Self-Ownership?

[apehead]

JJ,

Let’s just put this to bed, huh? There is some really interesting stuff being said on this thread (props to Autolykos and Stephen Douglas, esp.), whereas our interaction has degraded into nothing more than rhetorical flanking in order to “win” an argument. Not even a good argument at that, just a petty “troll hunt”.

I think you have a know-it-all attitude, and a particular verbal swagger which makes me feel that I’m being treated like an idiot for not sharing your opinions, conclusions, deductions, superstitions, and beliefs, or at least treating them for what they are.

I went a little crazy after a couple interactions, for which I appologize. But please do not play the innocent victim in this interaction, because you are certainly have been as much a jerk as I (even though you abstain from curses, you have certainly attacked my character several times, either by implying or outright claiming that I was either a troll or an idiot).

@John James

Can you honestly tell me you have no idea of the answer to that question? After all this?

Yes, I honestly do not have an answer. Everything I have ever experienced before has been within the realm of the “physical world” (as far as I can tell). To ask about something beyond it is essentially the same question as asking if I believe in existence beyond the “physical world”. I claim an agnostic viewpoint about such things as a realm beyond our own. Hence, I believe that the jury is still out, or rather, “I don’t know”.

@John James

And I told you the difference between those two things is that one of those things exists in the physical world, and one of those things does not exist in the physical world.

But you never stated which was which!

@John James

Instead of asking “which one exists in the physical world?” (which, I believe a 9 year old would say is an asinine question), you elected to take out the qualifying clause and ask me if I’m saying one of those things exists and the other doesn’t.

Yes, that is what I was asking. That is why I re-asked it in that format the second time (which you never answered, just went on some rant on how I didn’t include it the first time). The reason I left it out the first time was because I did not work from your assumption that things could exist outside the physical world. “Exist”, and “exist in the physical world” mean the same thing to me, since I’ve never experienced anything beyond the physical world! Hence these quotes,

@Jackson LaRose

I’m merely asking you which one (the “body” or the “mind”) you consider to be “in the physical world”, and which one is not “in the physical world”.

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.

See? That is certainly what I was asking the whole time. I felt it was unecessary to include “in the physical world” because that seems redundant to me. I’ll be more careful next time.

Define the term? The burden is on you, since you made the distinction between “mind” and “body” in order to demonstrate “self-ownership”. If that’s the definition of the mind, then fine, but I don’t understand how that does not exist in the physical world! That is why, in order to clarify, I asked what I did, so I could understand your position. Unfortunately, I’m not sure you do,

@John James

If you could demonstrate how a condition or state of being is a physically existing thing, I’d be much obliged.

Does not follow from

@John James

I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn’t.

If we assume your premise that existence is not dependent on being part of our “reality” (i.e., the physical world), then it becomes a logical leap to assume that to “exist in the physical world” is to equate to being a “thing” (however you are defining it, I’m going with, “matter perceptable by the senses; tangible matter”). This begs the question of why it is impossible for “untangible existence”, or “imperceptable existence” to occur in “the physical world”. Some real word examples include “dark matter”, or maybe the manifold dimensions required for string theory.

@John James

between the body and the mind, that body is not the one that doesn’t exist in the physical world.

Wow, that was painful huh? I could almost see you squirming typing that one out! OK, follow up,

Where do you think the mind exists?

@John James

The only reason that someone would pretend as though a person could have been saying that the mind is has a physical presense while the body does not is if he assumed the person was an idiot, insane, or if he simply was trolling.

LOL, how was I pretending!? I asked you to clarify. You know what happens when we assume, right? Again with the veiled insults, too!

@Jackson LaRose

Does hunger exist?

Sigh, here we go again… in what sense?

[apehead]

Stephan Douglas,

Your “hunger” passage was essentially what I was driving at when I asked “in what sense”.

As for “property” and it relevancy as a descriptive term, I think the difference is semantic. Without the norms granting “legitimacy”, “property” as a term becomes meaningless, or rather, so general as to become meaningless. The rental example was meant to show that “property” is not a one-to-one equvalent of possession, since the renter is the possessor, yet not the “owner”, i.e. the legitimate claimholder on the “ownership” of the “property”.

