1
   

Owning the Rights to Own a penny!

 
 
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:33 pm
There are some views on the temporary possession of living beings within the minds of people.


  1. is that living beings are just an opportunity for production and must be profit, to be maximized and harnessed at the most potential possible.
  2. Living beings are not an object, they are irrational to a price, and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free.

So, whats your opinion. Mine is more the second. I do believe that we cannot deny the need to survive.

In history, which opinion seems to emanate the most from human beings; with and without power.

Corporates obviously take opinion 1, as well as extreme capitalists, (who really aren't). And in the US, people have the right to patent organisms in the laboratory. And now people are fighting over temporary possession
Is it moral to own the Earth? Will it become so ridiculous that people will possess the rights to own our currency, and then make it law to have to buy the rights as an individual person to be able to be part of the currency system, so that you have to literally pay part of your own potential/production to collect your salary?

Edits are in green, thank you people for catching these blatant, yet trifling mistakes.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 991 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 03:27 pm
@Holiday20310401,
All is One! The notion of 'owning' anything is a manifestation of the insubstantial 'images' of ego. We can only 'feel' that we own. Any vaguerie of fate will end that feeling with a burglary, loss, deterioration of the 'owned' until there is nothing that makes you feel that you acan 'own' anything. It is an egoic term, a 'legal' term (based on ego), a 'belief' that exposes all the horrors/symptoms therefrom (we kill and die for our 'beliefs'...).
We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 03:47 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;26295 wrote:
There are two basic views on the ownership of living beings within the minds of people.

Ahh, the basics of a 'false dilemna'; declaring (with 'basic' as a possible escape clause) an 'either/or' when there might well be more.

Quote:
is that living beings are just an opportunity for production and must be profit, to be maximized and harnessed at the most potential possible.

We see this all over, we call it 'jobs'. At lease the slaves of plantation times fared better in many ways; health care and food and shelter are guaranteed for the workers 'and family' (more workers).
It seems to be historical 'fact'. Not 'options'.

Quote:
Living beings are not an object, they are irrational to a price, and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free.

This one goes around the bush a bit; it presupposes a 'creator god' who 'places' people for 'reasons' that, somehow, you know, and that you have a 'belief' in 'freedom' (of any sort).

Quote:
In history, which opinion seems to emanate the most from human beings; with and without power.

Opinions do not so much 'emanate from history', on this subject, as do 'facts'. What is, is. How you 'feel' about what 'is', might be irrelevent to anyone but you.
Much depends on Perspective; the society in question, the context...
There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.
ariciunervos
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 03:54 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.


Right, how about an empathic exercise.

You are my slave. You pick coffee without pay. You are allowed to own only whatever allows you to attain the purpose I have assigned to you. You are no different from my chisel, if it needs to be sharpened I will sharpen it.

How is this for inherently wrong ?
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 04:09 pm
@nameless,
There are two basic views on the ownership of living beings within the minds of people.

>Is this a discussion then about slavery?


  1. is that living beings are just an opportunity for production and must be profit, to be maximized and harnessed at the most potential possible.

>> maximised by who? themselves or others?

  1. Living beings are not an object, they are irrational to a price, and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free.

>>>what has rationality to do with it? placed by whom and owned by whom?

So, whats your opinion. Mine is more the second. I do believe that we cannot deny the need to survive.

>>>Both the right and the need to survive seem undeniable, but what does this have to do with the two alternatives? Might it not be that one's survival is better guaranteed by slavery than freedom?

In history, which opinion seems to emanate the most from human beings; with and without power.

>>>Opinions have varied throughout history. A "show of hands" would prove nothing. Others would argue that the question would be meaningless to all sorts of people at different times in history.

Corporates obviously take opinion 1, as well as extreme capitalists, (who really aren't). And in the US, people have the right to patent organisms in the laboratory. And now people are fighting over ownership of water.

>>>Not all corporations are greedy slave owners ; many (e.g.Google) treat their employees extremely well, while others make significant monetary contributions to all sorts of "good" projects. Were it not for them, for example, symphony orchestras and many museums would cease to exist. So what appears so sweepingingly "obvious" may not, if one looks closely at all the various kinds of corporations, actually be factual.

Is it moral to own the Earth? Will it become so ridiculous that people will own the rights to own our currency, and then make it law to have to buy the rights as an individual person to be able to be part of the currency system, so that you have to literally pay part of your own potential/production to collect your salary?

>>>will what become so ridiculous? Under what conditions and with what method does one buy rights to own currency? Is this some sort of original contract?

