Should protesters respect private property?

[Raineyrocks]

You are so close, Menno. You know where the problem is coming from. You can see that. You even see that we have to use different ideas, concepts, and methods to reach people at the source of their problem. As you show below:

Indeed, to the extent that an individual is operating in subconscious mode, that individual is in a trance-like state (though completely unaware of it).  In my estimation, over 99% of the population operate primarily in subconscious mode, exerting only the negligible amount of conscious thought required to get by.

But you are missing something. First, you are grossly underestimating the nature of the subconscious. It is *not* irrational. It is not inferior to your ego, it just thinks differently than your ego. And it can't be programmed. Yes, it is suggestible. But so is your ego. Freud thought that he could hypnotize his way to fixing people's problems, but he quickly learned how stubborn the subconscious is. And modern hypnotists have also learned that you cannot hypnotize a person into doing something that is against their morality. Your EGO, however, can be coerced to go against its standard of morality. For instance, there was a study where people were directed by scientists to press a button that they were told would cause pain in the subject. Most people continued to press the button when the scientists told them to, even when they heard screaming. But you can't hypnotize them into pressing the button. The lesson from this is that your subconscious has more moral fiber than your ego. It is a fully human mind. It is witty, kind, loving, intelligent, and resourceful. It can also be incredibly manipulative and can play your ego like a fiddle. Don't underestimate it. It's not a computer or an animal, and I suspect its far more aware than your ego is. It deals with realities that would make you and I piss our pants. Isn't it you that said never to underestimate your opponent? And that's your second mistake, why make it your opponent?

Very interesting Caleb!  I've read stuff about the ego and the subconscious too and I've come to realize that my subconscious is a pain in my butt!

[Ron Helwig]

Good. Cause no one mentioned anything about eliminating other people except you. And since even you reject your own conclusion, sounds like you won't be leading this Nazi revolution that you just made up in your mind through gigantic leaps of (undoubtedly inebriated) logic. 

I'm just saying that

1) you sound like someone who has just "found" a religion. Many people who are new to Objectivism sound that way too. They talk like they know some amazing new secret, but they haven't yet fully absorbed the philosophy.

2) The nazis didn't just appear out of thin air, they were the logical result of a faulty philosophy. When your philosophy naturally leads to evil, like the stuff I had quoted, a proper analysis would lead you to understand that the philosophy itself is flawed. Of course, most people just live with the cognitive dissonance; since they would rather be a little confused than admit that their philosophy needs to be changed.

[srqrebel]

Caleb, if it is true that the subconscious mind is capable of rational thought, more powerful than the conscious mind, and operates as a separate "self" doing as it pleases, then how does one effectively deal with the "unprogrammable" subconscious minds of other people, when their subconscious "chooses" to do bad things to us?

If your characterization of the subconscious mind is correct, then it appears that we are dealing with an evil that will do as it pleases as long as it is permitted to exist -- hence one is left with the sordid choice of either being at the mercy of this evil, or exterminating it Nazi-style.

Both you and Pat McCotter seem to be precisely describing multiple manifestations of conscious personalities, known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).  There is psychotherapy available for this, you know

[Pat McCotter]

Caleb, if it is true that the subconscious mind is capable of rational thought, more powerful than the conscious mind, and operates as a separate "self" doing as it pleases, then how does one effectively deal with the "unprogrammable" subconscious minds of other people choosing to do bad things to us?

If your characterization of the subconscious mind is correct, then it appears that we are dealing with an evil that will do as it pleases as long as it is permitted to exist -- hence one is left with the sordid choice of either being at the mercy of this evil, or exterminating it Nazi-style.

It sounds like the thing that you and Pat McCotter are describing, is not the subconscious mind at all, but multiple manifestations of the conscious mind, known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).  There is psychotherapy available for this.

I don't need to fix what isn't broken. My "multiple personalities" are not dissociated from me; they are me. They are the different ways I experience the world around me; not one at a time but all at once.

It's the way I picture my inner world. I haven't found a better way and at 49 years old I don't care to.

[srqrebel]

It's the way I picture my inner world. I haven't found a better way and at 49 years old I don't care to.

Fair enough

[Caleb]

I'm just saying that

1) you sound like someone who has just "found" a religion. Many people who are new to Objectivism sound that way too. They talk like they know some amazing new secret, but they haven't yet fully absorbed the philosophy.

