Urgent!

[1a2bcio8]

No, well not me anyway but then very little makes me angry with the exception on Enter Shikari, waiting for people and Most Haunted!

Now I have had a chance to digest and understand what you are saying I can fully understand it. I think you have admited that you too folow cultural influence in your decision making, and if someone were to steal something from you I dont believe you'd say "Oi before you take that even though it isnt technically mine please consider how that will make me feel" I reckon you'd just say "Oi that's mine, give it back"!

But either way, culture and society are necessary and shouldn't be considered some form of brainwash. Not only are culture and society and their influence necessary for social harmony but they're also unavoidable. We are all products of our upbringing, the specifics of which are dictated by where we are brough up but there are a very basic set of accepted rules across the human race and indeed the entire animal kingdom, ownership and law being two of them.

No matter where you go these two things exist and the simple reason for this is that despite what you say about these things being a product of culture or society they are not, they are as natural as birth and death. Even if someone grows up completely outside of "society", as an orphan in a remote jungle in some far off land for example, the natural desire for lifes neccesities such as food and shelter will install the concept of ownership, the instinct to protect that which we have gained through our own hard work. Also every species of animal has some form of heirarchy or sense of order of things, a way in which things are done to ensure that everything is fair, this forms the basis of law.

Short of living entirely alone as a singular creature with no other lifeforms around you and with plentiful supplies of everything you need, it's very naive to think that you can suppress the influence of society and culture and quite un-natural to fly in the face of it, which is in essence what these people are doing by not following the human race's heirarchy of law and order and our concept of ownership through hard work (which is what money equates too).

I think that'll do for now!

Davey

I really like your arguement. I think you make some good points, although I still disagree

Regarding if someone were to take the bike I use (note the careful use of language ) then yes I would definitely try and stop them. I don't think this amounts to ownership though. What it amounts to is my desire to have the bike close to me; i never really 'own' it. I think describing things in regards to their locational relationship represents situations more 'objectively'. If we all understood, more accurately, what our situations were composed of, we might act towards them differently. I think then we would have a better chance of individual happiness but perhaps there's also a chance of carelessness towards others. I think it's a risk worth taking.

Anyway, what happens to this description I have made of the locational relationship between things is that society places ideas on top of them (although they never leave our heads). In this sense we do seemingly have ownership, but really it's only ever pseudo ownership regarding 'objectivity'. We can say this is a signing up (consciously or not) to a social contract; guiding ideas relative to environmental cues. It's a mass following of ideas that makes those ideas seem extra real, almost as if they exist seperately to us because they permeate everyone's mind. You usually don't question or realise that which is there all the time. How often do you think about breathing? When people are unaware of what these ideas really amount to, they are more likely to be controlled by them and not have them as a choice as they ultimately are. The laws and ideas of society can make the individual unhappy if they contradict his or her individuality as seperate from socially developed thought. Basically society can decide the limits and types of thought that occur in an individual. Imagine that perhaps the majority extent of you feeling so bad about that relationship that didn't work out or the death of someone you loved is possibly, to a large degree based on the fact society has implicitly or explicitly told you to react that way. Or maybe the entirity of the way you approach your relationship with people, is based upon societies programming. People don't like these ideas; who's gonna get angry next?

So imagine that we are all repeating a behaviour relative to some cue in our environment. Like the dog that puts up his paw to get that doggy biscuit. We are all playing GAME RULES! Each society with it's own game of chess that has different rules that we play by. I see it as robotry. This is what I'm trying to highlight and it's something which I think we all suffer from. Situation-A leads to Behaviour-B. Situation-C leads to Behaviour-E. Imagine if your life consists of acting to each situation relative to the social norms. I guess it's not so bad in at least the sense that most of us aren't aware that we're doing it. The choice seems free even though perhaps it's not. But do those choices make us happy?

I know I have repeated myself, but I'm hoping I've put it in easier to understood terms. I'm really trying to emphasise my point because I think some people are missing it.

Back to your post though and I'm at no point denying society as a whole, just perhaps certain aspects of it (subjectively). I don't agree that just because it's what has gone before is a reason to not consider a change from it now. That's conservatism and if we did that we wouldn't progress. It is the thought that escapes from the traditional line that potentially improves our 'objective' understanding of things or even our happiness. Science wouldn't work if our thoughts didn't leave the norm. The paradigm shift of relativity required a whole new set of rules and thinking, as did quantum theory. No condition of society is ever 'right' or 'wrong'. It is whatever it is. We have the choice to direct it how we choose.

My opinion is that society doesn't need the amount of laws that it does have but perhaps it does? Perhaps this condition leaves most people happy. It doesn't do it for me. There have been cases of societies based on forms of anarchism (somtimes governless or de-centralised governmental 'states') that have operated with very little or no law. In spain at some point in the 20th century anarchism was the political discourse. It seemed to work very effectively and it is said that the production of buisness and other activity improved under the conditions. There are other cases of anarchism or similar political condition whereby it has worked and the people are claimed to have been very happpy under it. Funnily enough, it's usually collapsed because of external interference from other countries that are governed by a minority.

"If nobody wants war, why does it keep happening?" - perhaps because we're all asleep under the concepts that support a minorities decision, that would otherwise go against our wishes?

