Fixed Cross wrote:Is it an ideological act to own something?
I believe not. A baby will take ownership of all kinds of goods without any notions in its little head.
Is it a similar thing to pain?
In the sense that not owning the mother is pain for the baby, its sort of up there with it, in how primal ownership is.
I would propose it is a psychological and a physical phenomenon.
But then there's the fact that some people don't feel this way, a lot actually - weirdly there are two parties here who cant seem to understand each others experiences.
Is it truly that babies are born who do not grasp at things to hold them for themselves?
Is "marxism" (ownership is ideology) born in some people and "capitalism" (ownership is real) born in others?
If you eat something you own it forever.
On April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia to give military authorities the necessary power to silence dissenters and rebels. Under this order, commanders could arrest and detain individuals who were deemed threatening to military operations.
Squirrels lose nuts to other animals all the time. And they also lose them to the becoming an oak tree, for example, process. AGain, this is binary. If they would try to keep their own nuts - and they use fake caches to make it harder on thieves - is this because they think they own them, or is it because they want the nuts. Desire, strategies, having them. Ownership implies that have some abstract concept that I don't think they have. They definitely want them. Dogs and Apes can have a sense of fairness it seems. But I am not sure what is necessitated by an animal having developed strategies of getting what it wants and needs. This often means trying not to let others get certain things. I am not sure we can reify this to ownership. Pack animals share food. There can be dominance distribution, but the general idea is that everyone gets a share, period, sometimes even sick and non-productive members of the pack or herd or group. In relation to other groups we will see territorial actions. But then if we were all packs, would we then be some form of socialist packs that related to OTHER packs in ways that were more capitalism or ownership based. Bonoboes don't seem to own each other. She is mine. At least no sexually. Other species do have ownership or at least only one member gets access period, thank you very much. Upon which animal to we base the mineness of lovers? The polyamorous will find their role model species and the 'traditionalists' might feel sympatico with another species. What is the concept of ownership in dolphins?Fixed Cross wrote:If an animal defends a territory from another animal she claims some kind of ownership doesn't he?
I think there are several ways of seeing ownership in the animal kingdom. But humans have made it more elaborate, and have made laws for it.
Animals don't have written laws of ownership. But humans had the idea of ownership before there were written laws, Im sure.
Does a squirrel own the nuts he collects, I mean, does she feel a sense of ownership about it? Or will he naturally voluntarily share it with the next squirrel?
Fixed Cross wrote:Hello Karpel,
Yeah but you don't need to have a notion of it for it to be real in you. Hunger isn't a notion either, the idea is more that ownership belongs to instincts.
I believed in ownership as a kid, certainly, and my friends did too, I remember well.
I want to have this thing so I can use it when I want to. I liked presents at my birthday.
Maybe I was trained to like it but Ive never met a human who wasn't homeless or otherwise drifting and doing badly who didn't believe in ownership - mostly not I h ownership by others of things they craved.
I don't see that the want to have something is different from the want to own something. If you eat something you own it forever.
Ownership implies that have some abstract concept that I don't think they have.
Ownership implies that have some abstract concept that I don't think they have. They definitely want them. Dogs and Apes can have a sense of fairness it seems. But I am not sure what is necessitated by an animal having developed strategies of getting what it wants and needs. This often means trying not to let others get certain things. I am not sure we can reify this to ownership. Pack animals share food.
There can be dominance distribution, but the general idea is that everyone gets a share, period, sometimes even sick and non-productive members of the pack or herd or group. In relation to other groups we will see territorial actions. But then if we were all packs, would we then be some form of socialist packs that related to OTHER packs in ways that were more capitalism or ownership based. Bonoboes don't seem to own each other. She is mine. At least no sexually. Other species do have ownership or at least only one member gets access period, thank you very much. Upon which animal to we base the mineness of lovers? The polyamorous will find their role model species and the 'traditionalists' might feel sympatico with another species. What is the concept of ownership in dolphins?
If animals struggle over a corpse - crows, wolves, vultures, coyotes, say, over an dead moose - are they fighting for ownership? or are they each just trying to get what they want but remain safe, the wolves in that scenario the safest.
Humans have words and these words can reify desires and needs into abstractions that can then be used as tools to maintain, create, get, access to, sole use of, digestion of, sex with other things nad people.
We definitely want stuff. And often we want certain things long term.
What is purely innate here, I don't know.
I don't think the ownership of six mansions is simply innate ownership conception that is also found in squirrels and babies. I also don't think it is completely ideological. Diseased, yes, but there is some seed of natural tendencies inside something metaphorically cancerous even for the person who owns those mansions.
Which doesn't mean I want to pass laws taking away those mansions. I'd like to start, as said in the other thread, taking away the abuses of power and the undermining of democracy the rich engage in. I am not even sure my urge is natural. Though somewhere in there my disdain and contempt has a natural root, at least that's my best sense. But then I'm fairly tribal. If you lead, should we need a leader, it's only to the degree you seem to know what you're doing. It's ad hoc and dependent on tribal approval and other individuals skills and qualities. It sure has nothing to do with how many bear skins you have. I can't see how that means you get to send us to war against the next tribe over. Let's spank him and put someone else in charge. And time for a potlatch.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Only if you're constipated.
