AdamC
-
Posts
60 -
Joined
Posts posted by AdamC
-
-
Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid.
This is a circular argument.
On second thoughts, I think following your contention is far more interesting. Suppose what I wrote was and is intended to be understood as an argument:
"No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid."
And you reply: "Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid."
Exactly! Neither of us is obliged to accept as valid any argument – including this/that one. There may very well be consequences to our not accepting even valid arguments as valid. But even if we ourselves accept them as valid, neither of us are obliged to give any indication to the other that we have accepted the argument as valid. And the consequences of not giving an indication (taken as an agreed fact of the denial or acceptance) may be that we can't continue our communication, or can't trust each other in our dealings, or one of us (likely the one in denial or just plain misunderstanding) makes some catastrophic miscalculation about physical reality. But there isn't any obligation.And this is my point to the OP. Your friend – whether he/she agrees or not – is not obliged to perform any physical gesture and/or verbal uttering to communicate to you that he/she accepts any of your arguments as a valid. You might like some kind of indication, but there is no obligation to give it. In one moment I can deny a valid argument, and in the very next I can affirm it. But at no time am not obliged to offer denials and affirmations. You might attempt to reason with me, but I am not obliged to be reasonable! In fact, your assumed obligation may be thoroughly unreasonable given that you possess particular criteria for 'reasonably' communicating acceptance of your arguments of which I am not aware.Now, perhaps I'm wrong (and being thoroughly unreasonable). Perhaps there is some kind of positive moral obligation – above our mutual preference for it – that demands we respond in some particular way to deliver each other intersubjectively ascertainable denials or affirmations of our acceptance of the validity of arguments.Would someone care to articulate this obligation?
-
That definition assumes that social anxiety is self-inflicted. Social anxiety comes from being prevented from using your own judgment as a child, because if you were allowed to do so, it would be a threat to those around you.
The block to speaking one's truth/experience is self-inflicted as a defence mechanism and as the result of using one's judgment. But necessary childhood defences can be proven maladaptive during adulthood.
-
Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid.
This is a circular argument.
Read my statement again.
-
Something more clear would be, "Social Anxiety is the result of relying on the judgments of others to validate your choices instead of your own"
Agreed. Thanks for taking the time to make it clear.
-
What I had in mind was that the entire plot of land was modified by the owner. That is the reason he owns it. I have modified my original post for clarity.
I agree he owns the modified material, but by definition, modified matter isn't "land", it's "property".
-
Show list:
https://pinboard.in/u:fdrpodcasts/t:social-anxiety/
If you are really dependent upon other people for your self-esteem, then that's a big warning flag for healthy people to stay away from you because healthy people don't want that kind of power over you. If you surrender that kind of power over you to others, then you will draw controlling people into your life. That's why self-esteem is the ultimate shield. — Stefan MolyneuxIf you believe that you're an imposition then you can't be yourself around people because all you're doing is monitoring the other person's supposedly fading level of interest. — Stefan MolyneuxIf you are self-conscious when you are communicating ideas to people, you are not focusing on the real goal. The goal is not be interesting or entertaining – though they may be means. The goal is to effectively introduce people to ideas. Take yourself out of the equation and focus purely on the audience. If you focus on yourself, that is manipulating the audience for your own self-esteem. If you are afraid of the audience, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you fear the audience, they will pick up on that. Whenever you give people power they feel irritated and resentful for being asked to prop up your self-esteem. The audience is there to judge the ideas not you. You have to really love both the audience and the ideas and want to connect the two together. — Stefan Molyneux (Premium Podcast: Public Speaking)Self-shaming comes first. Self-attack comes first. Like blood in shark-infested water, self-attack brings attack from bullies. — Stefan MolyneuxRetaining your own judgement of yourself sets those around you free. Because if you need other people to validate your choices and your decisions or your existence – if you need them, then you have to control them. When we give other people control over us, we then have to start manipulating them. When you internalize your own standards, you set people free from having to manage you. — Stefan MolyneuxSelf-consciousness and insecurity is infecting. When we're uneasy within ourselves, it's invasive towards other people because we need them to do something to make us feel better. When we stop using people to make us feel better, we set other people free. Because if you're totally unconcerned with how other people view you, then they're freer just by being around you. — Stefan MolyneuxThe above quotes speak to a paradoxical view of Social Anxiety:
Social Anxiety is the result of *your* unjust infliction of *your* power of acceptance/rejection upon other people.