If this is the case, than “property” without the “ought” (justified claim of rightful appropriation and/or implementation) can only equate to matter in general, a term that serves little purpose in the context of this discussion.

As far as the “rental” of ourselves, or anything else in the grand scheme of things, I would agree with you in the metaphysical sense, but since there is no implied quid pro quo in this exchange, I think a “gift economy” would be a better analogy.

[John_James]

@Jackson LaRose

Does hunger exist?

Sigh, here we go again… in what sense?

What difference does it make? It either exists or it doesn’t. I don’t care “what sense” you think it exists or not. I want to know if you think it exists. Period.

Does hunger exist?

[apehead]

I’ve experienced a sensation I believe equates to hunger. I hope you don’t ignore the rest of my post, because it suits you. That would be hypocritical.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Brains telling stomachs they need food, exists. But no, “hunger” is just a term we use to describe that. In any other sense than as a descriptive term “hunger” doesn’t exist. There is no platonic world of ideals.

[John_James]

@Jackson LaRose

I’ve experienced a sensation I believe equates to hunger.

Does that mean hunger exists or not? I did not ask what you think you’ve experienced. I asked you a specific simple question. Jackson LaRose, does hunger exist?

[apehead]

Since you never defined what you think it is to “exist”, I don’t have enough information to answer your question in a meaningful way besides telling you what I’ve experienced. Seems like you are going to disregard any point I had made in the long recent post. That’s a shame. Perhaps you should try “troll counseling”, or perhaps some nice chamomile and valerian tea. That might settle you down. Poor thing.

[Malachi]

Everything I have ever experienced before has been within the realm of the “physical world” (as far as I can tell).>>>>
how do you define “the physical world”?

[John_James]

@Jackson LaRose

Since you never defined what you think it is to “exist”, I don’t have enough information to answer your question in a meaningful way besides telling you what I’ve experienced.

Why does what I think matter? I’m asking you what you think. Does hunger exist?

Seems like you are going to disregard any point I had made in the long recent post.

I don’t see why I should address any of that if you continue to dodge my one simple question.

Perhaps you should try “troll counseling”, or perhaps some nice chamomile and valerian tea. That might settle you down. Poor thing.

Huh? What are you talking about?

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

Man.. I typed out a long response. And then my internet went out before I hit “post” and it’s gone You gotta hate that…

Anyway, the short story is:

Yes, very often people use the term “I” to refer to the mind/body… they also ascribe many other things to it, coming up with the concept “mine.” I find both of those to be insufficient definitions. I do not consider my holdings to be de facto legitimate, simply because they are mine. But I also will not simply hand everything over to anybody, as it has been entrusted to my responsiblity by the greater community at large. I think that not only is common property the most justifiable form of property, private property is a myth that never has, nor ever will exist. All property is subject to community oversight, in some way.

All ownership is necessarily “private” in the sense of “exclusionary”. Whether the exclusion is at the level of a single individual or a group of individuals (what you’d apparently call a “community”) is irrelevant. This stems from the exclusionary nature of possession, use, and other forms of control.

What definitions do you find to be “insufficient”, exactly? I can find no definitions in the above.

Also, what in the world do you mean by “entrusted to my responsibility by the greater community at large”? I hope this isn’t just some phrase that you repeat when you find yourself confronted like this. So what exactly is this “greater community at large”, how exactly does it entrust anything to anyone’s responsibility, and what exactly does this responsibility consist of?

Saying that “all property is subject to community oversight” begs the questions of what oversight and what community.

@Laotzu del Zinn

Yes, it is “just language asthetics” which, regarless of how many sophists try to convince one otherwise, is very important. Consider:

Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience.

~Werner Heisenberg (of Uncertainty Principle fame) (emphasis not mine)

Our language simply is insufficient in describing a systematic reality, as it relies far too heavily on nouns. Hence, I refer to “I” as “being” or “selfing.”

Heisenberg actually seems to agree with me, as he states that “words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience”. The fact that these things aren’t special (i.e. meaningful) to the universe itself - so to speak - doesn’t mean they can’t be special (i.e. meaningful) to us.

