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.
Im not so sure of that.
Arent we conflating the map and the terrain here?
Ownership became a notion only after it exists, I think.
No need for the notion to be absolute when ownership in reality is never absolute.
So thats a straw man already inserted in the argument a priori, if we look at it as notion-first. Or a circular argument. If we propose that ownership begins as a notion then we must always conclude that it is only a notion, right?
Yes and families share resources together, isn’t this group-ownership?
Pack don’t share with other packs.
Ownership in the US Constitutional idea comes down to something that must be defended by guns.
It doesn’t take it as a god-given thing but as a real thing which like many real things must be worked for.
Well ok but, not all commodities are rebellious birds like love is.
Seriously I don’t see the difference between wanting to have something and wanting to own something, or between having and owning.
I think this goes for everything though, excess is poisonous.
Im not totally sure what you re saying here but its kind of interesting to compare how leadership and ownership do or do not correlate.
I think ownership evolves form the need to keep to be able to use later.
This is sometimes necessary to survive.
So here the instinct or phenomenon of ownership would have evolved.
In this sense the fat layers of an animal are their ownership.
(I do not like abstrahizing things, they always drift apart. I like to keep it real, earthy.)
Yes, meaning, if you’re not gonna use it.
You, or your gene-pool, your progeny.
I think human ownership of things is often meant to be passed along to children.
Dawkins of course argues that not we but our genes are in control and, if keeping-for-using is sometimes necessary to survive and evolves into our genes, then even inherited ownership is an innate thing.
Also its the case that a baby cant really control what it is doing at all - but some of the main tendencies they do express have to do with desires as well as preferences for certain things and places and situations and aversion to others, and I think that ownership is just a sense of security about being able to be in the preferred situations whenever you want.
I think maybe in the negatives sense, ownership is a neurosis, more than a construct.
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.
Sure, if You acceed to reject Darwin, and can hold to Lamarkianism ,where one can conceive of only limited regress of inherited traits, before which such was not notable.
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.
Meno - ancient conception has it that at least 8 generations are still fluid in us. What we now know of genealogy might not be the whole picture, like Newtonian physics is correct but leaves out the subtleties that make for such dynamic things as life, which are not reducible to the blueprint.
What I’m suggesting is that there are layers to our genealogy, much of it having been entirely “set”, but recent generations still working, active, alive, on an imperceptible level (as we do not observe genes through time, but in snapshots far apart)
Considering Dawkins in this light is very provocative.
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.
Both animals are saying (through their actions, of course) that it is them who should be using that territory.
And they don’t even have to be animals. They can be brainless organisms, machines or any other thing that acts in a way that implies a goal and an idea about how to attain that goal.
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.
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…
…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.
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.
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.
