Jackson LaRose:Sorry if my sarcasm is bugging you
I'm not sure what ever gave you the impression I was "bugged" by you. You're the one who laid claim to being "very pissed off, and frustrated. Vexed even."
I'm also not the one who resorted to such childish rudeness (yet, ironically I was the one accused of it by the very person doing it.) Again, perhaps you should really be looking at, and questioning your own actions a bit more closely.
but I get a little defensive when I'm being acosted, especially for the same crap over and over again!
And as I was trying to explain to you before, perhaps you should explore the possiblity that there is a legitimate reason the same thing is brought up again and again, completely independently of one another, from completely unassociated parties...that perhaps that points to the possibility that there is some validity to the claim being made...that perhaps continuously resting on the notion of "jeez...what is wrong with everyone?" is probably not the most advantageous course of action.
If you folks aren't mad at me for flaming (at least initially), and you aren't mad at me for asking questions, then what are you mad at me for (or, why are you accusing me of trolling)? Is it because I don't have enough confidence in my opinions and aesthetic preferences to tout them as "facts", or "truth", or "a position"? What is it, besides "you're being a troll"?
The fact that you honestly can't imagine how anything about the way you've interacted in this forum (where multiple people have asserted you're doing the same thing, so much so that they wanted you banished) only reinforces my point that perhaps it would be wise for you to actually look into the conversations you've had and come at them more from a "is it possible I'm really a troll?" angle as opposed to barely even glancing over them from a "what is wrong with everybody?" angle.
And with the way you're keeping up with this, it's leading me to believe that you're either really dedicated to the role, or that you honestly do troll-ee things without even knowing it. And if it's the latter, again, that only reinforces my suggestion to look at the way you interact, but from a different perspective than the "knee-jerk reactionary" one of "why is everyone attacking me?" you're used to. (And also possibly refrain from knee-jerkingly claiming other people are knee-jerkingly reacting.)
Jackson LaRose: I was asking, essentially, "If one of my physical parts gets removed from a big lump of my physical parts responsible for consciousness, is it still one of "my" physical parts (i.e., do I still "own" it)" If it sounds absurd, it's probably because it is. But again, I don't see how that's my fault. I was handed the premise. Sorry if my sarcasm is bugging you, but I get a little defensive when I'm being acosted, especially for the same crap over and over again!
I was asking, essentially,
"If one of my physical parts gets removed from a big lump of my physical parts responsible for consciousness, is it still one of "my" physical parts (i.e., do I still "own" it)"
If it sounds absurd, it's probably because it is. But again, I don't see how that's my fault. I was handed the premise.
Sorry if my sarcasm is bugging you, but I get a little defensive when I'm being acosted, especially for the same crap over and over again!
No worries. Yeah, if your body part is removed, you still own it unless you sell it or give it away for free (donate). I think you deny simple voluntary interaction between people, that's why you disagree, that people can own things (yeah, body is a thing too). Or you ok with owership of external objects but disagree with ownership of body parts and as a whole? That would be inconsistent view.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
JJ,
Since we've been corresponding, I've a distinct impression I was typing to an arrogant, condescending prick. First line,
"Was that a conscious effort to avoid saying "your"?"
Starting with a spelling correction just screams "douche" to me, so forgive me if I've been a little on edge (Now that's flaming, padna). Then right in with the "troll" thing, a huge rigamarole I've already been through here, which is also complete bullshit, by the way.
Also, way to completely dodge my question,
"If you folks aren't mad at me for flaming (at least initially), and you aren't mad at me for asking questions, then what are you mad at me for (or, why are you accusing me of trolling)? Is it because I don't have enough confidence in my opinions and aesthetic preferences to tout them as "facts", or "truth", or "a position"? What is it, besides "you're being a troll"?"
No answer, just some personality coaching.. Thanks, but I typically don't take social lessons from guys who can't interact without making it extremely apparent that they are so far up their own ass they can smell their breath.
Kick me off, I don't give a shit. Go fuck yourself.