You also apparently misunderstood what I meant by “language aesthetics”. I was simply referring to word choice. Whether you use “I” or “being”/“selfing” makes no difference, as it seems you’re referring to the same concept either way. So your argument boils down to “I want people to use this word for this concept instead of this other word”.

@Laotzu del Zinn

(And on the note of your apparent, to me, anger. I’m just worried about your mental/spiritual health. Perhaps its the leftist in me, but I just don’t like to see people engage in habitual negativity. Maybe I am just reading far too much into limited posts. If so, much apologies. But if you need somoene to listen, just PM me. If not, please forget I said anything, and accept my apology.)

Really now?

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

Brains telling stomachs they need food, exists. But no, “hunger” is just a term we use to describe that. In any other sense than as a descriptive term “hunger” doesn’t exist. There is no platonic world of ideals.

I’m almost positive that John James was using “hunger” to refer to “brains telling stomachs they need food” vel sim. And I’m almost positive that you already understand this.

[apehead]

Malachai,

“Physical world” to me means this plane of existence, perhaps the space-time continuum (although a definition even this broad may fall short). John James introduced the term into the discussion, though, so he may have a better one.

JJ,

It matters because you are the one introducing these terms and distinctions into the discussion.

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” - Voltaire

I’m not dodging it. You’re asking a question I do not have enough information to answer. Let me ask you a question,

Was it sad?

Answer, answer, ANSWER!!! Ok, I’m going into parrot mode until you answer my simple question!!!

[Autolykos]

@Birthday Pony

Still not seeing how that really makes sense, Autolykos.

So I reject one division that isn’t there and I must throw out all of them?

My point is more that who I am has a lot to do with physical circumstance which has a lot to do with my body. Not sure how those two can be so separate as to believe that there is an inalienable entity that simply owns my body. I’m pretty sure, though I don’t have the numbers in yet, that I am my body, or at least my body is part of me.

Read my post again. I outlined there that simply rejecting one division isn’t the issue - it’s the reason given for rejecting that’s the issue. Either you don’t understand logic or you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

[John_James]

@Jackson LaRose

JJ,

It matters because you are the one introducing these terms and distinctions into the discussion.

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” - Voltaire

I’m not dodging it. You’re asking a question I do not have enough information to answer.

You had no problem discussing existence this entire time. “In what sense” is irrelevent to answer this question. In any sense, does hunger exist?

[Autolykos]

@Steven Douglas

If we jump straight into standard definitions, we enter a vast, interconnecting web of other definitions, many of which are unqualified ill-defined in a universal sense, or are circular in meaning, and without necessarily exploring root fundamentals.

My first attempt was to get at the fundamental roots, or defining characteristics of each term, rather than the more common definitions, of terms like possession, property and ownership, by stripping away all normative assertions (“legitimate” being but one). This is what constitutes “what is”, without respect to the normative “what ought to be”.

“Legitimacy” can be treated in a non-normative or descriptive way. An example of this would be to observe X considering Y to be (il)legitimate.

@Steven Douglas

Hume’s point that an ought cannot be derived from an is was only intended to show that morality and ethics are not universal or innate to anything, and cannot be derived therefrom. I have no quarrel with that, but that is not to say that oughts do not exist - only that the oughts which do exist are subjective, and constructed based on the basis of what is. And that is not confined to morality or ethics, but any artificial construct. I see sand that “is”, and envision it as a semiconductor substrate or a sand castle, both of which are oughts. In addition, I guard my sand castle, because I created another ought - one that said, “You have no right to kick my sand castle”. In the above examples, I did not derive my oughts from the sand itself. Rather I created them. They were founded on sand, not derived therefrom.

Yes, “oughts” exist in the sense that people think them. When you stated that “‘what ought to be’ can only be founded on ‘what is’”, I assumed you were talking about what Hume refuted - the notion that morality and ethics are universal and/or innate to some or all things and can be derived therefrom. The basis there was your use of the phrase “founded on”, which I took to mean the same thing as “derived therefrom”. Apparently you didn’t mean that and I stand corrected.

