The Couch

How would guaranteed privacy affect your actions?

Comments on How would guaranteed privacy affect your actions?

Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
Posted 04/13/09 - 12:40 PM:
Subject: How would guaranteed privacy affect your actions?
What would you do if you were assured that no one could find out--with the exception explained in the second rule? The privacy safeguard is an arbitrary, magical decree. This is a fantasy...

Rule: For the game, select only actions that do no harm.

Rule: For the game, the action may involve others, or not. If it involves others, those others, of course, probably find out--but nobody else does. (Hm. I see that that might get sticky. Never mind...)

This question interests me because a response to it would tend to reveal the extent to which one is controlled by others, even when those others are not there. Many of them are, in turn, controlled by still others-- and by groupthink. By groupthink (an Orwellish term), I mean ideas and emotional responses that are adopted unexamined out of the social nexus and reflexively re-enacted... Zum
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 04/13/09 - 3:50 PM:

hi zum,

interesting topic! a challenge to explore taboos. i'm having a hard time thinking of anything i would actually want to do that i can't already do in the privacy of my own home. any suggestions for what kind of out-of-the-ordinary things might fit the criteria?

smiling facelib
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
Posted 04/13/09 - 4:07 PM:

Hi, Lib,

Well, I think I would do lots of goofy things. I would do spirit dances in the park and offer them for friends, climb trees (figure out how), yeah, walk in creeks with my shoes on. I'd meditate on street corners. I'll bet that is done in some countries. Sleep on the beach. Do things not done.
Claim more space. I'm noticing that there are really enormous restrictions on what can be said (therefore thought), worn (therefore expressed)in social contexts. Seems as though these restrictions--maybe as stringent as those of Victorian England, though of a different character--since they cramp expression, cramp what can be imagined and thought. Zum
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 04/13/09 - 5:16 PM:

Hmmm. If I had the one ring, I'd job shadow politicians in Washington, scrutinizing every move and taping conversations to see what really goes on. Might get boring quite fast though.

Then I'd move on to shadowing other jobs... half-nakedly. eek

This is one of those questions that is hard to answer without actually having this strange new freedom.

We are a lot freeer (frear) than we believe ourselves to be.

Try visiting Sedona, Az. There are many hot spots where out of the ordinary behavior is not so out of the ordinary.

takes a bow
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 04/14/09 - 12:08 AM:

nihil wrote:
I'd job shadow politicians in Washington, scrutinizing every move and taping conversations to see what really goes on.

i recently discovered that there are a lot of public areas where videotaping is not allowed without a permit. so maybe i would make a movie.

and i would probably go dancing everywhere. singing too.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/28/09 - 1:55 PM:

Subject: How would guaranteed privacy affect your actions?
What would you do if you were assured that no one could find out--with the exception explained in the second rule? The privacy safeguard is an arbitrary, magical decree. This is a fantasy...

Rule: For the game, select only actions that do no harm.


"actions that do not harm" is not an easy preposition.Is it?





This question interests me because a response to it would tend to reveal the extent to which one is controlled by others, even when those others are not there. Many of them are, in turn, controlled by still others-- and by groupthink. By groupthink (an Orwellish term), I mean ideas and emotional responses that are adopted unexamined out of the social nexus and reflexively re-enacted... Zum



For me : I think there will not be much change in my behavior because I usually enjoy much privacy.Again : I think it depends on the personality type of the individual.An Introvert is already much reserved and hence he need not be exhibiting much change in his routine if promised privacy,while an Extrovert should get much affected due to privacy because most of his pleasure movements include socializing and hence privacy would only add zest into them.


Thank You
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
Posted 04/28/09 - 2:48 PM:

I can respond as an introvert/extrovert. I guess that's what I am...

I think that a person, introvert or extrovert, can be controlled by received programming. Individuals experienced as authoritative are at times internalized during childhood or adolescence. Later, they persist as invisible witnesses. They hang around. This is outside the scope of the question and the game, of course.

Let me explain. The tyrannical parent is always there, to a degree, even after the kid leaves home. The hostile teacher affects a student's root confidence very adversely, even after the kid has escaped that class. On the bright side, anyone who has ever given friendship and praise is absorbed by the lucky receiver, and permanently cherished.

A new question arises, then: what would you do if you could get rid of the internal observer(s)?

As for the extrovert, his or her impulses may be kept down by a sense of what the group or groups understand as decorum or cool behavior. If a skilled adapter, the extrovert can shift behavior and body language from group to group... There are extroverts I've seen that are great innovators: they are the ones who get the ideas, do things that are weird but not really too weird, just interesting. They are the freest members of their groups. They combine observation and a lack of observation-fear, it seems to me. Zum
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/29/09 - 3:59 AM:

"A new question arises, then: what would you do if you could get rid of the internal observer(s)?"