MaikU,
No, I beleive that such categorizations like "body" are illusory distinctions. What may define as a "body" can be deconstructed (through an exremely unpopular method like socratic questioning, for example) to essentially become meaningless. Also, I disagree with the concept of "ownership" vis a vis "possession". Call it a Stirnerite fetish.
Also, way to completely dodge my question
I think that was the point in this whole "you're a troll" line of reasoning in the first place.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Jackson LaRose: Since we've been corresponding, I've a distinct impression I was typing to an arrogant, condescending prick. First line, "Was that a conscious effort to avoid saying "your"?" Starting with a spelling correction just screams "douche" to me,
Starting with a spelling correction just screams "douche" to me,
I wasn't trying to correct your spelling. Perhaps you missed the part in the post directly before that one (i.e. the one you were responding to) where I pointed out:
"...this whole time everyone has been using all the "your's" that directly imply a claim over something. They imply an individual consciousness outside of everything else, and they recognize it as such. To claim that "your idea of 'ownership' is a delusion" is a self-contradiction...along the same lines as what Hoppe's argumentation concept points out."
In other words, I was making a relevant point about the act of people actually using the word "your". And in the very next post (the post in which you were responding to what I had just said), you leave off the "r" in a place where the word "your" would go.
Apparently, it was insulting of me being open to the possiblity that you could be that clever. Apologies.
so forgive me if I've been a little on edge
I'm sorry that even a (perceived) spelling correction effects you on such an emotional level. I'll take that into consideration in the future. (But if that's the case, it might be wise for you to reconsider how much time you spend the Internetz...I must warn you, things get much worse than that.)
(Now that's flaming, padna).
Nice to see you've finally looked those terms up.
Then right in with the "troll" thing
Read the page again. The troll assertion (which wasn't even more than a statement that I was beginning to consider that possiblity) didn't come until after your response to that post.
a huge rigamarole I've already been through here, which is also complete bullshit, by the way.
Nice to see you've taken my advice and actually engaged in some introspection, instead of just assuming it's everyone else who is being irrational.
Jackson LaRose:No answer, just some personality coaching..
Just trying to help.
Thanks, but I typically don't take social lessons from guys who can't interact without making it extremely apparent that they are so far up their own ass they can smell their breath.
I don't get how that works.
You stay classy.
Laotzu del Zinn:Also, way to completely dodge my question I think that was the point in this whole "you're a troll" line of reasoning in the first place.
Not at all. I had no problem responding the question discussion of the topic of the OP. I also had no problem responding to his response. In fact, I've addressed every single piece of every single post directed at me. They're all even broken down into specific quotes with specific responses to each. If there is some question on the topic of this thread you feel is left unanswered lao, by all means, ask it. The only thing I can figure is this exchange here:
Jackson LaRose:Where do you draw the line between "self" (ego) and "body"?
John James:I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn't.
LaRose:One what? Ego?
James:You asked about the difference between two things. My answer is, 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.
LaRose:Are you saying that the "body" actually exists, and the "mind" does not?
James:Did you miss the words "in the physical world"? I repeated them at least 3 times. And you wonder why people might think you're trolling?
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". You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I don't see how this is trolling.
The notion that a person could honestly not see how asking between "the body" and "the mind" which one exists in the physical world and which one does not could be construed as trolling, is just baffling.
How am I supposed to know what you mean by that, you won't answer! Also, way to answer how exactly I'm trolling.
"The notion that a person could honestly not see how asking between "the body" and "the mind" which one exists in the physical world and which one does not could be construed as trolling, is just baffling."
It's equally as baffling you expect me to be psychic.
Jackson LaRose:I was using "body" how MaikU defined it, "To me it's anything except the mind, which is in fact a manifestation of brain function. So yeah, every body physical parts."
"To me it's anything except the mind, which is in fact a manifestation of brain function. So yeah, every body physical parts."
Jackson LaRose:"The notion that a person could honestly not see how asking between "the body" and "the mind" which one exists in the physical world and which one does not could be construed as trolling, is just baffling." It's equally as baffling you expect me to be psychic.