However, I don’t think I agree that envisioning e.g. real sand as a semiconductor substrate or a sand castle is an “ought”. On the other hand, wanting to turn a pile of sand into one or the other certainly does involve that pile of sand. If that’s what you mean by “founded on”, then I agree.

@Steven Douglas

Every “ought to be” in existence is founded upon, and preceded by, a case of “what is”. It is the “there” that cannot be arrived at except from “here”. I cannot conceive of an example that is otherwise. Even in the seemingly impossible case of someone who thinks they should never have existed to begin with, they can only come to this conclusion based on “what is”, and that is the wholly inescapable connection in that moment, regardless of their inability to “get there from here”.

We’re forever trapped in the present moment, and that moment is ever-changing. But that allows us to view both the past and the future as “theres” with respect to “here”. Hence even a person who wishes the past had been different in some way (it doesn’t have to be that they had never existed) is necessarily looking from “here” to some “there”. So I think again we’re basically in agreement.

@Steven Douglas

Yeah, I think that’s a mistake people sometimes make when they see terms like “meaningful” in a philosophical or deductive sense, and apply it, apples to oranges, as synonymous to the same terms with their more familiar usage, wherein we assign weight, value, importance, usefulness and other subjective abstracts to a thing, based on philosophical or even scientific labels that were often never designed for use as synonyms in other contexts. (e.g., ignore what is meaningless, gather what is meaningful). For example, I say that I want to argue a point, or present an argument, and comes the response, “I don’t like to argue, can’t we just discuss it?” They see the word argue, and think “quarrel, bicker, raised voices, conflict, confrontation, etc.,”, and only because of their familiarity with the term is only from common usage. Likewise, “not meaningful” in a philosophical sense does not necessarily mean unimportant, not useful, can/should/ought to be discarded or disregarded.

Right, semantics is fundamental to the nature of language and discourse. With that in mind, what do you think “not meaningful” can mean (no pun intended) in a philosophical sense?

@Steven Douglas

Yes, and I deliberately keep separate the two parts of that sentence, to separate the descriptive (what is) from the normative (what should have been or ought to be). The snake has taken possession or control of the mouse and the hole. That is the descriptive, non-normative, ever-temporal reality that describes both an act and the condition that exists as a result. We now have a case of possession, control and ownership, however temporal that might be, and regardless of any normative assertions or qualifications that might follow or have preceded.

Humans, who are capable of consciously thinking and planning well beyond immediate needs and wants, see that ownership, possession and control is desirable or necessary, and can plan and act to extend and expand the spacial and temporal relationships that naturally exist, even to the point of pushing away any temporal illusions. We don’t want to exercise possession and control in just the moment. I want to be able to walk away from my possessions and return to them at will, secure in the knowledge that they will still be under my exclusive control, with or without my physical presence. That is my “ought to be” at work. We also have the capability of seeing that many others are in the same mode of thinking and acting, a fact which can be synthesized into usefulness (e.g., “You stay here and watch the property while I go out and hunt”).

The only issue I have with your use of the word “ownership” here is that, because my definition of it involves the concept of “legitimacy”, whether one thing “owns” another is necessarily observer/subject-dependent. Going with your example, what I mean here is that the snake certainly thinks it now “owns” the mouse after it captures it, but the mouse would likely think otherwise in spite of being captured. In the interest of succinctness, if you’re treating “possession” and “ownership” as synonyms, and I’m not, would it work for you if we both use only the former word in situations like the snake-and-mouse example?

Otherwise, I again basically agree with you here. It seems to me that we think much the same way, but with somewhat different semantics.

[apehead]

JJ,

This is a waste of time. We are talking on two levels here.

Yes, I was discussing “existence” because you had brought “existence” up, so I was querying you about it. I assumed that to bring it up, you must’ve had some internal definition for the term.

I think that I have experinced the sensation of hunger. To assert anything beyond that, is to beg a myriad of questions I do not have an answer to,

Do we think hunger is the same thing?

Was that a delusion, or genuine “hunger”?

Do I exist?

What is existence?

Do we agree on the definition of “existence”?

And so on.