Put simply, by fearing the rejection of (non-FOO) people, you place yourself in a Victim position and them in a "one-up" Persecutor position (see: The Drama Triangle). If they are good people, then you will and should fear their annoyance for having been typed by you as abusive, since that is unjust and thus reprehensible. And if they are bad people, then you will and should fear both them and yourself for giving them the okay to abuse you by typing yourself as Victim (i.e., by self-attacking).
Fearing the rejection of FOO people might be better described as Separation Anxiety (a child's mortal fear of abandonment), which is where the adult habit of Social Anxiety (i.e., victimizing yourself by inflicting your power of acceptance/rejection upon others) comes from.
-
Can someone logically prove to another person that they have self-control and self-ownership?
No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid.
-
4.- the value of the unmodified natural resource is very high
This can happen because land is needed for essential food production, and the population increases. Suppose someone has modified a very valuable plot of land. Other people might want to access this resource too, not because of the modification done by the first laborer, but because of the value of the unmodified resource. This means they do not try to steal the fruits of the labor, but want to access the unmodified resource that the laborer has not created. They want to work on it with their own hands, just as the first laborer has done. Based on which right, from an ethical point of view, could the first laborer forbid others from using the same natural resource that he has used, when he has added only comparatively little to it?
Other than geoanarchist rent-sharing, I have not found a "right"/rule that justifies such an exclusion to unmodified natural resources.
Regarding the modification of a "plot" of land... Is the entire plot modified or just a part of it (i.e. only handfuls or shovelfuls of earth)? If the entire plot *isn't* modified, why would anyone except as valid the claim that the entire plot of land is "owned" as property? Either modification of matter is the standard of verbalized property ownership claims, or it is not. If not, what is the standard? Just verbal claims? How do mere verbal claims prevent conflict?
-
Procrastination is: The Avoidance of Shame; Shame Follows Failure; Failure is Death; Choosing is Death; Not Choosing is Death.
Evolution Counselling – Failure:Psychologically speaking, failure is a symbol for death and the existential anxiety that is cued off in response to this threat is the same as is cued off in response to the threat of real, physical death. It’s easy to forget in our modern world that almost the entire span of human history was a struggle for survival in nature just like every other organism on the planet. Humans faced the threat of real death every day and had to overcome it in order to survive. Most of us no longer have to worry about survival in nature although we are obviously still tied to the natural world in a fundamental way. But our daily struggles have more to do with facing and overcoming threats of symbolic death like failure, in getting along well in society and developing our talents.
This is why we have to overcome our natural instinct when it comes to existential anxiety and use it to guide the way towards growth instead of viewing it as a dangerous predator to be avoided at all costs. We have to remember that symbolic death is not real death, and even when we fail we have the chance to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and give it another go. There is no reason to fear failure because the path to success is always strewn with many, many failures along the way.Evolution Counselling – Choices:
The reason freedom causes anxiety is that when you decide upon one course of action all of the other possible courses of action are relegated to the graveyard. Until you make that choice they all remain viable possibilities. The threat of nothingness looms over every choice you make because of this reality. Being consciously aware of more choices in your life can be painful rather than pleasant, because you have to deal with the symbolic deaths of all of these choices once you have made your decision. If you had less choices, you would have to deal with less symbolic deaths.
For every yes there must be a no. To decide one thing always means to relinquish something else. As one therapist commented to an indecisive patient, “Decisions are very expensive, they cost you everything else.” Renunciation invariably accompanies decision. One must relinquish options, often options that will never come again. Decisions are painful because they signify the limitation of possibilities; and the more one’s possibilities are limited, the closer one is brought to death. Indeed, Heidegger defined death as “the impossibility of farther possibility.” The reality of limitation is a threat to one of our chief modes of coping with existential anxiety: the delusion of specialness – that, though others may be subject to limitations, one is exempt, special, and beyond natural law.Irvin Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy -
I am also now writing a book on the subject myself as part of my effort to overcome procrastination and gather together and document what has worked for me
I would be interested in reading this.