Seriously?
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.
Then you're going to have to share this special definition of "mind" you have, because in the dictionaries I'm familiar with, "mind" describes a consciousness (brought about by brain function). And those same dictionaries define "consciousness" as an "awareness", or a "quality" or "state" of being aware. If you could demonstrate how a condition or state of being is a physically existing thing, I'd be much obliged.
So, you are saying that something that does not exist (Mind, ego, etc.) "owns" something that does (body, corpus, etc.)?
Jackson LaRose,
An interesting thought someone else gave me has lead me to believe a quick look at Christian ideology will explain the basic premise of self-ownership. Your body is a temple, but instead of God's temple it is some diembodied soul's, or your employers, or someone else you've contracted it with, all of which is predicated on the belief that some kind of metaphysical entity "owns" your embodied self, and not that they are one in the same or at least overlap so much it's hard to draw a line.
In the words of someone more clever than me, expect a religious response to questions of religious belief.
Jackson LaRose: JJ, So, you are saying that something that does not exist (Mind, ego, etc.) "owns" something that does (body, corpus, etc.)?
We're going through this again? I say "does not exist in the physical world" (i.e. does not physically exist, have a physical presence) and you say "does not exist".
This illustrates quite well where I'm at with this. The only difference is, in this case it's the repitition and vagueness that are weighing more heavily. (Although you've done your fair share of addressing the person, in the form of direct insults, of course).
Birthday Pony:@MaikU, mostly because (and you'll see this back at the thread over on the dark side) while we all agree that 'ownership' is subjective, most definitions of self-ownership require a pretty hard line to be drawn between body and mind that, most likely, just isn't there.
We're talking philosophy here, not science. "Ownership" is typically treated as a moral/ethical concept. (I certainly treat it as such.) If you're going to reject any division between body and mind, then you must logically reject any division between you and the rest of the universe. At that point, all distinctions breakdown and reasoning disappears.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Jackson LaRose:@ MaikU, I am not denying your premise. I'm trying to understand that position. No red herring intended, just curious how one who advocates this position is even talking about when they say things such as "body", or "ownership", or "mind". I think that this premise, albeit logically bulletproof, is built upon the wet sand of presuppositions and dubious distinctions. The transitory nature of the "body" is what is failing to be considered here. Or rather, I am failing to grasp how your stance considers this.
I am not denying your premise. I'm trying to understand that position. No red herring intended, just curious how one who advocates this position is even talking about when they say things such as "body", or "ownership", or "mind".
I think that this premise, albeit logically bulletproof, is built upon the wet sand of presuppositions and dubious distinctions. The transitory nature of the "body" is what is failing to be considered here. Or rather, I am failing to grasp how your stance considers this.
I know you intended this to MaikU, but I define "body" similarly to him (if not the same), so I hope you don't mind if I respond.
Did you see the link I included in my last post to you? It's the Wikipedia article on the dualistic philosophy of mind. I thought it would help.
Do you consider all distinctions to be dubious? If so, why bother communicating at all? Why bother thinking at all? Both of those things require making distinctions.
Laotzu del Zinn:I am more interested about how you would deny the premise that only you have legitimate control over your body. That's easy. You say "no you don't.' They're both just assertions with no real meaningful basis; that's why you have to throw in that arbitrary caveat of "legitimate" just like in the NAP you have to insert "legitimate force" rather than just force.
That's easy. You say "no you don't.' They're both just assertions with no real meaningful basis; that's why you have to throw in that arbitrary caveat of "legitimate" just like in the NAP you have to insert "legitimate force" rather than just force.
Please explain what you mean by "real meaningful basis".
Jackson LaRose:MaikU, No, I beleive that such categorizations like "body" are illusory distinctions. What may [be] define[d] as a "body" can be deconstructed (through an exremely unpopular method like socratic questioning, for example) to essentially become meaningless. Also, I disagree with the concept of "ownership" vis a vis "possession". Call it a Stirnerite fetish.
