Collarchat.com

Create a
Free Account		 As the Collar Turns:
 Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home  Login  Search 
Espanol  Deutsch  Francais  Italiano  Portugues 

RE: The need to be property


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> RE: The need to be property Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 6:40:32 PM   
Phoenix73Sir


Posts: 139
Joined: 4/2/2010
From: Northants, UK
Status: offline 		My $0.02.. Only being on the third book of the seriesI cannot comment on Gorean yet as I am still learning. what I can comment on is what i see as a whole whether it be these Gorean boards or the rest of the CM boards.  That is this: A lot of people view D/s and M/s relationships in general as being polar in nature you are either one or the other. 

Anyone who has spent 5 minutes on the planet knows that humanity is not divided in such a way.. there is a whole spectrum out there and people find their places in it.  Why that seems to be ignored in the alternate lifestyle is beyond me.

**Disclaimer**  Yes I know that a lot of people do see it as a spectrum (i.e. AllyC etc) but they seem to me to be in the minority.


_____________________________

Yes, I have 2 profiles. my active one is Username: Syrox. I chose to keep this one though for the message boards.

"Just when you think you have ALL the answers... I change the questions" ~ Roddy Piper.

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 6:49:59 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

My apologies for the delay in my response, but my owner's days off are Monday and Tuesday so I was quite unavailable :)


Welcome back ally!
And I'm jealous now... Master has been gone since Sunday and didn't exactly have much time the past few weekends either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

The key there is the word "predetermined." Their ethics are based on a sense of duty to something that was established for them to follow. They seek an outside source - one that was predetermined, to influence them in their moral beliefs of right and wrong. Whereas the former looks inside to define and find such truths.


I don't agree with this.
To me "predetermined" or "predefined" as my definition said does not imply that the predetermination is made by an outside source.
It simple implies that it was defined prior to putting it in practice, by whom... well... that would depend I suppose.

When a free man defines what in his opinion an ethical cast code is and then scrupulously sticks to that code, even when it's hard, he is displaying "an ethical system stemming from a sense of duty to a predefined set of rules" - a rule based morality.

I really don't see any logical way you could claim he is not, but maybe you could help me out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I think in the end, it all boils down to the philosophical breakdown.  Agent based morality = Master.  Rules based morality = slave.  To me, a free woman is not a mastered woman.  She is free.  She does not seek an outside source to dictate how she is to live.  She may listen to the ideas of others and perhaps take the advice of others but when it comes to the core of her life, she lives it based on her own personal ethic and core principles.


This is from your first post in this topic.
A lot of people commented to this post that you explained so clearly the difference between a free person and a slave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I don't believe that all people with rules based moralities are slaves nor do I believe that everyone with an agent based morality is absolutely free.


This post is much more nuanced than your previous one, and it is one I can fully agree with.

Now I know you, ally, have never said that you felt all people with an agent based morality are free, or that all people with a rule based morality are slaves. But that very conclusion has been reached many many times on this board, and was again put forward by several people in response to your first post.

I think it's pretty clear by now that both you and I disagree with that conclusion.

I really think the agent/rule based morality is a bad description for Gorean moralities.
Norman is very clearly referring to Nietzsche's master/slave morality when he talks about Gorean morality, but master/slave morality is not the same concept as agent/rule based morality is. Equating the two leads to confusion, in my opinion, like what happens when people take it one step further and say "agent based morality = free; rule based morality = slave".
Which we both agreed isn't true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
What I think is more important than some innate sense is what that person strives to seek. Everyone is on their own, individual path of life and each person is seeking something unique. For some, they strive toward internal freedom as that is where they thrive. For others, they seek to find their own security and comfort in an outside source and the boundaries set by that force in their lives.


This I can agree with, though, with the addition that no matter what the person is seeking mastery (as I like to call it) or enslavement (as you like to call it) doesn't actually take place until they find an outside source who will actively take control over their lives.

Thus... in the end... it all falls down on the determination of the man in her life, and how good he is at determining what she in naturally inclined to be towards him.