Wow that describes me exactly. I resist starting many projects because as soon as I do I find it hard to stop. If I try to do a task in parts I don't feel like I'm getting as much done or doing the same quality of work, and interrupting the flow of creativity makes it difficult to start again. (especially maintaining the same level of interest and motivation)
Seems that you are a fellow perceiver (divergent thinker).
From the Secret Lives of INTPs book (available at Oddly Types):
One final principle was the idea of “augmentation,” which Beckham defined as “A pattern of cognition and action characterized by the propensity for addition and amplification of information, objects, and experiences.” Perceivers seek to gather as much information before acting (after all, a new piece of information could change the whole picture). When they do act, they act with the most up-to-date and complete information available. ...an attempt to impose the Judging style may actually do more harm than good. As Beckham put it, “When a process is broken up or requires much repetition, energy dissipates.…The task becomes work. It is no longer fun, engaging, or challenging, and may even become empty of purpose.” Indeed, when the Perceiving students in the study were forced by their professors to work using Judging tactics, they were resistant to the imposition; it felt wrong, like they were being asked to give something up. The Judging strategy felt less satisfying and less motivating. It may be that in trying to help Perceiving students, academic counselors and teachers are setting them up for discouragement, exhaustion, and even failure. Rather than requiring Perceiving students to behave like Judgers, educators should first try to teach them how to use their inborn Perceiving skills more skillfully. -
I'll just leave this here:
Avoids/Dislikes Activities That Require Prolonged Mental Effort (I.e. Homework)
Another phenomenon that plays into this is the tsunami effect described in the section on school. This is the tendency of an INTP to begin with a simple task (“I'll just work on this first part a bit”) and end up getting sucked into doing the entire project all at once, which requires enormous amounts of time and effort. Beckham found this tendency in Perceiving students: 81% put tasks off until right before they were due; subsequently the students would complete the tasks all at once in a continuous, unbroken flow with ever building momentum.
An INTP has an instinctive knowledge of this effect and realizes that if they start working on a task for "just a few minutes" it may end up taking a few hours because the task will take on a life of its own and they can't stop. The vortex of creativity will sweep the INTP up and not put them down until the task is finished or something interrupts the flow. For example, an INTP may set out to pick up a few items of clothing lying on the floor and end up trying to do a deep clean and radical reorganization of their room. Or, an INTP may set out to read a few pages in a book to help them get to sleep at night and then end up finishing the book at 2 AM and analyzing the fascinating implications of what they read until 4 AM.
How does the INTP prevent themselves from being sucked down into this whirlpool? By avoiding and procrastinating the task that will supposedly take just a few minutes.I have come to realize that when I get home, the first thing I start working on may very well consume the rest of my night. Also, if there is some disagreeable task that I am avoiding or procrastinating, I can fool myself into working on it by telling myself "I'll just work on it for a few minutes." Of course, once the dreaded task has been initiated, it doesn't seem so bad after all and the tsunami effect accomplishes the rest. (Then again, sometimes the tsunami leaves the task half finished because the INTP's eyes turned out to be bigger than their stomach.) Suppose that an INTP has a big essay due in a month. The teacher suggests that they spend "just a half hour each night" working on the essay and they'll finish it easily (a typical Judger strategy). But what happens when the INTP takes the teacher up on that suggestion and ends up spending just a few minutes working on the essay?
The answer is that they get sucked into the creativity vortex. Suddenly twenty balls are flying through the air. The INTP is scanning the internet for facts, scribbling notes and developing paragraphs, sketching out the body and conclusion, and beginning to work on the citations. They know they should get it all down right away or else it'll be a lot of effort to pick up all the balls again. But then POW! – something happens to snap them out of it and the balls fall.
The next day the INTP knows not to work on the essay or else they'll get sucked in again. Anyway, it would be hard work getting those twenty balls back up in the same order again, and boringly redundant too, and there's plenty of time left since so much work has gotten done already... (ominous music) In short, those "few minutes" are a lie and the INTP knows it, albeit unconsciously. But they can't explain why this is save for a vaguely defined fear of committing themselves fully to a task. After all, does the INTP really want to spend a whole evening – for so they instinctively know it will amount to – working on a boring essay?