No, I beleive that such categorizations like "body" are illusory distinctions. What may [be] define[d] as a "body" can be deconstructed (through an exremely unpopular method like socratic questioning, for example) to essentially become meaningless. Also, I disagree with the concept of "ownership" vis a vis "possession". Call it a Stirnerite fetish.
What may be defined as anything can be deconstructed to essentially become meaningless. There is no ultimate meaning to be found anywhere. It's "turtles all the way down".
John James: z1235:"Don't take other people's stuff", is a "mass delusion" How the hell is a maxim a "delusion"?
z1235:"Don't take other people's stuff", is a "mass delusion"
How the hell is a maxim a "delusion"?
The maxim was referring to the evolved societal norm of respecting/recognizing property/ownership as a concept.
>>>>So, you are saying that something that does not exist (Mind, ego, etc.) >>>>
this claim should be supported. It is not everyday that someone claims that minds are nonexistent. Egos too!
How are you thinking if you do not have a mind?
Jackson LaRose: @z1235, I don't really understand your analogy. Are you simply taking a utilitarian stance on ownership? If I was confident of no negative reprocussion resulting from appropriation, would it then be reasonable to do so?
@z1235,
I don't really understand your analogy. Are you simply taking a utilitarian stance on ownership? If I was confident of no negative reprocussion resulting from appropriation, would it then be reasonable to do so?
My utilitarianism is of the Misesian sort. Ethics/norms exist "objectively" only as inter-subjectively accepted societal norms within societies that have sustained themselves long enough to perpetuate the same norms. Something like societies pulling themselves up from the societal graveyard by their own bootstraps (ethics/norms). The groups picking non-flourishing norms (like, say, "It's OK to kill whomever is weaker and eat them for dinner.") don't get to enjoy the benefits from division of labor, run themselves into the ground, and are not around to inter-subjectively compete in the market of norms. We are alive because of our ethics/norms, and these ethics/norms exist because we're alive.
In all cases, the concept of property and ownership are temporal constructs. Whatever can be said of property or ownership is not meaningful in the absolute, as we are temporal beings, in an equally temporal physical universe. This is without regard to what we as individuals might otherwise have been before, or might continue to be, in any other framework, as all of this is quite beyond our empirical grasp.
"Property is an intersubjective consensus."
On that vein I would go much deeper to the roots, in principle, and propose that Property is an "intra-subjective" consensus - a consensus of one - which requires no special intelligence, morals, ethics, or even second party acknowledgment, but rather only action by life (any life), to exist. If we wanted to go further, we could extend the concept of property and ownership to inanimates as well (e.g., the Earth is the property of the sun, which is the property of the milky way galaxy), and while that might have conceptual meaning, it would not be useful, because what all these question attempt to approach are the normative assertions surrounding property.
The concept of property, in terms of pro-active dominion of both space and physical mass, stems from, and extends to, all life. And here I am not yet referring to normative concepts of “property rights”, which is an entirely separate construct, since a priori, “what ought to be” can only be founded upon “what is”.
So, for example, it may be stated that a hole in the ground is the 'property' of the occupying mouse. However, both the hole and the mouse can become the property of a snake that later occupies that hole and kills and swallows the mouse. If we define property simply as a function of actual occupation and control, or "possession is 10/10ths of the natural law", the assertion itself is indeed empirically both testable and meaningful (within the confines of a definition, even if the concept of a definition is not).
The reason the concept is intra-subjective is that it requires no external threat to exist. The mouse can be said to be in possession and control of its body and the hole in which it dwells irrespective of what might come after, including death, which would terminate this relationship.
Steven Douglas:The concept of property, in terms of pro-active dominion of both space and physical mass, stems from, and extends to, all life. And here I am not yet referring to normative concepts of “property rights”, which is an entirely separate construct, since a priori, “what ought to be” can only be founded upon “what is”.
Have you looked into the is-ought problem before? I fail to see how possessing something has any bearing on whether that possession is to be considered legitimate (i.e. not to be interfered with).