"The internal observers" are what you call 'you'-they are what you call 'me' and they are your personality.What is that programming to which you insinuated in your post?It is your 'upbringing'-your 'culture'--It consists of the voices you have heard throughout your life.It consists of the voices of your friends,teachers,neighbors and it also consists of voices of your favorite authors,actors and so on.So what is the answer to your latest question?You would not believe it : 'death'-Only if you die-you can get rid of all those voices-you are nothing but those 'voices'-seems 'eccentric'?No matter how bizarre it seems,it is impossible to shut off those voices and hence no question of behavior arises.Pursuit of self-realization OR moksha is attempt to mute those sounds.


Thank You
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/29/09 - 4:01 AM:

btw why zum?kooky
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 10:42 AM:

In response to Thinker13:

1. Well, it is just a what-if we are entertaining here, a thought experiment.

2. I'm not in agreement with the idea that the individual is nothing but the collection of others' voices. If others have voices, I have a voice.

3. The thought experiment might be useful in the following way: it might lead to the question, of the impulses that guide me daily, which are my own? And which do I really need to honor?

4. As you suggest, disciplines already exist for the sake of cutting one's personality to the chase, as it were.

5. Why Zum? Hey, why not?


Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 1:34 PM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
In response to Thinker13:

1. Well, it is just a what-if we are entertaining here, a thought experiment.



OK.Seems like I am being more philosophical than necessarysmiling face


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

2. I'm not in agreement with the idea that the individual is nothing but the collection of others' voices. If others have voices, I have a voice.



As you willsmiling faceMy point remains same : There are nothing but 'thoughts' and each and every thought is inherited from culture-there is nothing original and hence no voice of yours.



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

3. The thought experiment might be useful in the following way: it might lead to the question, of the impulses that guide me daily, which are my own? And which do I really need to honor?



Obviously I can not say that it isn't worth being done-I was just expressing my views on your experiment-isn't it?



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

4. As you suggest, disciplines already exist for the sake of cutting one's personality to the chase, as it were.



"Cutting one's personality to the chase" is not my discipline,methinkswhee


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

5. Why Zum? Hey, why not?




I didn't want to annoy you,rather,wanted to know about 'zum' out of curiosity-since it isn't an onomatopoeiawhatever



Thank You
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 1:43 PM:

T13 wrote:
There are nothing but 'thoughts' and each and every thought is inherited from culture

where does culture come from? smiling face

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
Individuals experienced as authoritative are at times internalized during childhood or adolescence. Later, they persist as invisible witnesses. They hang around. This is outside the scope of the question and the game, of course.

Let me explain. The tyrannical parent is always there, to a degree, even after the kid leaves home.

hi zum,

i agree, and i do think it's possible to grow away from that conditioned voice of criticism. it's much harder, of course, when the criticism came during childhood from forceful parents (who are not only in an authoritative role, but also one on which the child is forced to depend for survival).

i think you're right that a lot of people continue knocking themselves down (most often unwittingly) long after the parents (or whoever) aren't around to do it for them. often it's simply a matter of what's familiar, that it has happened long enough to seem comfortable and safe. also, many people raised such an environment gravitate toward abusive partners who will continue the cycle of conditioned negativity.

Zum wrote:
I'm not in agreement with the idea that the individual is nothing but the collection of others' voices. If others have voices, I have a voice.

i totally agree. one of the roles of therapy, when it's effective, is to help an individual become aware of and overcome negative conditioning, to help one find and think in your own voice.

T13 wrote:
Pursuit of self-realization OR moksha is attempt to mute those sounds.

or perhaps not mute them per se, but simply attribute to them a much lower priority than that of respecting one's autonomy.

a related story. it was my second husband who introduced me to philosophy when we were first dating. having been raised as a jehovah's witness and married to one in my first marriage, and having also experienced firsthand the kind of negative conditioning we've been talking about, i always marvelled that my soon-to-be second husband thought to try to discuss philosophical ideas with me. "but philosophy is for smart people!" i often thought to myself while he was talking, lol.

after my dad died and after my second divorce, i've spent a lot of time working on finding my voice. nowadays i feel pretty empowered to do whatever inspires me. my only lament is that there's just not enough time in a day to do all the things i want. won't stop me from trying tho.

smiling facelib

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 1:56 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

where does culture come from? smiling face



Culture:

1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.


I think this definition provides a hint about it.Tell me if it does notsmiling face



Thank You
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 2:06 PM:


T13 wrote:
Pursuit of self-realization OR moksha is attempt to mute those sounds




libertygrl wrote:

or perhaps not mute them per se, but simply attribute to them a much lower priority than that of respecting one's autonomy.




