The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

This seems a bit extreme

Oh your humour is never lost on me,it is just sometimes rather childish,and not in a funny way.
 
Kulindahr said:
You're confusing the existence of a thing with awareness of its existence. If there's a gas leak in my house, it's real whether I'm aware of it or not. Self-ownership is a fact, true of every person, whether they know it or not. It isn't bestowed, and it can't be taken away.

Making people aware of their self-ownership is another matter. Those who buy the lie that they don't own themselves will never reach for anything better. The complexity lies not in self-ownership, which is a very simple thing; any complexity comes in making people aware of it and understand it.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the germ of a thing with its development. It's exactly the same thing as with "intelligence" or "talent". You are taking, like most people everywhere, a fundational, essentialist position, a static and partial point of view that is totally incapable of dealing with concepts and "facts", as you like to refer to, which have only sense and are to be dealt with as a continuum in development.
It is a mental frame that it is much more important in marking the difference in establishing strategies and dealing with political and economical situations. It is what has pushed and driven Western science and economy, and politics to a lesser extent, and you are right in pointing out that there is a difference between something and the awareness of that something, but here we are dealing with something beyond that, and it is not merely a nominalism vs. realism question, it is about dealing with all that "in motion", as a process, and that condition , that third element changes the perception of everything, be it particle science , economical flow or political course... and ignoring it may lead to blunder and disaster.

About your example of the gas leak, yes, as I have just said, things exist independently of our awareness, but you are making there the mistake that it is still usually done by all thinkers, to wit, considering everything perceivable and conceivable as somethig perfectly definite outside our own perception, and the second error and more important because leads further away, considering that anyone pointing to the importance of the flow of which perception is part leads to solipsistic theories and the like, and that what I would be stating is that our perception "makes the thing", with which I totally disagree as much as you may do: notice that I said "the flow of which perception is part", as a third including both perception and that object independent of our perception, and it is it what makes everything, to wit, the awareness of the object, the perception and, obviously, that which makes us aware of it all, that flow, call it Tao if you want lol.
As for the complexity of dealing with the simplicity of "self-ownership" as something to be aware of by the unenlightened masses :rolleyes: you are putting it in a pretty simplistic way yourself, for all your calling it complex, which in fact is not something objectively and accurately referring to it, but to your own feeling of unease and impotence, that is, when you say "That is complex", you are actually saying, "I am baffled'.
It is the whole of reality that is complex and, as you can derive from all above, it is not always so much the complexity of something as our way of dealing with it... it is like being in a labyrinth and saying "oh, the goal is pretty simple, it's right up there, I can see it very well", but perception, awareness, science, art, decision-making... anything involving mind is not, ULTIMATELY about the goal, which is the assumption of the harder sciences, NOR about the road, which is that of the softer or flabbier ones of the humanities, but that way of putting together of that goal and that road, a way that is, as you seem to imply, mistaken for merely a general awareness of it when, before that, it must be an ACCURATE perception or awareness in all its complexity, which will also be a thing in itself, independetly of ourselves (yes, I am pointing to a sort of answer to the question of universals), and it is after that that, along the same continuum, it is perceived as that simple thing that you were referring to: it's like when you say that you feel something what can not express it, or that you can not define either what this or that object is.
So the discussion about that "self-ownership" has led us to discuss about just how we think and about the limitations in our dealing consciously with everything as imposed by our assumptions and ways of understanding our own process of understanding.
 
Kulindahr said:
^
Typical heap of verbiage to obfuscate and pretend you're superior.
Click to expand...

Typical attitude of those who are convinced that they always know better no matter what, and get stressed whenever the whole thread of argumentation that they are missing in a discussion falls upon them like a heap of verbiage, like Mozart upon an ass' ears.
And the real ass, it's me for taking such people seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top