posit they are all just energy at differing frequencies?
Basically. Our minds not only match patterns - they also discriminate patterns. And the patterns they match/discriminate are context-dependent.
Even if they have identical properties (such as “spin”), they could still be distinguishable in terms of space-time position. My understanding of String Theory is that it posits “cosmic strings” as the fundamental particles. If they’re all just energy at differing frequencies, then obviously the frequencies themselves are distinct.
Do you honestly think I don’t understand that legitimacy is arbitrary? All concepts are arbitrary. That includes concepts like “snake”, “mouse”, and “hole”. So if you’re going to reject the concept of “legitimacy” altogether because it’s arbitrary, you must then logically reject all concepts. Good luck with that.
Where did I say reject it because it is arbitrary? Do you make these straw men for a living, or is it just a hobby?
I said, because it is arbitrary, it is just a statement. It’s just as valid as any other statement, especially considering it is of a social philosophy, not any kind of science.
Many Buddhists also see the distinction between “self” and “other” to be a false dichotomy. After all, some of the atoms/molecules (oops, these turn out to be concepts too!) that are currently in me might later be in you, and vice-versa. From a certain point of view, they’re right. I suppose then you should reject the concept of “self” since it’s ultimately arbitrary.
Ya, I do reject (not outright, there is a “me” that thinks and acts) the concept of self.
Perhaps this will make it easier for you. Does hunger exist?
Excuse me for not being a mind-reader. I inferred that you were arguing against the concept of legitimacy because it’s arbitrary. You should know that I have no problem standing corrected if it turns out that an inference of mine was mistaken.
What do you mean by “valid”? It seems like you mean “capable of being asserted”, which is hardly the same meaning as the one I ascribe to it.
No you don’t.
In what sense?