"respecting one's autonomy" isn't a point on which I would agree here.Anyways-it would be waste of your precious time if I belabor on "Enlightenment" with you-so let us leave it heresmiling face



Thank You
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 2:31 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
"respecting one's autonomy" isn't a point on which I would agree here.Anyways-it would be waste of your precious time if I belabor on "Enlightenment" with you-so let us leave it heresmiling face

Thank You

as you wish. if you change your mind, i'm open to hearing your thoughts.
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 3:15 PM:

Hey, Thinker, I'm sorry if my counter-posted sounded annoyed... A trouble one can get into with writing stuff.

"Zum" may BE onomatopoetic, if I understand the term: a word that matches, by it sound, the thing it expresses...right? But OKAY, I'll tell ya. When I was a kid on a ski team, there was a girl that whipped the pants off me and everybody else. The first syllable of her surname was "Zum."

Possibly the notion that all ideas derive from culture and that nobody has original ideas leads to what's called, in philosophy, an infinite regress. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept.

It could certainly be shown than few ideas and thoughts are original or that few are entirely original... Philosophy tends to deplore cautious statements like that, although they are sometimes true. But get this:

Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughs
About the lilting house and happy as the grass was green
The night above the dingle starry,
Time let me hail and climb
Golden in the heydays of his eyes,
And honored among wagons I was prince of the apple towns
And once below a time I lordly had the trees and leaves
Trail with daisies and barley
Down the rivers of the windfall light.

It goes on... Now the idea in this is a common one, because different human lives often contain similar experiences. But you won't find another voice quite like that. Zum
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 4:09 PM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
Hey, Thinker, I'm sorry if my counter-posted sounded annoyed... A trouble one can get into with writing stuff.



It happens every now and thensmiling face



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

"Zum" may BE onomatopoetic, if I understand the term: a word that matches, by it sound, the thing it expresses...right? But OKAY, I'll tell ya. When I was a kid on a ski team, there was a girl that whipped the pants off me and everybody else. The first syllable of her surname was "Zum."




Yes.It could be but it has to enter in a dictionary first!Nice story-it may sound interesting to anyone and those who find Linguistics and Philology interesting may come to notice how words evolve and how a weird word sticks to our memory.I hope that 'zum' will enter into dictionaries someday to suggest an urchin who is extremely playful and naughty!nodlaughingwink


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

It could certainly be shown than few ideas and thoughts are original or that few are entirely original... Philosophy tends to deplore cautious statements like that, although they are sometimes true. But get this:



Yes I am well aware of creative inventions and ideas.I know that you can cite "The special theory of relativity" OR "calculus" as original contributions of Einstein and Leibniz/Newton respectively.It was not the point.The point was and could only be to understand the origin of all thoughts OR culture.Units which are archetypes and are subtler than thought are cause of all thought and culture."memes" if you would-can be term given to such sources.I think-language of all types act as conveyors of memes and hence they don't belong to any particular individual but are parts of collective consciousness.In this way every thought comes from the common source and every voice is collective voice-it is not your voice-I think I have diverted a bit from main topic-let it be so.smiling face




smiling faceThank You smiling face




Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/29/09 - 8:33 PM:

Thinker, you say that language acts as the conveyor of memes. (Memes are proto-thoughts. Right. I've got memes.) Then you say, hence (therefore) memes don't belong to any particular individual, but are parts of collective consciousness. In this way every thought comes from a common source.

From the fact that language CONVEYS memes, it does not follow, for me, that memes originate collectively, only that they are eventually shared.

My common sense view is that there is interplay between and among individual and collective consciousness. Collective consciousness changes very swiftly at times, as one set of values (therefore a set of perceptions) vanishes and another takes its place. If one lives in "interesting times," one can WATCH this process; it can happen abruptly. In our times it happens relatively often, as thoughts and thought-provoking events are conveyed to everyone (virtually) through the mass media.

Three people in hell are condemned to talk over a back fence for all eternity. Pretty soon they exhaust their store of ideas and start over from the beginning. (They have to go on talking, you see; that is their punishment...) They come to the end again and start over. Again. Their punishment of eternal tedium would end only if SOMEBODY ELSE CAME, with a fresh idea... The frequent or, at least, occasional shifts in cultures suggest that someone new, from time to time, is freshening the waters...