And what about when a parent says, “You spent an entire hour goofing off when you could have been working on your paper. Why didn't you use those sixty minutes more productively?” What the parent doesn't realize is that the paper actually requires somewhere between three to four hours to finish. Perceivers don't like to break things up into bits; in fact, 61% of the Perceivers in Beckham's study found that breaking tasks up into pieces reduced the quality of their work, made the job longer, and diminished their pleasure in the activity. Either three to four hours of free time are available, or they aren't. A single hour is no good—it might as well be no hours at all. So why not spend the useless hour playing? Sooner or later a three to four hour block of free time will open up – probably right before the paper is due. Then the task can be done in a single great explosion of work.
By definition Perceivers procrastinate activities that require sustained mental effort. But once caught up in such an activity, they can engage in it for several hours if nothing disturbs their focus. Even a boring task can take on some interest if one turns it into a chance to create a new state-of-the-art system of some kind.
-
What the Ancapland citizen sees as a tax, the Geoland citizen sees as justice, and willingly pays it.It is the polycentric legal order envisioned by all anarchists that allows for people with conflicting visions of justice to live in relative peace.
Why Geoists and Market Anarchists Can and Should Be Friends by Gil Guillory and Fred Foldvary
-
YouTube: The Mystery of the Left Hand
Thesis: Left-handedness is due to elevated levels of testosterone in utero.
00:32:00: Left-handedness check: Height of left and right testicles.
-
Having been converted, I'm very interested in this topic but haven't found any research to share.
Though I have no memory of it, apparently, at age 5, I was forced to write with my right hand by the teachers at school.
About 10 years ago I rediscovered my original handedness via the stepping off a curb test, and after resolute practice, am now ambidextrous.
Slightly off topic, but left handed boys have larger Corpus Callosums so that (like girls) they can recover from trauma more quickly.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this.
-
-
I'm just not convinced that people would do nothing with their land in the long run.
What definition of "land" are you using? What do you mean by "their land"?So, my point being could it not be said that the lone fisherman who kick-started this created a space which became prosperous to others.
I'm sure we can agree that he didn't create any space. He moved stuff around in space. He created property (a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house) by transforming physical "land".
Perhaps you're asking if he deserves (in the sense of being unquestionably entitled to) "recompense" for his human action? I say, no. The Labor Theory of Value is false. He doesn't own value, he owns his property which others may value in terms of the property they are willing to exchange. He can't demand others give him their property in exchange for his just because he believes his property has value. If he wants a monetary reward, he needs to make an exchange. Nothing has value prior to an exchange; value is discovered in trade.
Regarding the prosperity of the locations/exclusions... What do you mean by the word prosperity?
Do you mean the property resting at those locations/exclusions that he and others have created by transforming physical "land"? Do you mean the increased value of access to those locations/exclusions as measured by the property people would be willing trade in order to secure limited or exclusive access? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the potential property that could be transformed from the "natural opportunities" available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on their current and potential access to the labor (employers and employees) available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the opportunities to trade that are available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the social opportunities available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated?
What would the lone fisherman be claiming with respect to this prosperity? What would all the others working at those locations/exclusions be claiming with respect to this prosperity?To suggest that he has sat on land, 'rent seeking' as such I think would be a trifle unfair, given the amount of labour he put into it beforehand.
The amount of his labor appears to be that which was necessary to produce a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house. -
-
I just mean that if a person develops a plot of land, which later encourages others to develop the land around his/hers to such a degree that the land becomes more valuable and popular with many more folk. Then one can say their personal investment of time and labour into that land improvement deserves some kind of recomepence in terms of value for their great foresight and improvement, if that makes sense.
"...develops a plot of land..."
What definition of "land" are you using? (You'll notice I'm very careful to express what I mean by "land" because I'm aware of potential confusions.)
What exactly is it that he's developing and how? (Please describe in visual terms so I can clearly envisage what is happening in the physical world.)
-
Adam, I've quoted some of your material in an online discussion and referenced here. Is this your original work? Are there articles online you've written that I should reference instead?
Glad you're finding what I've written useful.
I have no published articles. My expressed arguments are my own, but I do want to indicate where I first encountered and then adopted certain terms and arguments:
A Landlord is Really a Type of Tax Collector by Mike O'Mara:
Distinguishing spatial "land" from physical "land": no person made the land (that is,
spatial locations, or the natural resources there)Accepting that at ALL times, a fence is only a fence: "to claim land, mix your labor with it, such as by cultivating it, or fencing it." That principle might enable someone to own the top few inches of soil, and the fence itself. But how would it enable someone to own a mineral deposit twenty feet below the surface, or air space twenty feet above?
