Basic Human Rights

[Lacewing]

Do you, Henry, think that humans accurately know all the makings of this world?

No. But we know some of it. Reason and intuition are great tools: they've taken us, as a species and as individuals, far. Seems to me: the road ahead is wide open, with no end in sight.

Hope so.

It seems to me: Very young children don't have it when they're born.

From elsewhere...

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances?

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

the toddler indeed, as he goes about discoverin' what his limits are, where the world begins and he ends, instinctually knows he is his own...it's the very basis for his fearless exploration...to him everything, all of it, is his...it's through exploration and experience that he comes to understand the world is not his

I don't agree with the bolded parts. I think those are adult projections. Hmm... well, maybe we're talking about different ages/stages -- before and after the ego starts to grow.

what he never arrives at -- except when taught otherwise -- is the conclusion that he is not his own (and even in the teaching -- indoctrination, really -- the road is long and hard for the teacher...as I say, you have to wear a man, or boy, down to a nub, make him crazy through abuse and deprivation to get him to willingly accept the yoke, to accept he is not his own)

I can see the logic and truth of what you're saying here. This does not, however, indicate that anyone needs to think in terms of ownership (as the ego does). You and I see it differently.

Sure, to attempt to maintain a certain amount of control for a political party... but I don't think it's masterminded to create slaves.

And yet governance, of any strain, always results in the leash.

I can agree with that. The initial motives aren't always cut and dried.

Do you think you can't be both, a product and an agent?

No. It's simply impossible for a person to be a product.

It's just a way of acknowledging the influences that continually make/build who we are. You and I see this differently too.

[Lacewing]

Don't YOU ask questions that aim to see if someone can see your perspective, even if they don't seem inclined to?

All the time. But when I do, I try not to load the question with a problematic premise.

[Lacewing]

Seems reasonable to suggest that identity is an illusion.

It's madness to suggest identity is an illusion. Such thinkin' leads to absurdities like Bruce Jenner refashionin' himself into a woman. He's not a woman, he's a disturbed man who self-mutilated in service to a delusion. Identity is who you are. It's not a garment to be cast off, or a mask to be switched out.

Can you see that it was actually his obsession with identity that caused the entire scenario?

Why not just BE, here and now... without all the ideas attached to it?

[Lacewing]

Do you think you're separate and unaffected by such things?

I like the expression in the world, but not of the world: as a causal agent (a free will) I'm subjected to all manner of influences, large & small, subtle & gross, but these are -- bottomline -- only influences...none determine me.

Okay

[Lacewing]

if you weren't hell-bent on insisting that we all belong to ourselves, you might relax enough to see some other possibilities and viewpoints.

Not much point in explorin' possibilities and viewpoints that fly in the face of what is as obvious and real as the big crooked nose hangin' off my lop-sided face.

If fire, as I say, by definition, is hot, then it seems kinda dumb to go off in search of cold fire, yeah?

Yeh, but that's a nonsense example of what we were talking about.

Dumb, a waste of time, more than a little loopy.

That's how a lot of posts and claims on this forum seem to me too.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't YOU ask questions that aim to see if someone can see your perspective, even if they don't seem inclined to?

All the time. But when I do, I try not to load the question with a problematic premise.

Well, here's your loaded question: "Are you able to look around at all we are part of, and consider how that immense system naturally operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else?" (direct quotation)

Here's a non-loaded way to ask the same question: "Do you think that we are [just] part of an immense system naturally operates independent of [gods and men]?"

I'm not sure how to interpret that last part -- you seem to have asked the question in such a loaded way, with so many subordinations and adjectives, that you lost track of your own thought, perhaps. But you may have only meant something like "...independent of God." There's no way for me to know, so you'll have to say.

[henry quirk]

I can see the logic and truth of what you're saying here. This does not, however, indicate that anyone needs to think in terms of ownership (as the ego does). You and I see it differently.

That's the thing: in the course of his day-to-day, a free man doesn't dwell on what's evident, he doesn't spend time thinkin' about what is or what is true or real.

