the psychology of ownership

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: the psychology of ownership

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:32 pm

Lol Just wondering because of the whole Parodites = Fixed Cross hoax. Its startling to see such things erupt about oneself. Not necessarily a bad thing, but thought provoking.
But yes, I agree with Urwrong on these issues, along with most of the conservative world. These are basic logics.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: the psychology of ownership

Postby Silhouette » Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:10 am

Ownership needs to be unpacked to get to a sufficient understanding of it.

It's being too easily conflated with associated physiological reactions that feel like familiarity, attachment, security, reliance, desire (as has been mentioned), the fight/flight response, proximity etc. - and with all the very real and immediate, human feelings, instincts, emotions and reflexes that accompany what's really going on - even beyond just humans in fact, to animals and beyond even that.

The problem is that all the absolutely valid ingredients that you can think of to cook up ownership can be completely present, even all in combination with one another, toward something you do not own.
One might be sufficient to the other, but not necessary.

It's only half the intellectual job to think up all these different scenarios that feel like ownership throughout various kinds of lifeforms and what their natures might be.
You have to actively try and intellectually challenge what you think seems to hold true about the world, otherwise you're just feeding your own intuitions and wishful thinking (which is known as "Confirmation Bias").

How can anyone fail to understand the difference between having and owning? This is the very core of e.g. sharing: give something you "own" to someone for however long, and they "have" it. Do they ever own it? Yes/no? It's not that simple.
And this is the whole point: how you can have all your computer equipment at work, tools, desk, office etc. - all your stuff you need to do your job. As an employee, you don't own any of that. You can "take ownership" of your "role" in the sense that you "act like" it was all actually yours and all a product of your own authentic decisions independent of anybody else and all that bad faith mentality that you're encouraged to role-play and pretend to the extent that the vast majority seem to genuinely internalise for the benefit of whoever bought your time, skills and effort.

By the same token, you can want a mate that you don't have, you can have a mate that you don't own, you could even own a mate that you don't want - none of this matches up, but you need to put in this intellectual work to unravel the ideology or you're forever taking it for granted, keeping it alive, and adopting the tribal narrative of others instead of thinking for "your"self.
And I say "your"self, when not only could "having"/"wanting"/"owning" etc. not apply to the body/mind/spirit/whatever satisfies "habeas corpus" (as it historically didn't for slaves and whatnot), it's not even clear what the notion of "you" as a self means in the first place!
Preference either way could even be the universal consensus, but to act like ownership is some kind of "clearcut physiological given" is complete philosophical ignorance. The matter is based on a question of "what is" objectively, not "what we might prefer" subjectively. Sub specie aeternitatis ownership means nothing, and even if we all would prefer it to mean something to us, we have to construct it out of what actually "is" us in some way or other that we would prefer at the time.

All this presumptuous sass...
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.

...simply assumes that if others question the fundamental legitimacy of "ownership", they'll still somehow unquestioningly afford a sense of ownership specially reserved for you after such a transaction.... just not for them.

That's a complete non-sequitur.
It doesn't mean they're not still questioning their own ownership when they consider or even follow through with the scenario, it especially doesn't mean they're only questioning your ownership and not theirs - they question ALL ownership. Let's "hand it over to you"... - what does that mean to a person who questions ownership? An implicit expectation of force to back up the decision? It's one social contract of potentially many. Sure, it's based on real feelings, but organised arrangements we make up based on these very real feelings are whatever we decide them to be, depending on whatever grounds we feel justify our collective reactions to our very real feelings.

Good thread - I like the reasonable questions and the way the arguments were presented without any loaded implications, inbuilt biases and clear agenda that you sometimes put into your content.
User avatar
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: the psychology of ownership

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:14 am

You want to know an even worse Non-Sequitur???

That micro-biology has 'ideologies' by which they "own" things.

As presented by your friend and accomplice, Magnus.... lol!
ILP Legend
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: the psychology of ownership

Postby MagsJ » Fri Aug 28, 2020 7:03 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Lol Just wondering because of the whole Parodites = Fixed Cross hoax. Its startling to see such things erupt about oneself. Not necessarily a bad thing, but thought provoking.

Perhaps Parodites is simply.. Parodites, but who knows.. though he is an intriguing character, I’d say.

Do you recall when I was asked if I was the Black Jew Witch, who was posting at KTS? I took grave offence to that, but not because of ‘black’ or ‘Jew’, but because no-one remembered my actual ethnic makeup.. I’m all about anti-misrepresentation of self by others, you see.

Would you take offence if I said that I really liked your shirt and missed wearing mine for work, but mine were less masculine? someone did, on Wednesday.. now that I’m starting to venture out again, I’m finding myself walking into such minefields of disgruntlement. I didn’t think what I said would.

But yes, I agree with Urwrong on these issues, along with most of the conservative world. These are basic logics.

Mainstream UK Conservatism differs from that of most countries, regarding intensity, in that ours’ is less-intense in many aspects of the notion of Conservatism.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
The Londonist: a chic geek
Posts: 22338
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town


Return to Psychology and Mind

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users