Using the term "location value" in place of "rent" when it's not certain others understand what rent means: If a person possesses more than an equal share of land value (based on location value, not the buildings there) that person is displacing others from land, and therefore owes them a displacement rent, equal to the difference between the total location value that person possesses and the per capita location value. Titles to land would then be compatible with liberty.
-
The fact they took a risk developing land with a certain unknown prospect attached deserves some recompense in terms of value. Saying they did nothing is an over simplification, because they did.
Isn't that the labor theory of value?
The prospector moved their body in space seeking some kind of material advantage. So where is the material of the sought advantage? Did they transform physical "land" into property? They certainly didn't transform spatial "land".
-
Definition: LAND: The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products.
As far as I understand it, the "Homesteading Principle" isn't a moral argument, rather it is an attempt to define property.
I argue the "Homesteading Principle" is internally inconsistent in its attempt to define property. That is to say, it is an argument containing two propositions that contradict each other:
(1) Property is the result of human action applied to things in space - [Possible]
(2) Property is the result of human action applied to space itself - [impossible]
For the concept of property to be useful, it has to be the result of something possible and actual. (1) is possible. (2) is impossible. The "Homesteading Principle" is thus no principle at all. It should be called the "Homesteading Preference" - the preference to refer to "land" (spatial land, in particular) as "property" despite the fact that it is not the result of transformation by human action.
If someone can demonstrate human action being applied to space (2) with an objectively verifiable result (e.g., space being relocated to another space, or more space being produced), then I'm happy to accept the "Homesteading Principle" as internally consistent. But moving things around in space (e.g., setting out a fence in an attempt to "emborder" space) is not sufficient to demonstrate (2), it only demonstrates (1). And if (2) cannot be demonstrated by BOTH reason and evidence, then why should anyone accept it as derivation of property?
At best the notion of "Homesteading" is an attempt to harmonize two opposite ideas about property: (1) Property is derived from human action, and (2) Property is derived from non-human action (or property is not derived from human action but is derived by decree). The problem with asserting (2) is that (1) inevitably loses its meaning!It seems far more sensible to say there is a "Property Principle" based strictly on human action on things (1), and an "Exclusion Principle" – a manifested desire to exclude others from accessing a location/space with a commitment to respect the exclusions of others. Both of these principles are then available to proof by non-contradiction (i.e., argumentation ethics and dialogical estoppel).
As I wrote earlier in the thread: When Anarcho-Capitalists claim they "own" land, they are not claiming to have transformed spatial land (which is impossible) but are claiming to have made an effort to alert others of their wish to exclude others from a location (by "embordering" that location with a fence) in order to protect the property resting there, property which is the result of their human action (e.g., a planted field, house).The role played by man in production always consists solely in combining his personal forces with the forces of Nature in such a way that the cooperation leads to some particular desired arrangement of material. No human act of production amounts to more than altering the position of things in space and leaving the rest to Nature. — Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit
A farmer farms/plows/tills his soil, that is, he transforms physical "land" into fertile soil as his property which he thus owns. He then attempts to protect his property by denying others access to the location in which his property rests. But he doesn't (and never did) own "land", and hasn't appropriated "land", only soil: In the very act of appropriation, the physical "land" he grasped/relocated became his property, and what he did not grasp/relocate remained as "land" or "nature" (Mises).
Transformed physical "land" is called "property". Untransformed physical "land" is called "land" and is said to be "unowned" and therefore not property since it has yet to be transformed. We "own" things as property because we have transformed them, the minimum transformation being to relocate a thing in space (e.g., to grasp and it reposition it). Basically, we own our transformations since only they are our own.
When we accept that we cannot grasp space, cannot relocate space, cannot relocate a location, then we can accept that spatial "land" is not the result of human action, and therefore not available to the idea of property. Human action applied to physical "land" creates property. We can use the term "land" to refer to that which is NOT property. If we want to be specific, we can divide "land" into "physical" and "spatial" (or similar descriptors) - this fitting with our empirical observations.When we build a skyscraper we are making land. If we change land in some beneficial way we have produced it.