As far as not needing the notion, sure. I don't think you always have to have a notion of something for it to be a facet of you. In fact I think people are often ignorate of real things in themselves at the conceptual level. But I wasn't arguing that. I was saying that babies and toddlers and even older children (and animals) do not behave in ways that show ownership conception. Babies are not respecters of ownership and do not enforce ownership even over their own bodies much of the time, for example. I have worked with children, and young ones also, a lot. What they are doing is not ownership. It is a poor description of what they do with the word mine. Which is why even the parents of teenagers cannot leave them alone in the house over a weekend, often. I see ids that consider anything theirs. My argument is not that there is a lack of a thought or concept so they can't have them. Children are, yes, hungry, but as babies they don't have a notion of hunger. They have a feeling. Hunger is a desire. Ownership is something much more complicated and so far undefined. And ownership in non-civilized peoples, presumably closer to our instincts, is nothing like that of civilized humans. Especially intra-group. And I am NOT saying there is nothing innate. I am saying, well, what I said in the other posts.
Fixed Cross wrote:A terrible logic occurs to me. If what I mention earlier is true, then people originating from lower classes and castes actually could be lacking the genes that cause appreciation of ownership, because their ancestors were owned rather than that they owned themselves.
So these people would have a better understanding, instinctively, of other-ownership, of being owned by others and so of the general idea of ownership of humans by other humans, than of owning oneself.
Because where in free people the sense of ownership is about self-possession and not about being possessed, so the urgency of other-possession is not in the blood whereas, in bondhuman-lineages this urgency is in the blood so there is a feeling of its either owning or being owned; this is kind of a slave-revolt sort of mechanic; if I cant own myself then I must abolish ownership so at least no one owns me. A valid concern, caused by other peoples excessive ownership.
Fixed Cross wrote:I don't think Lamarck is entirely wrong actually.
Darwin never did explain the in-between stages. I do believe a greater flexibility is suggested by our history.
We might by the way draw a dangerous conclusion here about the genders, so lets not.
Felix - ill keep that in mind when I visit your house. Ill just kick you out to liberate you from your ego.
Hell, - why not give it to me now? Sign over your so called "property" to me please.
Why? Because I ask. You have no valid reason to hold on to it.
Same goes for all deniers of ownership - I request you all hand all your so called "possessions" over to me or to other people who can use it. If you refuse on grounds of wanting to keep it, you prove that property is real, at least your property is real.
It is all oh so simple if you actually become conscious of yourself.
If an animal defends a territory from another animal she claims some kind of ownership doesn't he?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't think babies have a concept of ownership.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:They do want things and they don't like not getting them
Fixed Cross wrote:Felix - ill keep that in mind when I visit your house. Ill just kick you out to liberate you from your ego.
Hell, - why not give it to me now? Sign over your so called "property" to me please.
Why? Because I ask. You have no valid reason to hold on to it.
Same goes for all deniers of ownership - I request you all hand all your so called "possessions" over to me or to other people who can use it. If you refuse on grounds of wanting to keep it, you prove that property is real, at least your property is real.
felix dakat wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:I don't think Lamarck is entirely wrong actually.
Darwin never did explain the in-between stages. I do believe a greater flexibility is suggested by our history.
We might by the way draw a dangerous conclusion here about the genders, so lets not.
Felix - ill keep that in mind when I visit your house. Ill just kick you out to liberate you from your ego.
Hell, - why not give it to me now? Sign over your so called "property" to me please.
Why? Because I ask. You have no valid reason to hold on to it.
Same goes for all deniers of ownership - I request you all hand all your so called "possessions" over to me or to other people who can use it. If you refuse on grounds of wanting to keep it, you prove that property is real, at least your property is real.
It is all oh so simple if you actually become conscious of yourself.
Haha! I didn't say egoic projection is a bad thing. And besides, it's supported by socially constructed laws that support a system of social order that is working, more or less.
MagsJ wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Felix - ill keep that in mind when I visit your house. Ill just kick you out to liberate you from your ego.
Hell, - why not give it to me now? Sign over your so called "property" to me please.
Why? Because I ask. You have no valid reason to hold on to it.
Same goes for all deniers of ownership - I request you all hand all your so called "possessions" over to me or to other people who can use it. If you refuse on grounds of wanting to keep it, you prove that property is real, at least your property is real.
Urwrong?
Fixed Cross wrote:MagsJ wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Felix - ill keep that in mind when I visit your house. Ill just kick you out to liberate you from your ego.
Hell, - why not give it to me now? Sign over your so called "property" to me please.
Why? Because I ask. You have no valid reason to hold on to it.
Same goes for all deniers of ownership - I request you all hand all your so called "possessions" over to me or to other people who can use it. If you refuse on grounds of wanting to keep it, you prove that property is real, at least your property is real.
Urwrong?
What do you mean?
I failed to address Urwrong? Or I am Urwrong?
I thought I already was Parodites.
Maybe Im all of you.
(Speaking of a psychology of ownership...)
I think I generally am considered to be anyone here who is a strong writer and a consistent thinker. Ill take the compliment.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users