"If you're going to reject any division between body and mind, then you must logically reject any division between you and the rest of the universe. At that point, all distinctions breakdown and reasoning disappears."
Must I? I'm not sure how that follows. You'll have to spell it out for me.
The is-ought problem is another way of saying "normative". Morals, ethics, or the so-called "legitimacy" of property and ownership exists as an entirely separate construct, which I did not even address (yet). My only point had to do with what constitutes property and ownership in a way that is fundamental and universal.
Now let's get a little bit into that part - the age-old power vs. authority vs. moral and ethical legitimacy debate.
The snake, just like the mouse, has no concept of morals, ethics or legitimacy of any kind, and yet property and ownership relationships most definitely exist. "Me hungry. Nice Hole. You food. Me eat. MINE." All without an iota of consideration for fairness, deserving, legitimacy, contracts, honor, ethics, morals, or anything else. Humans do consider such things, albeit inconsistently, almost never universally, and usually only with other humans, and not to animals or other life forms (some strange exceptions notwithstanding).
Concepts like ethics, morals and legitimacy can be every bit as real ("what is") as property and ownership - but only because we said so, and then acted upon it to make it so. Even then, "real" is not to be confused with "right". Whether we call something an "inalienable" or "God-given" right, or attempt to argue that there exists some kind of "intrinsic" or innate morality or legitimacy on anyone's part can only be asserted as a circular argument. This is irrespective of how many agree or disagree, respect or disrespect the boundaries asserted, invisible or visible, that stemmed from a commonly held or accepted paradigm.
Even so, I have no problem addressing moral or ethical problems, or even taking a stance. But I do not ever try to delude myself into thinking that I am dealing with anything but a human construct. In addition, these are things that I approach in the same way as definitions; that is, to look only at whether the construct is self-consistent, with equal application, and not self-contradictory in any way (i.e., has no preference of persons, and makes no attempt to be a special application of a rule or a law). However, even there I recognize that this my own rule, my own stance, and my artificial construct, like all others, regardless how much it is shared by others, or cleverly, passionately or persuasively argued or applied.
Legitimate is arbitrary. The snake (to steal Steven's analogy) feels himself the legitimate controller of the mouse and hole.
And on body/mind duality. How is that not a false dichotomy? Is my mind part of my body.... hell is my body even part of my body?! What does that even mean. This would explain why no mind, as of yet, has existed without a brain.
I'll second that sentiment.
And this is a very appropriate reponse to what has been going on. There is nothing wrong with this answer in context with what is going on. in the thread right now. A Misean should not be discouraged by such answers by the way.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
False, as long as inter-subjective dialoge is happening it is impossible to escape meaning - skepticism refutations are old hat.
Pardon? I think there are an awful lot of leaps here.
A) Philosophy very well could be considered a science (and universally was treated as such until British empiricist natural science hobbyists took over academic language)
B) Morality = non science = moral/ethical = discernable universal relevant concept =unable to distinguish between mind/body = logical conclusions? Did I read that right?
Birthday Pony,
I can understand the Christian perspective, due to the theological presupposition of a "soul", i.e., a consciousness independent of the physical world, which controls some portion of matter for some portion of time. Since the mind/body duality is already considered a fact, it follows that one would consider the soul "owning" the body.
James,
Great post. Just to be clear, your position is that the concept of "self-ownership", while a myth, is of vital necessity to the progress of society. Is that close? Would it suffice to instead just claim "I am"? Would that be enough?
I wasn't aware that you presuppose that things can exist outside the physical world. Are you claiming the existence of some supra-physical realm in which the "mind" exists?
Autolykos,
Very interesting post. I also treat the concept of "ownership" as an ethical/moral issue. How do you reach the conclusion that the mind body duality is necessary for reasoning?