A skyscrapper or city or airplane is an accumulation of "things in space" (Mises), the rest being "land" or "nature" (Mises). A human body or any other legitimate from of transformed property is an accumulation of "things in space", the rest being "land" and therefore not property.
To say a skyscrapper is "land" is to say that what was the result of human action has reverted back to nature i.e., it is unowned. For the purposes of common understanding, it is either a skyscrapper or it is "land".
Whilst it is true that all property derives from transforming physical land, we don't call a car "land" or a human body "land". We apply linguistic labels to the things we transform in order to communicate their intended purpose. I don't accept the idea of a skyscrapper being called "land", but will gladly acknowledge that a skyscrapper is the result of transforming physical "land", and that it rests in spatial "land".
Resources exist in space. Space is a resource (in the sense of being useful to humans), but space can't be produced by human action, and can't be moved or otherwise transformed by human action. Thus we distinguish transformed physical "land" (i.e., property or capital) from untransformed and untransformable spatial "land" (i.e., non-property or "land"/location).Capital occupies space; land is space. — Mason Gaffney, Land as a Distinctive Factor of Production
We neither own physical nor spatial "land": We can only transform physical "land" into property (and thereby create a verifiable objective/intersubjective "ownership" of that property via our "own" transformation), and we can only use spatial "land" i.e., locate and relocate in space our bodies and other forms of legitimate transformed property.
To paraphrase Mises: Property amounts to no more than altering the position of things in space.---
I could be massively wrong about all this, and fully acknowledge that I'm questioning centuries of tradition. But tradition isn't necessarily based on reason and evidence, and I can only be corrected by reason and evidence. -
If the contestor is arguing the owner has no right to exclude them because of this then by the same standard the contestor has no right to claim ownership of the land either. They'd be making a self-detonating argument.
This conflates exclusion with "ownership". (I anticipate you won't agree that it is a conflation.) It is true that the contestor can't demand an exclusive exclusion, accepting as he does the value of excusion to them both, and also the common humanity and thus equal access to universal moral principles.
Because "land" isn't property, what's going on here – morally – is this: Is the contestor willing to initiate aggression against the body (property) of the prior excluder in order to compel him to give up his exclusion?
Phrased another way: There are two people standing in space trying to negotiate the location of things (their bodies) within that space. Will they peacefully negotiate or not?
-
By open borders I mean open immigration. Compensation should be given to those who are excluded, so if the rest of the world is not excluded from coming to your area, there is no necessity for compensation. If the force of the state is used to exclude others from your area, then you are relying on violence, rather then a mutually beneficial transaction. I agree that no one is naturally owed money or goods, but everyone needs access to land. We "should" look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other, and compensating others for restricting their access makes sense.
Every location is a monopoly; there is no human action that creates more space! Humans have a desire to exclude, and for exclusion to have any meaning, the rest of the humanity is necessarily excluded.
This is why I back away from the geoist *should* of compensation to all humanity. This should implies that if people are not currently sharing rent, then they are acting immorally, and some kind of action will be taken (by those acting morally) to compel them to start sharing rent. But people aren't already explicitly sharing geo-rent (except very minimally in places like Arden, Delware), and I lack the imagination to see how people can starting act morally – right now, this second – in accordance with the standard geoist *should*. Thus, I regard this *should* as unreasonable.
I agree we should always look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other and not resort to violence to give only the appearance of settling disputes.
Compensating members (of a proprietary community defined by a geographical area) for spatial exclusions makes sense IF you wish to live in a community without rent-seekers and where the members can appeal to an objective principle in order to settle exclusion disputes. (I think it is vital to note that these sorts of disputes will likely only arise in locations where there is superior "land" nearby. And since there's no way to anticipate in advance this superiority without a market for exclusions, we can't know that the people locating themselves there *could* or *should* share rent.) I imagine rent-sharing is only possible on a voluntary basis within small scale communities, and I anticipate that some of these communities will combine to become greater associations and thus furthering the standard geoist aim of "all humanity".
I accept every human being needs access to physical and spatial "land", and also accept that to be a living human being, one must already be enjoying access to at least spatial "land" – e.g., I have access to my body (transformed physical "land"), and my body is located in space (untransformable spatial "land").