While I do believe there is an argument lurking somewhere, it may be better served by additional clarity in expression and more precise reasoning. Hopefully, during the discussion, the argument will emerge.
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 06:28 pm
@jgweed,
nameless wrote:

We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.


Yes but legally possessing something means that the legal essence is held for as long as the living being or object is alive, so it is really about the ownership of the potential, therefore it is not temporary possession, just conditional.

nameless wrote:
Ahh, the basics of a 'false dilemna'; declaring (with 'basic' as a possible escape clause) an 'either/or' when there might well be more.


yeah in science you get taught to write like that, sorry, but in debates it helps:devilish:.


nameless wrote:
We see this all over, we call it 'jobs'. At lease the slaves of plantation times fared better in many ways; health care and food and shelter are guaranteed for the workers 'and family' (more workers).
It seems to be historical 'fact'. Not 'options'.


Where did 'options' come from?:listening:

nameless wrote:
This one goes around the bush a bit; it presupposes a 'creator god' who 'places' people for 'reasons' that, somehow, you know, and that you have a 'belief' in 'freedom' (of any sort).


No, it suggests that the reason for living is not to be a possession.

nameless wrote:
Much depends on Perspective; the society in question, the context...
There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.


If you were a slave would you think being so to be wrong, and should be changed. There is yes, a difference between fairness and equality and slavery doesn't equate to the best of any of the two, for the individual at least.

ariciunervos wrote:
Right, how about an empathic exercise.

You are my slave. You pick coffee without pay. You are allowed to own only whatever allows you to attain the purpose I have assigned to you. You are no different from my chisel, if it needs to be sharpened I will sharpen it.

How is this for inherently wrong ?


It is wrong in that the reason for the social interaction is not for fair or equal virtue of both individuals so it can't be right. For society, it only has to be sustainable for everyone to live, luxury is the only product of slavery.

What is inherently wrong is the lack of compassion that might become inherent in future generations. I guess one might say that we do not morally progress at all, we morally evolve, because the sake of progression is only inherent to the will for production of the individual which is blatant in society, not inherent to morality; but its wrong in that it should.

jgweed wrote:

>Is this a discussion then about slavery?


Essentially.

jgweed wrote:
>> maximised by who? themselves or others?


Others

jgweed wrote:

>>>what has rationality to do with it? placed by whom and owned by whom?


We do not own ourselves anymore for the time we are alive. Rationality has to do with the price. If the price is irrational it is undeterminable, so I would imagine priceless should be one of the first things to come to mind.:rolleyes:

jgweed wrote:
>>> Might it not be that one's survival is better guaranteed by slavery than freedom?


It wouldn't make a difference. Survival through slavery is just based on how much potential you have to the owner, or, "possesser" Laughing. When there is freedom the survival is through reality, one's self determines his or her virtue. It reality doesn't satisfy conditions to meet for survival it is for the same reasons in either scenario. Reality is tainted by a mind that isn't objective enough. Oh I get what you're saying now:o. In the conditions of owner and slave, the objective conditions to imply virtue is healthy reality/understanding on the tasks set by the owner, and the owner only. When there is freedom, there is the choice of any amount of people around you and the unconditional self as the objective reality for which to imply the virtue. So there are more conditions to set, because a free person is in a way much insane, as if there is this unconditional praise of the social interations and measures to be taken to be virtuous by representing yourself through other people.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 07:39 pm
@ariciunervos,
ariciunervos;26308 wrote:
Right, how about an empathic exercise.

Your 'exercise' has nothing to do with 'empathy'.

Quote:
You are my slave. You pick coffee without pay. You are allowed to own only whatever allows you to attain the purpose I have assigned to you. You are no different from my chisel, if it needs to be sharpened I will sharpen it.

How is this for inherently wrong ?

I see no inherent 'wrong'. What is 'inherent' is;
1) I am your slave. A simple statement of inherent 'condition/position' at a particular moment.
2) I pick coffee. A simple statement of inherent 'function', an inherent 'job description', at a particular moment.
3) I am 'allowed' certain 'posessions' at particular moments. Nothing 'wrong' inherent in that, either.
4) You consider me non different than your 'chisel'. You are entitled to your thoughts and feelings. Nothing 'wrong' here, either.
5) Sharpening your chisel makes it more fit, more 'healthy' to fill the function required. That seems to translate into 'health care'. I don't have a problem with that; nothing 'wrong' there. Perhaps you mean specific 'training' for your chiselling job. Still, nothing inherently 'wrong'.