I would also like to add that I believe that even if a person isn't seeking for an outside source to take control, and even if they are seeking to internally be free, they still can meet an outside source who -despite of what they were seeking- do just that anyways. Maybe not with all individuals... but I do dare say... with most...

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC



In the end, what matters most to me is that we're fulfilled where we are with who and what we are, regardless of what side of the morality we lean to. Labels aside, status aside, are we living in a way that resonanates in a healthy, honest tone? Do we seek our own personal excellence? And if that personal excellence is something fulfilled by the boundaries of another authority, do we still strive to surpass that bar that is set for us.



Abslutely 100% agreed!


I wish you well,

ishy

< Message edited by ishyB -- 5/12/2010 6:54:17 PM >

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 6:59:34 PM   
barelynangel


Posts: 6233
Status: offline 		Ishy, this isn't a contest. lol i have said things over the course of the years many times.  If you haven't been able to narrow down my beliefs, it probably is because i haven't offered insight on certain topics, which many i don't -- especially when i don't have experience with regard to same -- but i am very firm in my opinions when i do - hazard of my job. 

See this is where you and i come to disagreement -- Gor has 2 statuses of women, Free and slave.  period.  One either is a slave to a Man or she is not.  If she is not, she is free.    The thing is people want to make the slavery status all this if this than that, and its not.  If she is not an actual slave then she is Free.  The free concept to me is more gray area because there are many different levels of being a FW even the books showed this.  

Mastery is a concept that is part of the slavery the absoluteness of the mastery is what is the slavery that we can practice, i am still trying to come to terms if it can exist as "mastery" in the FW concept.  MOST of what i comment on when i speak about the mastery is he masters her to HIS determinations for her as a whole to me that is being a slave, because the fact he masters her to HIS determinations for her as a whole means she no longer exists with her autonomy or the ability to exercise her self-determination for her whole.    Most people don't make that distinction.  I really cannot comment on partial mastery i don't know what that is and am trying to figure it out as my recent thread indicates. But i do know enough about the slavery to know that absolute mastery is what creates the actual woman existing in slavery and i know that absolute mastery's foundation is a sexual concept.  Stupid question but do you really know what partial mastery is ishy?

Personally, i never seen mastery applied to FW until your Master decided it was the cool new idea that he wanted to use because he wants to explain that his FC is mastered but Free.   Its all based on what sounds cool.   I have noticed he has been throwing it around more and more trying to see if it will take hold.  So of course you haven't seen it until the last couple weeks, that's when he started mentioning it.

Ishy, perhaps you need to go back and read my posts, you will see i distinguish what i speak of in many of my posts as to what slavery in the books i speak about as i see two very different concepts that exist within the slavery one based on legalities (we can't relate too) and one based upon strictly the mastery.  And i do distinguish my words.  So if you want the logic you so smartassedly asked for, its in the posts you obviously aren't reading or only reading what you want to see.

ishy, i liked you better when you didn't attempt passive aggressive bullshit trying to appear like the slave.   

I know many women who exist in slavery without their autonomy ishy.  The definition of autonomy is pretty clear and isn't really that hard to decipher.  The fact that many men don't know how or can't remove a woman's autonomy based upon his mastery of her to exist solely by his determination doesn't mean it isn't something we can live by.  I don't agree with your inspiring comment, to me that leaves to much to chance.  i know you have stated so many times, but i don't agree with it nor is it what i know of the slavery.   Maybe that's how it works between you and Bull -- but in the end then its the woman who controls, not the man.  I will say its more comfortable for people to believe that women can't lose their autonomy to men.  Its not something we have been taught to accept or in many ways understand. 

However, a Man who has mastered a woman absolutely is capable of removing her autonomy and more so her self-determination.  The problem is men are uncomfortable with removing a woman's autonomy. Its not what they were taught or what they understand.  Many people teach that men who do this aren't "real" men, because how dare they disrespect a woman so by diminishing of not obliterating her dignity.  That's another concept of slavery many cannot come to terms with.