BUT – the great geoist (or "geo-classical") insight is that we don't – and can't – all have access to the same quality of "land" (market-assessed by the economic and social opportunities) and thus there exist inequalities of opportunity that predatory rent-seekers seek to capitalize on. So I completely agree that – IF the need arises – compensating others for restricting access to locations makes sense. Perhaps that sense is a kind of moral justice. I'm not sure. Convince me!
-
What are some workbooks I should check out? What strategies do people use for journaling and dream journaling? Questions to ask or schedule people use?
Thanks for starting this thread. I'm always fascinated by people's self-knowledge processes.
I'm in a similar situation: I had to stop therapy prematurely due to financial concerns.
I started regularly journaling at least a year before starting therapy. For me, given my childhood experiences (or lack of them), therapy was about experiencing an attuned and empathetic relationship rather than gathering and processing intellectual insights. The big insight (or just the recurring insight) was how much I intellectualized about the therapeutic relationship to defend myself against the relationship (and all other relationships).
So, I'm somewhat cautious about journaling, recognizing that, for me, it can be an easy defense against relational experiences.
Nonetheless, journaling has been – and continues to be – very useful, and these are the journaling strategies/habits that work for me:
- Using dreams to gain spontaneous access to mecosystem parts/subpersonalities/schemas. I journal most (but not all) dreams using the Gestalt method [1] [2] where every object/character within the dream is given a voice and the events and relationships within the dream are explored from its point of view. I've been amazed that some of the most integrative ideas and insights have been generated from the very smallest dream fragments.
- Collecting images/photos that represent mecosystem parts/subpersonalities/schemas, and arranging and relating those images to each other in a way that seems to make sense. I gave up trying to name or apply verbal labels to parts. I'm more interested in feeling their feelings and facilitating their non-verbal expression.
- Collecting quotations and processing notes taken from books, articles, and FDR podcasts. The books I've found particularly rich and evocative are: Character Styles, Interpersonal Process in Therapy, and Existential Psychotherapy. Also, The Eight Domains of Integration detailed in Mindsight might be useful for creating a broader plan of self-work.
- Writing pages about the "moments" I've experienced by SIFTing (Sensations, Images, Feelings, Thoughts) through them in as much detail as I can recall. I find myself going back to these pages to process and integrate the recent insights I've gained. This going back seems to relax something within me, as if an older, wiser me is back there in that moment providing real-time support and understanding to the younger me. Those are the most satisfying experiences I've had whilst journaling.
- Writing diaries on days when something particularly noteworthy has
occured, but mostly relying on dreams to surface and communicate anything deeper
that I've missed or am too defended against acknowledging.- Writing "morning pages"/brain dumps whenever I've found myself daydreaming, ruminating, or having repetitive imaginary conversations. I'm usually surprised at what comes out once I start externalizing. I make no effort to tidy up or process these brain dumps; I like the idea of having a purely spontaneous/messy space in my journal/life where things are left unresolved and perhaps unresolvable.
- Meditating to open up my awareness and lessen my distractibility.
- Adding to three lists: (1) self-attacks; (2) desires/wishes; (3) fears/regrets.
- Most of my journal is written as questions to avoid premature conclusions. Journaling became more of a habit after I began rephrasing my thoughts as questions, perhaps because it left issues open for other parts to add their view and thereby lessened intrapersonal conflict and resistance.
- I tried sentence completion exercises and self-directed IFS convos but rebelled against the structure.
- I use a TiddlyWiki as my journal.
Social anxiety show list
in Freedomain Show Lists
Posted
I agree; it's not a conscious choice during childhood. My point - and the point of posting the series of quotes above - is that it may be a 'choice' (at some adulthood-inducing choiceness level) to continue to use these defenses during adulthood. And, even if it's not entirely accurate, conceptualizing adult Social Anxiety as a choice, seems to be the more empowering perspective: It is unjust, both to myself and to others, to be afraid of people who have *not* attacked me (but I understand where that fear comes from).
Yes, that fearful infliction/injection of anxiety into other people as Cheryl describes above. It was out of my concern for what I was choosing to do others that made me reconsider the idea I was the only sufferer of my Social Anxiety; others were made to suffer too. I guess the 'script' worked exactly as planned to keep me isolated.