Perhaps you now understand the point that is being made; 'wrongness/evil' (and 'rightness/good') is not inherent in words and things and actions. It is an artifact of the judgemental mindset of a particular Perspective.
The only place that exists inherent 'good and evil' is the mind that thinks in such terms, at the moment of such thoughts/judgements.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 08:03 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;26326 wrote:
nameless wrote:

We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.


Yes but legally possessing something means that the legal essence is held for as long as the living being or object is alive,

Tell that to all the folks who lost their homes. Tell that to the folks who the gon't takes their homes because it needs the property. Tell it to the muggers, burglars and other thieves... Tell it to the 'posession' that disintegrates. Nah.. all temporary at best. Enough to support the egoic illusion, though, obviously.

Quote:
so it is really about the ownership of the potential,

No, you cannot 'own' 'potential'. Potential is not a 'thing' to be owned.
Quote:
therefore it is not temporary possession, just conditional.

Temporary IS conditional.


Quote:
Quote:
Ahh, the basics of a 'false dilemna'; declaring (with 'basic' as a possible escape clause) an 'either/or' when there might well be more.

yeah in science you get taught to write like that, sorry, but in debates it helps.

A fallacy (cognitive error) is a fallacy, no matter how it is used.
If a fallacy 'helps' (furthers) your discussion (debate), then you are debating (conversing) with idiots and it is all (conversation/debate) nonsense.

Quote:
Quote:
We see this all over, we call it 'jobs'. At lease the slaves of plantation times fared better in many ways; health care and food and shelter are guaranteed for the workers 'and family' (more workers).
It seems to be historical 'fact'. Not 'options'.

Where did 'options' come from?

Oops, I meant 'opinions'.

Quote:
Quote:
This one goes around the bush a bit; it presupposes a 'creator god' who 'places' people for 'reasons' that, somehow, you know, and that you have a 'belief' in 'freedom' (of any sort).

No, it suggests that the reason for living is not to be a possession.

I quote;
"and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free."
This implies someone placing us on the Earth for a reason. Religion.
'Reasons' are artifacts of the individual Perspective, and not inherent in Reality; just 'your' reality'.

Quote:
Quote:
Much depends on Perspective; the society in question, the context...
There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.

If you were a slave would you think being so to be wrong, and should be changed.

That is a grand and unsupported assumption. I do not find 'wrongness' in existence. Neither have I found 'wrongness' in my being a slave/servant.
You assume so/too much, is that 'wrong'?

Quote:
There is yes, a difference between fairness and equality and slavery doesn't equate to the best of any of the two, for the individual at least.

Neither have i expected 'fairness' in life after I finished with board games. 'Fairness' is for childrens games and sports; not life.
"Equality'? Are you serious? Equality?
At least 'slavery' is 'real' in comparison to your imagined 'fairness' and 'equality'.
No matter your personal/Perspectival feelings about life; 'fairness', 'equality', 'right', 'wrong', etc... the universes just keep chugging along regardless...
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2008 05:57 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
All is One! The notion of 'owning' anything is a manifestation of the insubstantial 'images' of ego. We can only 'feel' that we own. Any vaguerie of fate will end that feeling with a burglary, loss, deterioration of the 'owned' until there is nothing that makes you feel that you acan 'own' anything. It is an egoic term, a 'legal' term (based on ego), a 'belief' that exposes all the horrors/symptoms therefrom (we kill and die for our 'beliefs'...).
We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.


Ownership and property rights are better understood as a set of obligations, freedoms, and forebearances between people concerning an object, not between people and the object itself.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2008 06:00 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
There are some views on the temporary possession of living beings within the minds of people.


  1. is that living beings are just an opportunity for production and must be profit, to be maximized and harnessed at the most potential possible.
  2. Living beings are not an object, they are irrational to a price, and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free.



3. Humans are moral self-owners, with obligations placed on all others to allow the person the fruits of sovereignty over his or her own person.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2008 11:50 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;26348 wrote:
Ownership and property rights are better understood as a set of obligations, freedoms, and forebearances between people concerning an object, not between people and the object itself.