You talk of making things 'fair' but remember that this is again a constructed idea. 'fair' and 'justice' mean a different thing from society to society. It's somewhat of an imposition onto the environment. The 'law'makers have decided that this situation is fair and you must adopt it. We often do, just at a young age, through the use of emotional conditioning or at a time where we lack the critical abilities to aruge against it. This doesn't mean you can't choose you idea of fair and all agree to it. That's upto you as far as I'm concerned. Again, I'm just making an observation not telling anyone what to do.

Almost everyone in my environment seems to want to get on with their own thing. They don't really want to hurt anyone or cause harm as far as I can tell. Do they need laws to tell them what to do regarding our worries of being 'screwed' over? Perhaps I'm overly optimistic here. I think that we're likely to always have people who threaten our physical security but I'm not sure that laws even stop those individuals. What do you think of the people around you, if perhaps you forget the sensationalism of the news media.

I'll repeat one last time, I'm not going completely against society, just observing and questioning a part of it relative to what I 'think' I understand. I accept I may be totally confused here . I like society, I just believe in a balance between society and the individual. The ability to think beside it. I think, ultimately, we would all be happier in this sense. Although I also accept I may be wrong. Model agnosticism (agnosticism of knowledge rather than just religion) is the principle that conditions/mediates my thoughts.

Additionally, I think everyone should choose what they want. It's all upto you

My reply feels sketchy; I hope I have answered, to some degree, your arguement Davey. Apologies for any incoherence and if I have hijacked this thread. I just really enjoy this sort of discussion.

[1a2bcio8]

Well it's complex as you can tell by the length of the posts, but to summarise what I can understand of it he is saying that these people have every right to be here as this land is not owned, in reality, by anyone. The reasoning behind this is that laws and ownership are concepts which are imposed upon us by society and culture, not naturaly choice or independant thought. But really there is no such thing as independant though, as everything we know is taught to us, there is no such thing as independant though with the exception of the nautral thoughts of, say, a child. But even a child will naturally develop a sense of ownership and law so his point really doesn't hold much water.... with me anyway!

Davey

Yep, you've mostly got it as far as I can tell. What I think that you are missing though is that we don't HAVE to develop a sense of ownership. We can be aware of the nature of things before our intellect makes additions to and potentially distorts our view of the world. If I have kids I will choose to make them aware that the law is something you can choose to follow or not. The 'law' might not be 'good' for YOU. Drug laws don't make sense to me. I break them every week. I risk imprisonment. I used to feel guilty to the point where it made me depressed, especially the day after using a chemical. My 'apparant' knowledge that i'm expressing here helps me better understand what laws are and removes that guilt. Guilt is another conditioned response. I'm really not up for guilt about anything. Easier said then done.

As a summary of everything I have said, the point is you may not be making the choices of thought, feeling or sensation that you think you are. You may just be repeating somebody or something else. An actor of societies movie script. I'm just saying think about becoming the actor of your own movie script. Might make you happier.

Cool theory - that means I can take anything and use it without someones permission?

I'm so glad you don't run our country Rowly!

Heh, furry muff.

It doesn't mean that though. You can still 'respect' somebody elses desire to have an item as 'theirs'. It's just about understanding that they don't really own it. I think that but I don't take things from people on that basis. I can see how the misunderstanding of what I'm trying to communicate can lead to that though.

Edited March 27, 2007 by rowly

[Luke Williams!]

Yep, you've mostly got it as far as I can tell. What I think that you are missing though is that we don't HAVE to develop a sense of ownership. We can be aware of the nature of things before our intellect makes additions to and potentially distorts our view of the world. If I have kids I will choose to make them aware that the law is something you can choose to follow or not. The 'law' might not be 'good' for YOU. Drug laws don't make sense to me. I break them every week. I risk imprisonment. I used to feel guilty to the point where it made me depressed, especially the day after using a chemical. My 'apparant' knowledge that i'm expressing here helps me better understand what laws are and removes that guilt. Guilt is another conditioned response. I'm really not up for guilt about anything. Easier said then done.

As a summary of everything I have said, the point is you may not be making the choices of thought, feeling or sensation that you think you are. You may just be repeating somebody or something else. An actor of societies movie script. I'm just saying think about becoming the actor of your own movie script. Might make you happier.

Heh, furry muff.

It doesn't mean that though. You can still 'respect' somebody elses desire to have an item as 'theirs'. It's just about understanding that they don't really own it. I think that but I don't take things from people on that basis. I can see how the misunderstanding of what I'm trying to communicate can lead to that though.

dude i dunno what the retarded pic was but you do talk some shit!

[Barbra]

dude i dunno what the retarded pic was but you do talk some shit!

I suggest you read his posts alot closer then my friend. He doesn't talk shit at all, far from it. He's merely expressing his opinion on a public forum, which is what its here for

Though i suppose its all down to how we interpret what he's saying to be honest, i find Rowly's posts to be pretty insightful and eye opening. But thats probably because i understand it better than you. (I'm not trying to say i'm better than you or anything like that)

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

I find Rowly's posts long and drug fueled.

Not that they arent interesting sometimes

[RicH_87]

he's just a hippy,

and you can't argue with them because their ideals are impossible to achieve.

[Luke Williams!]

dude i understand exactly what he is saying but its not for me! an these guys above me created the perfect picture of his views a hippy,

[MadManMike]