Well, I *am* a Christian. That isn't new. I discovered Jung years and years ago, but had no philosophical way, at the time, to integrate it with what I believed, so I filed the information away under "Interesting, but confusing". Now, I find that the pieces are fitting better (as I have studied Process theology, it gave me a framework to approach Jung.) We are always learning, so some things are always *new* to us. And the new information that I'm integrating is *not* disharmonious with the others. It fits with the general approach that I have taken for years: that of emphasizing the need to work at a spiritual level, with love, to address what is, inherently, a spiritual problem. The approach is mainly the same, only my understanding has deepened. Is it as deep as it can be? Certainly not. But if I wait until I have all knowledge to start, I'm going to be waiting a long time.

2) The nazis didn't just appear out of thin air, they were the logical result of a faulty philosophy. When your philosophy naturally leads to evil, like the stuff I had quoted, a proper analysis would lead you to understand that the philosophy itself is flawed. Of course, most people just live with the cognitive dissonance; since they would rather be a little confused than admit that their philosophy needs to be changed.

I'm scratching my head. Your thought that my "philosophy naturally leads to evil" is puzzling to me, because my philosophy is about healing, not destroying. Interestingly, Whitehead was a libertarian, largely because his philosophy embraces the inherent nature of choice within the universe. There is absolutely no parallel between my philosophy and Nazism. I naturally assumed you were drunk when you drew the parallel, because it had never even entered my mind to use violence to address the problem. I thought I had made it clear that I deplore violence.

[Caleb]

Caleb, if it is true that the subconscious mind is capable of rational thought, more powerful than the conscious mind, and operates as a separate "self" doing as it pleases, then how does one effectively deal with the "unprogrammable" subconscious minds of other people, when their subconscious "chooses" to do bad things to us?

If I had an easy answer to that, I'd be a multibillionaire, and the world would know peace. You have to start by recognizing the problem for what it is: Disease. Then you heal yourself. As Jesus said, "Remove the beam from your own eye, then you will see clearly how to remove the straw from your brother's eye." And "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a pit." I can help no one if I suffer from their disease.

If your characterization of the subconscious mind is correct, then it appears that we are dealing with an evil that will do as it pleases as long as it is permitted to exist -- hence one is left with the sordid choice of either being at the mercy of this evil, or exterminating it Nazi-style.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!  I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that the subconscious is immoral or evil. It is the source of your conscience, it would appear. As I understand it, there is disharmony (and conflict) between the conscious and the subconscious, both fighting for control. It is no more evil than your ego is. The task is to achieve unity and heal the division. Cooperation rather than competition. Ultimately, it comes down to a choice to love. But that first choice of love must be to love yourself. All of yourself.

Both you and Pat McCotter seem to be precisely describing multiple manifestations of conscious personalities, known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).  There is psychotherapy available for this, you know

We all walk the same paths. We all must walk in an emotional world that has driven some men to insanity. The difference between you and an insane person is *not* that one faced demons that the other didn't. It's that one succombed to the demons. What Pat described was incredibly honest, and I really appreciated his comments because some people would have held back saying what he said, for fear of being labeled "crazy" by people whose minds are closed.

Jung calls the "conscious personalities" archetypes. They are not, strictly speaking, what your subconscious is in Jung's theories. They are what your subconscious deals with. And much earlier in this thread I told people about *external* threats to your psyche. We all deal with them. It's simply a matter of whether or not you want to let your ego in on that secret (and whether your ego can handle it.)

There are two points that I want to make here. The first is that we can each learn about how deeply thought patterns get entrenched by examining our own thinking. Some people seem to be panicking or thinking, "well, if I can't *program* someone else's unconscious (or my own for that matter), then we're screwed." That is inherently violent thinking. Or at least coercive thinking. Why should it be that controlling someone (programming them?) is the best option? If control is our problem, why would more control be the solution? Or can we expect that control at the most fundamental level will lead to freedom at other levels?

The second point I want to make is going back to the external archetypes, the demons or "multiple personalities" that the subconscious faces. If, as Jung suggests, these archetypes are shared by all mankind, sort of a communal pool of pre-made, nearly self-conscious thought patterns that are external to each person, then we CAN influence them. Because they are created and sustained by people, *and we all share them*.

This is a rough blueprint of a spiritual approach to solving the problems. Others think guns and violence are the best way. For those who think the violent approach is wrong ...