(The illusion of) 'Owning' anything is "better understood as a set of obligations, freedoms (if you are a believer in such), and forebearances between people concerning an object, not between people and the object itself."
There are no 'isolated people' and 'objects' ("itself").
(Your 'ownership' of the car is dependent on the 'forebearance' (allowance) of the car thief, among other 'varuiables' involved.)
All fine and dandy, but,
I'm not seeing how or that your definition of 'ownership' changes or refutes anything that I have thus far said, in context of the OP.
It does speak to (and help clarify) the OP though.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 05:01 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
(The illusion of) 'Owning' anything is "better understood as a set of obligations, freedoms (if you are a believer in such), and forebearances between people concerning an object, not between people and the object itself."
There are no 'isolated people' and 'objects' ("itself").
(Your 'ownership' of the car is dependent on the 'forebearance' (allowance) of the car thief, among other 'varuiables' involved.)
All fine and dandy, but,
I'm not seeing how or that your definition of 'ownership' changes or refutes anything that I have thus far said, in context of the OP.
It does speak to (and help clarify) the OP though.


I just wanted to provide a definition that is not based on "egoic imaginings". My definition does not involve some imaginary link between person and object. Someone could theoretically have ownership without any idea that the thing he/she owns even exists (the justice of such an arrangement can be battled over of course).
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 03:15 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;26535 wrote:
I just wanted to provide a definition that is not based on "egoic imaginings".

All rightey then; I'm waiting...

Quote:
My definition does not involve some imaginary link between person and object.

Are you insinuating that the 'Oneness' is imaginary? Funny, I am saying that all 'differences' are 'imaginary'.
Which goes to prove the 'First law of Soul Dynamics' -"For every perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
And your attempt to discredit anything that i have said by your dismissiveness in calling it 'imaginary', fails.
An argument can be made in support of either Perspective. Evaluate the data as you must.
Science, though, is supporting, more and more, that which I am presenting, making the classical Aristotalien fallacies that you propose, 'obsolete'.
Still waiting...

Quote:
Someone could theoretically have ownership without any idea that the thing he/she owns even exists (the justice of such an arrangement can be battled over of course).

Thats your 'definition'?
Yes, hypothetically, but the hypothesis is easily refuted, and would never progress to actual theory. Again, science has been there, done that, and is still doing that. Every day new theories, new data, new evidence regarding the ultimate interconnectedness of all (apparently diverse) things.
Aristotle's damage is finally beginning to be repaired!
There must be Conscious Perspective/awareness, for something to exist.
The tree makes no sound if there are none to hear (perceive) it fall. It doesn't even fall if there are none to perceive it.
No Conscious awareness = no existence, much less, 'ownership', which is still an egoic construct.

Still waiting...
(egoic comment)
*__-
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 02:00 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
This has been an interesting thread to watch. Nice

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I just wanted to provide a definition that is not based on "egoic imaginings". My definition does not involve some imaginary link between person and object. Someone could theoretically have ownership without any idea that the thing he/she owns even exists (the justice of such an arrangement can be battled over of course).


Ok, well heck, can I try?[INDENT]Ownership is the agency one has to exercise control over a person, place or thing - whether (1) given by legal/social constructs in place or because (2) one simply has said ability (and without regard to one having the knowledge of such control). Control, in this context, refers to being able to dictate, directly or indirectly, what is done or not done to or with that being controlled - to include destruction/disposal. Such ability may or may not be transferrable.
[/INDENT]Well? How'd I do? Do I get a star?

:shifty:
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2008 06:30 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Are you insinuating that the 'Oneness' is imaginary? Funny, I am saying that all 'differences' are 'imaginary'.
Which goes to prove the 'First law of Soul Dynamics' -"For every perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
And your attempt to discredit anything that i have said by your dismissiveness in calling it 'imaginary', fails.
An argument can be made in support of either Perspective. Evaluate the data as you must.
Science, though, is supporting, more and more, that which I am presenting, making the classical Aristotalien fallacies that you propose, 'obsolete'.
Still waiting...


Cool your jets. I am not opposing the idea of oneness, in fact I am quite fond of it.

The thing is, in terms of human understanding and action, this subject, like that of determinism and free will, is quite impossible to deal with.

One thing we can work with is the fact that only people deal with property rights, and pretty much all people within our culture, pretty much all people period, have a common concept of identity (although some are more individualistic than others).

I guess this idea of identity between people is a little egoistic (and all of this is a little silly since I tend to wear the title of egoist since I follow Stirner and Tucker), but we can define property and ownership in the context of these identities, and not in the context of egoistic identity and thing.

Therefore property can be defined as thus:

"A bundle of rights, being a set of obligations and duties placed on others, that assures control and disposition over some resource."

NOTE: Khethil, your definition was a good one.

This allows for one to possess ownership without even being aware of the existence of what one owns.