I don't.

But when a free man is confronted by those who'd take his freedom, he puts words to the intuition so that he can communicate his objections and voice his opposition.

In the same way, the back & forth on a philosophy forum, particularly one rife with socialist thinkin', necessitates talkin' about ownness, to communicate objections, to voice opposition.

[Lacewing]

All the time. But when I do, I try not to load the question with a problematic premise.

Well, here's your loaded question: "Are you able to look around at all we are part of, and consider how that immense system naturally operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else?" (direct quotation)

Here's a non-loaded way to ask the same question: "Do you think that we are [just] part of an immense system naturally operates independent of [gods and men]?"

I'm not sure how to interpret that last part -- you seem to have asked the question in such a loaded way, with so many subordinations and adjectives, that you lost track of your own thought, perhaps. But you may have only meant something like "...independent of God." There's no way for me to know, so you'll have to say.

I don't see how your re-write clarifies anything. No, my original question did not lose track of my thought. I'm asking about the immense system of nature that man is part of, independent of his stories about gods and his own supremacy. Why don't you just try to answer the question the best you can, without distorting or re-writing it in the process? Or don't answer it at all if you can't avoid convoluting everything to serve yourself.

[henry quirk]

that's a nonsense example of what we were talking about.

I believe it's right in target. Fire is always hot (if it's cold, it ain't fire); a person always belongs to himself (if he doesn't, then, indeed, he is a thing).

[Lacewing]

I can see the logic and truth of what you're saying here. This does not, however, indicate that anyone needs to think in terms of ownership (as the ego does). You and I see it differently.

That's the thing: in the course of his day-to-day, a free man doesn't dwell on what's evident, he doesn't spend time thinkin' about what is or what is true or real.

I don't.

But when a free man is confronted by those who'd take his freedom, he puts words to the intuition so that he can communicate his objections and voice his opposition.

In the same way, the back & forth on a philosophy forum, particularly one rife with socialist thinkin', necessitates talkin' about ownness, to communicate objections, to voice opposition.

That's a good description. There are ways other than black and white of thinking about it, as well. If that's your color palette, no other colors are visible.

[henry quirk]

Can you see that it was actually his obsession with identity that caused the entire scenario?

Exactly. He was hoodwinked, or self-hoodwinked, into insanity.

Me, as I say, in my day-to-day, I spend almost no time thinkin' on what is obvious, like, for example, my bein' a man.


Why not just BE, here and now... without all the ideas attached to it?

No one does that unless stoned or a houseplant.

[Lacewing]

that's a nonsense example of what we were talking about.

I believe it's right in target. Fire is always hot (if it's cold, it ain't fire); a person always belongs to himself (if he doesn't, then, indeed, he is a thing).

Okay, Henry.

This discussion has been fun. I've gotta go do other things now. Bye.

[henry quirk]

I can see the logic and truth of what you're saying here. This does not, however, indicate that anyone needs to think in terms of ownership (as the ego does). You and I see it differently.

That's the thing: in the course of his day-to-day, a free man doesn't dwell on what's evident, he doesn't spend time thinkin' about what is or what is true or real.

I don't.

But when a free man is confronted by those who'd take his freedom, he puts words to the intuition so that he can communicate his objections and voice his opposition.

In the same way, the back & forth on a philosophy forum, particularly one rife with socialist thinkin', necessitates talkin' about ownness, to communicate objections, to voice opposition.

That's a good description. There are ways other than black and white of thinking about it, as well. If that's your color palette, no other colors are visible.

My palette is fine...ROY G BIV serves me well.

[Lacewing]

Why not just BE, here and now... without all the ideas attached to it?

No one does that unless stoned or a houseplant.

Glad I saw that one before turning off my computer.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see how your re-write clarifies anything.

It takes out the loaded stuff...because that stuff was a load.

Why don't you just try to answer the question the best you can,

Because the question was nonsense, as written. It didn't even really make sense, let alone permit an equitable answer.