That is the best answer I can give you for that question. We can start working on the next layer of the onion though, if you prefer.

[John_James]

@Jackson LaRose

JJ,

This is a waste of time. We are talking on two levels here.

Yes, I was discussing “existence” because you had brought “existence” up, so I was querying you about it. I assumed that to bring it up, you must’ve had some internal definition for the term.

I think that I have experinced the sensation of hunger. To assert anything beyond that, is to beg a myriad of questions I do not have an answer to,

Do we think hunger is the same thing?

Was that a delusion, or genuine “hunger”?

Do I exist?

What is existence?

Do we agree on the definition of “existence”?

And so on.

That is the best answer I can give you for that question. We can start working on the next layer of the onion though, if you prefer.

You’re completely sidestepping the issue. Whether we agree on what “existence” is or if we think hunger is the same thing is completely irrelevant. All I’m asking you, all I’ve been asking is, in the way you understand and define those terms, does hunger exist?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

All ownership is necessarily “private” in the sense of “exclusionary”. Whether the exclusion is at the level of a single individual or a group of individuals (what you’d apparently call a “community”) is irrelevant. This stems from the exclusionary nature of possession, use, and other forms of control.

I’m not going to engage in us talking past each other all day. Private, in the sense of property, to me means monopoly control based on title. Property is naturally exclusionary. Private property is monopoly control of property; and no private property can ever be truly private (except maybe on Crusoe’s imaginary island, before anybody else shows up).

This whole “I’m just going to make up my own definitions” thing is largely the reason I stopped posting here for a while. It turns into neverending obfuscation and talking past each other.

What definitions do you find to be “insufficient”, exactly? I can find no definitions in the above.

“I/me/my/mine” Those words don’t make sense to me. Where do I begin and where does social condiitioning end? Am I the same I that existed 5 seconds ago? Why do “I” belive many of the same things as my parents and friends? Why does empathy ignite the same regions in the brain as those ignited in the person facing the problem; meaning is empathy any different than experiencing hardship?

I’m not flat out denying the I, as such. What I am denying that “I” is a an accurate description of the mind/body phenomena Being experiences.

Also, what in the world do you mean by “entrusted to my responsibility by the greater community at large”? I hope this isn’t just some phrase that you repeat when you find yourself confronted like this. So what exactly is this “greater community at large”, how exactly does it entrust anything to anyone’s responsibility, and what exactly does this responsibility consist of?

Saying that “all property is subject to community oversight” begs the questions of what oversight and what community.

I possess and control things, and at any moment if I use them “incorrectly” they can be taken away, legitimately… not just by a theif. I may or may not have created it, and I definitely didn’t create the things that created it. It has been a long process of individual actions, which has collectively allowed me to possess and control these things. It has been entrusted to me by society, the abstract reflection of individual wills, for good use and safekeeping; as defined by whatever community that is. I’m expected to keep it safe and refrain from using it to harm others.

What community? Whatever community. What oversight? Whatever oversight that takes place within that community. For Ohioans, Ohio, Americans, America, etc, etc. In any society there will be certain rules you cannot use your self or property to break, or you will suffer some kind of negative consequence.

I brought up Heisenberg not for whether he agreed with me or you… and I don’t see why you thought that had anything to do with it..? I brought up the quote to illustrate that semantics are important. How you describe things defines how you understand them.

(If you think I was insincere, that is no matter to me. I wasn’t. And I said, if you can’t accept that, leave it alone. I do care; but I don’t care if you think I care or not. This is the last I will speak on the issue as you obviously don’t want people taking an interest in your well-being.)

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I’m almost positive that John James was using “hunger” to refer to “brains telling stomachs they need food” vel sim. And I’m almost positive that you already understand this.

No I’m pretty sure he is using it to illustrate a point that things can exist in other places than the physical world. Are you paying attention, or just don’t like me because I’m me?

Hence why I said “there is no platonic world of ideals.” Please stop inferring my position for me; it’s intrusive and annoying.

[apehead]

OK, but I bet you aren’t going to like it.

I don’t know whether or not hunger exists. I think I’ve experienced it before, that’s about all I can say.