You could get hold of Foucault's The Order of Things. I think actually he agrees more with you than with me. If I recall, he thinks that collective consciousness "just" changes, rather mysteriously, through some inner dynamism. Seems less interested in speculating how it change than in describing the changes historically...Zum

smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 1:53 AM:

'Zum' is just (backwards and shortened) slang for 'muse'. smiling face
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 4:58 AM:

smiling face
So let the three people in hell represent the collective consciousness: yammer, yammer, yammer, yammer... The three people's discourse is limited to whatever they have to talk about. Similarly, the collective consciousness yammers on with whatever memes it has. Unless a fourth person joins the fence-talkers, and unless fresh memes are somehow imported into the collective mix, the three condemned ones return again and again to the same topics; public discourse gets reliable, predictable, and tedious... The presence of a new discourse suggests the presence of a new person at the fence, or, in the case of collective consciousness, of new memes in the collective mix. The abrupt changes that in fact occur in public perception, discourse and practice suggest an influx of new ideas. (Historically, an "abrupt" change would be one that occurs over a fifty-year period.) According to the model, these ideas can arrive only from individual thinkers--like you, Thinker. smiling face Zum
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 6:26 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:

From the fact that language CONVEYS memes, it does not follow, for me, that memes originate collectively, only that they are eventually shared.



Yes,it does not follow from it but let me suggest you my speculation : I think memes are like genes.Let us consider any thought-is it not the 'meme' which has already been thought?If you suggest that 'meme' is a behavior type-then may be OR may not be but if you suggest that as a basic core of behavior(for example "urge to survive")-then,perhaps it is always that basic 'meme' which has been part of collective consciousness -from which all archetypes have later evolved and keep on producing new archetypes as hybrids or so..



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

My common sense view is that there is interplay between and among individual and collective consciousness. Collective consciousness changes very swiftly at times, as one set of values (therefore a set of perceptions) vanishes and another takes its place. If one lives in "interesting times," one can WATCH this process; it can happen abruptly. In our times it happens relatively often, as thoughts and thought-provoking events are conveyed to everyone (virtually) through the mass media.


Indeed.



Thank You
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 6:34 AM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:
'Zum' is just (backwards and shortened) slang for 'muse'. smiling face




Good observation.Hello Real 'willem'(I know you from your earlier incarnationclap :laughingsmiling face.Where are other guys-DFT,Meph,henry,sparky etccrying





Thank You
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 10:34 AM:

I think that the urge to survive is situated in the individual body. Arguably, the collective arises as a result of this drive: people band together for safety. When they band together, what we call "collective consciousness" arises. Collective consciousness may be only a (very apt) metaphor based on individual consciousness. From the fact that crowds of people learn to think and behave and anticipate similarly, one can (perhaps) fantasize an overarching collective mentality and give it substance... It can certainly be talked about as though it were substantial. At this point, I am not sure whether I want to reify it or not... Looks like, the more peril, the more urge to survive; the more urge to survive; the more need to form groups; the more need, etc., the more compelling "collective consciousness"--whatever it may be-- becomes. Gangs. In the context, gang reality is reality.

But it's possible, though a bit costly,if one is not in a gang or a similar social configuration, to opt out of collective consciousness or stay at its margins or selectively adopt its tenets. Zum smiling face
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 12:18 PM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:

But it's possible, though a bit costly,if one is not in a gang or a similar social configuration, to opt out of collective consciousness or stay at its margins or selectively adopt its tenets. Zum smiling face



I think I am not expressing myself appropriately!I think that it isn't possible to opt out of "collective consciousness" -though,to be out of groups/gangs is very much your choice.Your 'choice' is always a thought which represents the collective consciousness/society of which you are an outcome only.I don't believe that society isn't acting through you while you live out of society/social groups.Right now : it is society speaking through me and it is also society listening through you!


clap zum zum clap Thank You
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/30/09 - 4:44 PM:

"Ah, you fear the world too much." That's probably not true of you--it just came to mind. It's a quote from old Chas Dickens.

There's a lot in what you say.

The kind of independence an individual can have in society is, it seems to me, revealed better by description than by argument. Lots of people have some. People can start working toward it by noticing where they are hampered or bound by expectations not their own. When you look, pointedly, significantly, at another person (and when there is no obvious social reason for the gaze), the other can become self-conscious. If kicking in your back fence, the other may even stop the process, or slow it down. Similarly, if an individual becomes aware of personal attitudes and behaviors that don't arise from his or her personal agenda, but from someone else's, that individual can diminish the spontaneity and force of the incursion, first by looking (maybe "watching" is a better term), then by refusing to be controlled. I maybe describing a territory you are already aware of...

Probably it is important not to get mad at the invasion, or the energy, or the invaders.

Ideally, I guess, you never really drop out of the mainstream; you just find your own current within it. Lots of folks do meditation and things like that, partly with this objective in view.

Zum
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.