As far as the moralities go, the problem i have with that is many free do live by a rule-based morality so while i read what people say, i am having trouble connecting it with the examples i see.  FW many times do live a rule-based morality especially FC's and yet they still exist as Free women.    I don't usually get into this discussion, which is why you probably don't know what i believe in it.  I didn't know enough about the application of an agent-based morality and being Free to make an informed understanding and belief about it.  I don't think people can make an informed decision about such things until they actually live it and walked in it and most importantly applied it to their lives. 

The thing is, if you have knowledge, applicable knowledge is what i speak of, and fully believe something then don't expect a concensus but believe that people are thinking, especially on boards such as this.  These boards should have taught you that over the years.

angel

_____________________________


What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson


(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 8:01:11 PM   
Cherylmazana


Posts: 1151
Joined: 10/4/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Angel, where on earth did me failing to master my husband suddenly come from? What exactly does that have to do with Gorean slavery is all about “sexuality” especially as male slavery was mainly hard manual labour and rarely has sex type of slavery.

The reasons I failed to master him were many and mainly due to whom he is and not due to sexual issues, if sex was the only condition needed to master someone he would be a happy slave and I wouldn’t be talking on this board as a Gorean now.

I think I am going to have to stop responding to your posts though as I seem to be responding to you badly, your attacks can get quite nasty and personal rather than addressing the issues and I dislike that as I tend to react to that badly in a similar vein, something in how your personality shows through your writing tends to irritate me. And now I have realised what is going on its time to stop it.

Be well
Cheryl

(in reply to barelynangel)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 8:10:55 PM   
xBullx


Posts: 3962
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline 		Well, you know......I do like to cut up a bit and it's nice when you girls can take something as it's intended, as in off handed humor.

Nothing wrong with standing strong and on one's ground so long as it doesn't inadvertently leave them standing unsubstatiated and alone as well. Oh and there are those ill-conceived concepts of self-righteous martyrdom that some of our crowd obsess over, but I'm sure you would never hold yourself in such regard. As you seem to imply, you're only here to provide light and direction to the ignorant and unknowing.

So apart from inspiring your typical passive agressive remarks it seems my post, as I surmized it would, did little to offend or resonate with you, so I'll just leave well enough alone. I'd hate to highjack and ramble off topic on my own kajira's thread any further.

Good day to you...


_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to barelynangel)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 9:39:28 PM   
barelynangel


Posts: 6233
Status: offline 		Bull, you know your ego utterly amazes me, i have to give you that.  I was confused because I don't have a typical response to your posts in general, as i rarely post to you at all unless you post the way you have here to me.     If you want a different response Bull, perhaps you should alter your approach.   But you don't and i don't -- life goes on.  However, you are right about something -- i need to work on how i try not to make a man look like an ass for putting his foot in his mouth, because it appears it comes out as passive-aggressive.  Thanks for pointing that out. 

BTW, i hope everyone was out of the way when you typed the comment about teaching people with a straight face because i would really hate it if someone else got hit when lightening stuck you.

If your post was intended as off-handed humor to me Bull, then me and a couple other people are seriously off the humor radar. 

As always, its been entertaining. 

angel

_____________________________


What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson


(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: The need to be property - 5/12/2010 10:36:43 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

See this is where you and i come to disagreement -- Gor has 2 statuses of women, Free and slave.  period.  One either is a slave to a Man or she is not.  If she is not, she is free.    The thing is people want to make the slavery status all this if this than that, and its not.  If she is not an actual slave then she is Free.  The free concept to me is more gray area because there are many different levels of being a FW even the books showed this.  
~
Ishy, perhaps you need to go back and read my posts, you will see i distinguish what i speak of in many of my posts as to what slavery in the books i speak about as i see two very different concepts that exist within the slavery one based on legalities (we can't relate too) and one based upon strictly the mastery. 


I am not trying to be a smartass, Angel, I'm just really not comprehending what you are saying, because it doesn't make sense to me.