Ah yes, why bother doing anything? I'm not really sure. I don't think there's really any reason. Welcome to the depressing world of Absurdism! I also agree that contemplation, as we are currently practicing it, does require an ego which classifies phenomena in an attempt to recognize patterns, and "make sense" of our experience. That being said, I believe that it isn't the only way to practice consciousness:
The five aggregates
Ego death
z1235,
OK, I think I'm with you now. It's more a "battle of the memes". This society's memes were what allowed poulations possessed by those memes to outcompete others. I would argue that we have reached these norms over a very long period of time, during which the memes themselves have mutated drastically. How does your position account for this? Since we are saying that our zeitgeist is clearly the most competitive, does that assume that the Austrian ideology is unfit, since it is so relatively unsuccessful in capturing hearts and minds?
Steven Douglas,
I would disagree that the concept of "property" is meaningful without a normative underpinning. Rental is a good example of why. I do agree that "property" removed from these normative assertions, would entirely equate to "possession", rendering "property" itself meaningless as a concept. This is probably just a difference in semantics, rather than a difference in opinion. I've fallen into that mire before!
That second post was great!
"Concepts like ethics, morals and legitimacy can be every bit as real ("what is") as property and ownership - but only because we said so, and then acted upon it to make it so."
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1.1
Birthday Pony:"If you're going to reject any division between body and mind, then you must logically reject any division between you and the rest of the universe. At that point, all distinctions breakdown and reasoning disappears." Must I? I'm not sure how that follows. You'll have to spell it out for me.
Actually I was kind-of taking a shortcut. Sorry about that. What I meant was that, since you reject any division between body and mind on the basis that it has no ultimate discernible basis - as you put it, "a distinction that just isn't there" - then you must logically reject any division between anything beyond the fundamental particles of the universe on those same grounds, since only those have an ultimately discernible basis for distinction. So there is no "I", there is no "you", there is no "this" vs. "that", etc.
Laotzu del Zinn:Legitimate is arbitrary. The snake (to steal Steven's analogy) feels himself the legitimate controller of the mouse and hole.
Do you honestly think I don't understand that legitimacy is arbitrary? All concepts are arbitrary. That includes concepts like "snake", "mouse", and "hole". So if you're going to reject the concept of "legitimacy" altogether because it's arbitrary, you must then logically reject all concepts. Good luck with that.
Laotzu del Zinn:And on body/mind duality. How is that not a false dichotomy? Is my mind part of my body.... hell is my body even part of my body?! What does that even mean. This would explain why no mind, as of yet, has existed without a brain.
Many Buddhists also see the distinction between "self" and "other" to be a false dichotomy. After all, some of the atoms/molecules (oops, these turn out to be concepts too!) that are currently in me might later be in you, and vice-versa. From a certain point of view, they're right. I suppose then you should reject the concept of "self" since it's ultimately arbitrary.
vive la insurrection:What may be defined as anything can be deconstructed to essentially become meaningless. There is no ultimate meaning to be found anywhere. It's "turtles all the way down". False, as long as inter-subjective dialoge is happening it is impossible to escape meaning - skepticism refutations are old hat.
On the one hand, thanks for pointing out the performative contradiction. You jumped the gun on it, though. I was going to explain it myself, in due time.
On the other hand, I think you misunderstood my statement about ultimate meaning. I said that it can't be found anywhere. "Found" is the operative word. I even italicized it in the hopes that that would make its emphasis obvious. Apparently not - for some.
Now then, my point was that meaning isn't a thing to be discovered or discerned. The phrase "turtles all the way down" is meant to express the notion that there's no ultimate external foundation to stand upon.
vive la insurrection:We're talking philosophy here, not science. "Ownership" is typically treated as a moral/ethical concept. (I certainly treat it as such.) If you're going to reject any division between body and mind, then you must logically reject any division between you and the rest of the universe. At that point, all distinctions breakdown and reasoning disappears. Pardon? I think there are an awful lot of leaps here. A) Philosophy very well could be considered a science (and universally was treated as such until British empiricist natural science hobbyists took over academic language)
Feel free to do so, but then we'll be talking past one another. I don't care what you think about "British empiricist natural science hobbyists" - it means nothing to me.
vive la insurrection:B) Morality = non science = moral/ethical = discernable universal relevant concept =unable to distinguish between mind/body = logical conclusions? Did I read that right?