Perhaps this is egoistic, but can you seriously draw NO division between yourself and the things you control?

Quote:
There must be Conscious Perspective/awareness, for something to exist.
The tree makes no sound if there are none to hear (perceive) it fall. It doesn't even fall if there are none to perceive it.
No Conscious awareness = no existence, much less, 'ownership', which is still an egoic construct.


So our senses cause existence?

What caused our senses to exist? Are they self-causing?
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2008 01:02 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;26787 wrote:
nameless wrote:

Are you insinuating that the 'Oneness' is imaginary? Funny, I am saying that all 'differences' are 'imaginary'.
Which goes to prove the 'First law of Soul Dynamics' -"For every perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
And your attempt to discredit anything that i have said by your dismissiveness in calling it 'imaginary', fails.
An argument can be made in support of either Perspective. Evaluate the data as you must.
Science, though, is supporting, more and more, that which I am presenting, making the classical Aristotalien fallacies that you propose, 'obsolete'.
Still waiting...

Cool your jets.

Yes, sir! (though, I have no options, no responsibility in the matter)

Quote:
I am not opposing the idea of oneness, in fact I am quite fond of it.

Splendid!

Quote:
The thing is, in terms of human understanding and action, this subject, like that of determinism and free will, is quite impossible to deal with.

Deal with? Like in a discussion? Like now? I think that 'ownership' is a great subject to 'deal with', lots of Perspectives, lots of potential depth...

Quote:
One thing we can work with is the fact that only people deal with property rights, and pretty much all people within our culture, pretty much all people period, have a common concept of identity (although some are more individualistic than others).

Do you mean that in all possible imagined identities, all possible features of everyPerspective, that there is at least one (amongst the multitude) feature common to all humans? I might be tempted to agree with that, but see no relevence to the topic at hand, that we are 'dealing with'.

Quote:
I guess this idea of identity between people is a little egoistic

Personal individual identity is ego. I don't understand your "identity between people"? Ego is 'self identity'. Any 'group identity' is dependent on how you wish to define 'group' and 'identity'. A group is both a collection of individual egos, a mixed bag, to some degree, and an 'entity' in itself with a 'group egoic image/identity'.

Quote:
(and all of this is a little silly since I tend to wear the title of egoist

Every moment of your existence?
So, ego calls itself ego, from an egoic Perspective (that never changes?).
You seem to be a tentatively titled tautology! *__-

Quote:
since I follow Stirner and Tucker),

"Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes!"

Quote:
but we can define property and ownership in the context of these identities,

Of course! One ego can certainly come to consensus with another ego to 'define' anything they like.

Quote:
and not in the context of egoistic identity and thing.

Yup, very much so. It is inescapable. Where there is a 'personality, a 'self-image', an 'I', 'me', 'my', 'mine', that is ego speaking.

Quote:
Therefore property can be defined as thus:

"A bundle of rights, being a set of obligations and duties placed on others, that assures control and disposition over some resource."

Doesn't work for me. Lets take the "obligations and duties placed on others" and extend it to it's extreme. Lets not just place 'fetters' on others (for your protection) lets just give you a real feeling of 'security and stability' and kill off everyone else that is not 'you'. Now, you don't 'need' your 'rights', which translate as the 'fettering' of 'others' for your feelings of security.
Now, there is no one else around to take your toys away. Oops, not yet..
There is 'time' and the natural processes that will remove whatever it might be that you are clinging to so, eventually.
Ultimately, so too, will 'life' be taken from you.
Perhaps the notion of 'control/ownership' is a flailing at the dark night?

Quote:
NOTE: Khethil, your definition was a good one.

This allows for one to possess ownership without even being aware of the existence of what one owns.

Perhaps this is egoistic, but can you seriously draw NO division between yourself and the things you control?

Was the question for Khethil or me?
If for me, I assume no 'control'.

Quote:
nameless wrote:
There must be Conscious Perspective/awareness, for something to exist.
The tree makes no sound if there are none to hear (perceive) it fall. It doesn't even fall if there are none to perceive it.
No Conscious awareness = no existence, much less, 'ownership', which is still an egoic construct.

So our senses cause existence?
What caused our senses to exist? Are they self-causing?