[sandm000]

The second point I want to make is going back to the external archetypes, the demons or "multiple personalities" that the subconscious faces. If, as Jung suggests, these archetypes are shared by all mankind, sort of a communal pool of pre-made, nearly self-conscious thought patterns that are external to each person, then we CAN influence them. Because they are created and sustained by people, *and we all share them*.

If everyone has these pre made concepts of 'things', how can you change more than 1/6,000,000,000 of the image that we all share?  Because they are either independent of us and immutable or dependent on us and we are all capable of influencing 1/6,000,000,000 of each archetype.

[Caleb]

I don't know. And to be honest, I don't know how these archetypes are made. Jung hasn't said so far that I've read, other than to imply that we all influence them. So what follows is my own best guesses and hopes:

I tend to think that it has to snowball. I can influence a few people, who influence a few people, etc.

I also tend to think that actual intent is important. There are many archetypes. Very few people are "possessed" by one, so it would seem to be a case of shades of grey, where people are influenced by both the harmful and the helpful archetypes, and simply choose the negative ones statistically more often. Packing a powerful punch to consciously reinforce certain beneficial archetypes in a conscious, intentful way, may do much to swing the balance in the right way.

Wholeness. It is my hope that persons who achieve unity and are dealing with this reality with their whole mind have a greater impact on the archetypes than those who are mentally "wandering" so to speak.

Strength. I hope and believe that the positive archetypes are stronger than the negative anyway. There is some basis for this belief, because good usually prevails over evil.

And this is my own religious belief, but I have to belief it is possible because Jesus said that we have authority over them, so that with conscious intent we may banish them. I realize most people will not find this particular line of thought much convincing, but I personally give great import to what Jesus said.

[dareme03244]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would question this.  Absolutely, protesters must respect private property. Yes in case you hadn't discovered the answer for yourself.  Ask yourself this, how would you like it if a group of people protested on your front lawn all over your flowers, maybe blocking your driveway or your ability to safely drive from your home?????? You would be calling your police department to have them removed! 

[Raineyrocks]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would question this.  Absolutely, protesters must respect private property. Yes in case you hadn't discovered the answer for yourself.  Ask yourself this, how would you like it if a group of people protested on your front lawn all over your flowers, maybe blocking your driveway or your ability to safely drive from your home?????? You would be calling your police department to have them removed! 

I wouldn't call the cops, I'd use my extra big rubber bands and shoot the suckers!

[Russell Kanning]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would question this.  Absolutely, protesters must respect private property. Yes in case you hadn't discovered the answer for yourself.  Ask yourself this, how would you like it if a group of people protested on your front lawn all over your flowers, maybe blocking your driveway or your ability to safely drive from your home?????? You would be calling your police department to have them removed! 

The Shire doesn't have a police department, so I guess I would have to deal with the flower tramplers in different ways.
When we trespass on the fed private property in concord we sometimes pull weeds.
We have never made it unsafe for people to drive.

[Raineyrocks]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would question this.  Absolutely, protesters must respect private property. Yes in case you hadn't discovered the answer for yourself.  Ask yourself this, how would you like it if a group of people protested on your front lawn all over your flowers, maybe blocking your driveway or your ability to safely drive from your home?????? You would be calling your police department to have them removed! 

The Shire doesn't have a police department, so I guess I would have to deal with the flower tramplers in different ways.
When we trespass on the fed private property in concord we sometimes pull weeds.
We have never made it unsafe for people to drive.

Weeds, huh?  Where I'll pull some!

[Russell Kanning]

it is nice to respect "public" and "private" property .... our definitions of respect just might differ sometimes. If the government is a scourge upon the land ... then it is time to liberate the land

[srqrebel]

When we trespass on the fed private property in concord we sometimes pull weeds.

it is nice to respect "public" and "private" property .... our definitions of respect just might differ sometimes. If the government is a scourge upon the land ... then it is time to liberate the land

But Russell, isn't the term "fed private property" a total oxymoron?

Isn't the notion of public property just plain old socialist fiction?

I consider it property only if it was honorably obtained.  So-called "public property", including "fed property", is not "property" at all, but plunder.

The only land use I recognize as genuine property that which is honorably obtained, hence under private ownership.  It could certainly be jointly owned by any number of individuals, but it would still be under the exclusive control of the joint owners, hence private.