You say Gor just has two statuses for women.
And yet, you differentiate between a mastered slave, and a captive slave, saying that while they are both slaves, they're still not the same thing.
It seems to me that you thus say that there are at least 3 ways for a woman to exist on Gor: 2 social statuses, and within 1 of those social statuses 2 internal statuses.
I did read your post and the way you distinguish between things, which is exactly why what you are saying isn't adding up for me.

I wish you well,

ishy

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to barelynangel)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: The need to be property - 5/13/2010 4:24:48 AM   
barelynangel


Posts: 6233
Status: offline 		Ishy, its not making sense to you because you are to me trying to rewrite  the books and create more statuses than there really were.  The way i have always seen slave status was that there were two concepts of how a woman was kept -- captive (legally only)and mastered and there is only one way we can practice the slavery and within those ways you had different types - but on Gor they were all still the one status.   Free women is the same, i am less confident in describing the ways FW existed because i think its too numerous to count and all ways are doable for us -- but it exists under one status - FW. 

The status of women on Gor was the easiest thing to understand with regard to women, she was either a slave or free. 

angel

< Message edited by barelynangel -- 5/13/2010 4:34:40 AM >

_____________________________


What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson


(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: The need to be property - 5/13/2010 4:27:06 AM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

The status of women on Gor was the easiest thing to understand with regard to women, she was either a slave or free. 


Wasn't that based in legality and not mastery though?

_____________________________

you're just an empty cage, girl
if you kill the bird

(in reply to barelynangel)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: The need to be property - 5/13/2010 4:43:54 AM   
Phoenix73Sir


Posts: 139
Joined: 4/2/2010
From: Northants, UK
Status: offline 		Mastered.... Captive..... On paper they are both the same thing.  the only difference I have seen from my limited experience is that Mastered slaves seem to have some form of emotional attachment associated to them where as captive slaves merely serve..

Probably completely wrong, but what better way to learn than have my newbie statement shredded and explained to me. (honest.. I don't mind..)


_____________________________

Yes, I have 2 profiles. my active one is Username: Syrox. I chose to keep this one though for the message boards.

"Just when you think you have ALL the answers... I change the questions" ~ Roddy Piper.

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: The need to be property - 5/13/2010 6:06:23 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves

Women live in the bubble that the man in their life creates for them. And a big part of the 'mastery' process is knowing what are the key ingredients that particular woman needs to thrive in the bubble, and ensuring they are there consistently so she never even questions the state she is in... she is just simply content, fulfilled and thriving in the bubble that he has built around her.


This I absolutely agree with sgs.
It's about the man.
It's about being what he wants you to be.

The type of woman attracted to Gorean men will always be what he determines her to be to him.
In that, they will find a give and take, in which they both support each other and fulfill each other's needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves

I am very much my mother's daughter, except that I need to be held as property. The state of mastery, the 'bubble' I thrive in, is one of ownership/owned. Is there a sexual aspect to it... yes... is it more in the mind than between the legs... absolutely. Of course, though, the mind makes me and keeps me sexually charged a vast majority of the time. Because of the way i am held, i do feel much more sexually needy and responsive of him.... almost sometimes sexually desperate for him... but yet at the same time, for me, it is not all about the sex. It is about being owned. About living in the bubble of belonging to a man who claims me as his, who i thrive serving and who makes me feel loved, special, and securely owned property.


This sounds illogical to me sgs.

I'm going to ask you something, and please, I am really trying to figure this out in my head, so please try to answer as logically correct as possible.
I'm not saying that what you are saying isn't true, I'm just wondering if you express it with enough nuance.

Do you need to be held as actual property or do you need to feel as if you are held as property?

Are you really looking to give up your ability to be self-determining, to an absolute degree?
Are you really looking to give up your ability to consent, to an absolute degree?

In other words, if your Master would tell you tomorrow: "Pack your bags, we are going to Saudi-Arabia, I've found a buyer for you."
Would you get on the plane?