There is no 'causing'.
The moment arises complete with you and your senses and thoughts and ego and Mars and hamburgers half eaten...
Your perception is the manifestation of existence (omniverse), at the moment, as you know it.
There is a synchronous arisal of all moments of existence. Nothing 'before, nothing 'after', no 'cause', no 'effect'; all is at once, is Now!
There must be Perspective to 'differentiate' the 'undifferentiated potential' (quantum possibility wave field) of Mind, which is perfectly symmetrical and thus 'featureless' to Conscious awareness.
The natural limitations of 'Perspective' can Now! manifest (to Consciousness) that which did not 'exist', turning (for a 'moment') the 'monality' of Mind into the 'duality' of existence by ourPerspectives.
Definition of universe; the sum total of all Perspectives at any single moment. The universes thus presented/manifested are unique every moment.
The notion of a single one-size-fits-all "the" universe (as is commonly used), is absurd. Our 'universe' is all that of which we are aware, at any single moment. Rather like the 'Truman Show', so much is assumed. And, like 'Truman', we imagine ourselves to be in 'control', in 'posession' of our own lives and thoughts and behaviors and desires and dreams... Ego so desperately needs (the illusion of) control and stability from it's imagined dangling isolation from the rest of existence...
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:35 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Deal with? Like in a discussion? Like now? I think that 'ownership' is a great subject to 'deal with', lots of Perspectives, lots of potential depth...


I mean this metaphysical oneness. Humans cannot continue to act once they deny that they have a separate identity and accept complete determinism.

What you say makes a lot of sense to me, but it cannot be applied to practical matters.

Quote:
Do you mean that in all possible imagined identities, all possible features of everyPerspective, that there is at least one (amongst the multitude) feature common to all humans? I might be tempted to agree with that, but see no relevence to the topic at hand, that we are 'dealing with'.


I mean that if all people have a common sense of a separate identity within themselves, we can act, for the purpose of human relations, as if this understanding is true.

Quote:
Every moment of your existence?
So, ego calls itself ego, from an egoic Perspective (that never changes?).
You seem to be a tentatively titled tautology! *__-


My political philosophy is a branch of egoism.

Quote:
"Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes!"


False dichotomy.

Quote:
Of course! One ego can certainly come to consensus with another ego to 'define' anything they like.


Exactly. We can define ownership between ourselves in terms of human relationships. We do not need to deal with metaphysical understandings of the relationship of all things to define ownership.

Quote:
Doesn't work for me. Lets take the "obligations and duties placed on others" and extend it to it's extreme. Lets not just place 'fetters' on others (for your protection) lets just give you a real feeling of 'security and stability' and kill off everyone else that is not 'you'. Now, you don't 'need' your 'rights', which translate as the 'fettering' of 'others' for your feelings of security.
Now, there is no one else around to take your toys away. Oops, not yet..
There is 'time' and the natural processes that will remove whatever it might be that you are clinging to so, eventually.
Ultimately, so too, will 'life' be taken from you.
Perhaps the notion of 'control/ownership' is a flailing at the dark night?


Property is only relevant as a solution to conflicts between competing will concerning scarce economic goods.

Quote:
Was the question for Khethil or me?
If for me, I assume no 'control'.


Then you perceive no separation between you and your computer. You cannot perceive some notion of control in that, even if it is nothing more than a stick floating in a stream?

Quote:
There is no 'causing'.
The moment arises complete with you and your senses and thoughts and ego and Mars and hamburgers half eaten...
Your perception is the manifestation of existence (omniverse), at the moment, as you know it.
There is a synchronous arisal of all moments of existence. Nothing 'before, nothing 'after', no 'cause', no 'effect'; all is at once, is Now!
There must be Perspective to 'differentiate' the 'undifferentiated potential' (quantum possibility wave field) of Mind, which is perfectly symmetrical and thus 'featureless' to Conscious awareness.
The natural limitations of 'Perspective' can Now! manifest (to Consciousness) that which did not 'exist', turning (for a 'moment') the 'monality' of Mind into the 'duality' of existence by ourPerspectives.
Definition of universe; the sum total of all Perspectives at any single moment. The universes thus presented/manifested are unique every moment.
The notion of a single one-size-fits-all "the" universe (as is commonly used), is absurd. Our 'universe' is all that of which we are aware, at any single moment. Rather like the 'Truman Show', so much is assumed. And, like 'Truman', we imagine ourselves to be in 'control', in 'posession' of our own lives and thoughts and behaviors and desires and dreams... Ego so desperately needs (the illusion of) control and stability from it's imagined dangling isolation from the rest of existence...


So there is nothing until it is perceived?

That you think this is of much relevance just makes me think that you do not quite understand the nature of property.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Owning the Rights to Own a penny!
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 05:55:13