Typology Central - View Single Post

kuranes · 10-08-2008, 11:38 PM

I think wanting to own things is a fairly primal need, and it is somewhat indulged by Capitalism. ( By that I mean some people within the capitalist system enjoy more feeling of "control" than others, and not that Communism would give you more of a feeling of ownership. )

It is when we get into the implications that people are owned ( in all but name ) or can be owned period that we run into trouble, of course.

In the "Conservative Feminism" thread it was mentioned by Peguy that the nuclear family as a primal unit ( fulfilling those needs ) has been around in its current form for so long that history has judged it the best way for individuals to proceed, and continue life etc. I don't think anyone questions that this approach also fits a primal demand. When discussing alternatives in that thread, it seemed the idea was that other perspectives were doomed by not being so tried and true, or primally basic.

In the thread on cheating, people were discussing different concepts of what "betrayal" means in couples, with some people thinking emotions/intentions were more primal than physicality, and others feeling more "( physical ) possession is nine tenths of the law", to paraphrase it.

Possible subconscious feelings of "ownership" here too, with respect to people, but in different ways.

Of course these descriptions of "ownership" can be looked at in more than one way, with couples proud to tell one another "I'm glad you're 'mine' " and "I do take you for granted, but in a good way. I have faith in you and I know you feel the same about me" etc.

But "ownership" can obviously be taken in a bad way too, and this has been pointed out in the feminist oriented threads as being something women have been forced into putting up with sometimes over centuries, even by "well meaning" guys versus the issue of generic slavery per se..

So to rule out feminist alternatives to the old ways of the family by saying that they go against the grain of natural urges is not really accurate, because it pits one urge against another, in a way, with both having been around waaay long enough not to constitute a "flash in the pan" or merely trendy approach, as is sometimes implied by various criticisms. Nobody wants to be "owned". ( K leaves himself open here for claver retort . )

* ducks *

10-08-2008, 11:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
kuranes Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Type: XNXP Location: Chicago Posts: 1,042	I think wanting to own things is a fairly primal need, and it is somewhat indulged by Capitalism. ( By that I mean some people within the capitalist system enjoy more feeling of "control" than others, and not that Communism would give you more of a feeling of ownership. ) It is when we get into the implications that people are owned ( in all but name ) or can be owned period that we run into trouble, of course. In the "Conservative Feminism" thread it was mentioned by Peguy that the nuclear family as a primal unit ( fulfilling those needs ) has been around in its current form for so long that history has judged it the best way for individuals to proceed, and continue life etc. I don't think anyone questions that this approach also fits a primal demand. When discussing alternatives in that thread, it seemed the idea was that other perspectives were doomed by not being so tried and true, or primally basic. In the thread on cheating, people were discussing different concepts of what "betrayal" means in couples, with some people thinking emotions/intentions were more primal than physicality, and others feeling more "( physical ) possession is nine tenths of the law", to paraphrase it. Possible subconscious feelings of "ownership" here too, with respect to people, but in different ways. Of course these descriptions of "ownership" can be looked at in more than one way, with couples proud to tell one another "I'm glad you're 'mine' " and "I do take you for granted, but in a good way. I have faith in you and I know you feel the same about me" etc. But "ownership" can obviously be taken in a bad way too, and this has been pointed out in the feminist oriented threads as being something women have been forced into putting up with sometimes over centuries, even by "well meaning" guys versus the issue of generic slavery per se.. So to rule out feminist alternatives to the old ways of the family by saying that they go against the grain of natural urges is not really accurate, because it pits one urge against another, in a way, with both having been around waaay long enough not to constitute a "flash in the pan" or merely trendy approach, as is sometimes implied by various criticisms. Nobody wants to be "owned". ( K leaves himself open here for claver retort . ) * ducks * __________________ "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.