Nope.
Jackson LaRose:Autolykos, Very interesting post. I also treat the concept of "ownership" as an ethical/moral issue. How do you reach the conclusion that the mind body duality is necessary for reasoning? Ah yes, why bother doing anything? I'm not really sure. I don't think there's really any reason. Welcome to the depressing world of Absurdism! I also agree that contemplation, as we are currently practicing it, does require an ego which classifies phenomena in an attempt to recognize patterns, and "make sense" of our experience. That being said, I believe that it isn't the only way to practice consciousness: The five aggregates Ego death
I don't reach the conclusion that the mind-body duality per se is necessary for reasoning. It's the principle appealed to in rejecting the mind-body duality that's at issue. This principle seems to be the notion of a real or true distinction, i.e. a distinction that's written into the laws of the universe. However, nothing but the fundamental particles (or "building blocks") of the universe could be said to have such distinctions, and those only from one another. It also entails a rejection of logical distinction, which is at least on the premise level is completely arbitrary. If I presume two symbols, be they 0 and 1, A and B, or True and False, you're in no way obligated to accept my presumption.
Regarding what you claim as "alternative ways to practice consciousness", I can't help but note that consciousness is still required there. As long as a person is conscious, he'll have an "ego". Essentially I equate the two notions. Now the consciousness/ego might change its behavior, as in the "ego death" article you cite, but that doesn't make it go away. In fact, one could interpret "ego death" as the ego feeling as though it's expanded to become the entire universe, in which case maybe the term "ego ascendance" or "ego supremacy" might be more appropriate.
Ah, OK, I'm with you now. What you are driving at is pretty similar to Buddhist thinking regarding the Five aggregates. The ultimate begining of suffering (that is, distinction, classification, etc.) is the Ego, or concept of "self".
Even fundamental particles could be indistiguishable. Doesn't String Theory posit they are all just energy at differing frequencies?
Jackson LaRose:Ah, OK, I'm with you now. What you are driving at is pretty similar to Buddhist thinking regarding the Five aggregates. The ultimate begining of suffering (that is, distinction, classification, etc.) is the Ego, or concept of "self".
Basically. Our minds not only match patterns - they also discriminate patterns. And the patterns they match/discriminate are context-dependent.
Jackson LaRose:Even fundamental particles could be indistiguishable. Doesn't String Theory posit they are all just energy at differing frequencies?
Even if they have identical properties (such as "spin"), they could still be distinguishable in terms of space-time position. My understanding of String Theory is that it posits "cosmic strings" as the fundamental particles. If they're all just energy at differing frequencies, then obviously the frequencies themselves are distinct.
Where did I say reject it because it is arbitrary? Do you make these straw men for a living, or is it just a hobby?
I said, because it is arbitrary, it is just a statement. It's just as valid as any other statement, especially considering it is of a social philosophy, not any kind of science.
Ya, I do reject (not outright, there is a "me" that thinks and acts) the concept of self.
Jackson LaRose: JJ, I wasn't aware that you presuppose that things can exist outside the physical world. Are you claiming the existence of some supra-physical realm in which the "mind" exists?
Perhaps this will make it easier for you. Does hunger exist?
Laotzu del Zinn:Where did I say reject it because it is arbitrary? Do you make these straw men for a living, or is it just a hobby?
Excuse me for not being a mind-reader. I inferred that you were arguing against the concept of legitimacy because it's arbitrary. You should know that I have no problem standing corrected if it turns out that an inference of mine was mistaken.
Laotzu del Zinn:I said, because it is arbitrary, it is just a statement. It's just as valid as any other statement, especially considering it is of a social philosophy, not any kind of science.
What do you mean by "valid"? It seems like you mean "capable of being asserted", which is hardly the same meaning as the one I ascribe to it.
Laotzu del Zinn:Ya, I do reject (not outright, there is a "me" that thinks and acts) the concept of self.
No you don't.
John James:Does hunger exist?
In what sense?