Really, I'm not saying it's wrong you like to be called a slave, and that you feel secure when you feel like you are property.
I'm just wondering how much of that is really a need to actually be property, and how much of it is enjoying being made to feel like property, in a situation that is actually a loving, caring, nurturing, mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship.
How much are you like your mother, and how much of the difference between you and her is a personal preference (by both your Master and you) in the terminology used to describe your relationship? 

I wish you well,

ishy

< Message edited by ishyB -- 5/13/2010 6:16:13 PM >

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to sweetgirlserves)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: The need to be property - 5/14/2010 4:26:46 PM   
sweetgirlserves


Posts: 257
Joined: 4/14/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ishyB

I'm going to ask you something, and please, I am really trying to figure this out in my head, so please try to answer as logically correct as possible.
I'm not saying that what you are saying isn't true, I'm just wondering if you express it with enough nuance.

Do you need to be held as actual property or do you need to feel as if you are held as property?

Are you really looking to give up your ability to be self-determining, to an absolute degree?
Are you really looking to give up your ability to consent, to an absolute degree?

In other words, if your Master would tell you tomorrow: "Pack your bags, we are going to Saudi-Arabia, I've found a buyer for you."
Would you get on the plane?

Really, I'm not saying it's wrong you like to be called a slave, and that you feel secure when you feel like you are property.
I'm just wondering how much of that is really a need to actually be property, and how much of it is enjoying being made to feel like property, in a situation that is actually a loving, caring, nurturing, mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship.
How much are you like your mother, and how much of the difference between you and her is a personal preference (by both your Master and you) in the terminology used to describe your relationship? 

I wish you well,

ishy



Hi ishy,
i feel secure when i am made to feel like i am property... etc. Since obviously, i am not able to legally 'be' property. I think a good question for any 'mastered' girl to ask herself is... if a law was passed that stated that one person could actually become the property of another, would you sign on the dotted line and become your Master's actual property? I really can't answer that question yet myself. It would be interesting to hear what someone like ally, who has been with her Master for so many years, would say. Personally, I do believe probably that there are slaves and also, perhaps some of those 'mastered FW' who would say 'yes', if that's what he wanted.... and when she would be truly willing to sign on the dotted line, then i believe the 'absolute' mastery has been achieved, since she has his complete and total trust and surrender to him for the rest of her life.

I enjoy reading your questions... i think it is good for all of us to think about these things... and also to revisit and reconsider them as we grow both individually and in our relationships.


BTW... i would love to know your thoughts on what Nietzche thought of as the slave morality vs. the master morality, since i believed you said it has nothing to do with rules based vs. agent-based moralities. And then also, explain how/if you think Nietzche's ideas in this regard correlate with Gorean thought.

Wishing you well,
~sgs

_____________________________

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." ~Maya Angelou

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: The need to be property - 5/14/2010 4:41:32 PM   
allyC


Posts: 776
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves

if a law was passed that stated that one person could actually become the property of another, would you sign on the dotted line and become your Master's actual property? I really can't answer that question yet myself. It would be interesting to hear what someone like ally, who has been with her Master for so many years, would say. Personally, I do believe probably that there are slaves and also, perhaps some of those 'mastered FW' who would say


Where do I sign? :)

Yes, I would - beyond a doubt.

Well wishes,

Cav's ally

(in reply to sweetgirlserves)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: The need to be property - 5/14/2010 5:10:06 PM   
allyC


Posts: 776
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ishyB

And I'm jealous now... Master has been gone since Sunday and didn't exactly have much time the past few weekends either.


That's no fun. :( I am fortunate that my Master doesn't have to be away from home except for the workday. I hope you get more time to spend with him soon!

quote:

I don't agree with this.
To me "predetermined" or "predefined" as my definition said does not imply that the predetermination is made by an outside source.
It simple implies that it was defined prior to putting it in practice, by whom... well... that would depend I suppose.


While I see what you are saying, I don't believe that is what is implied. By saying "predetermined" in itself, the prefix of "pre" implies that such was set beforehand. If it was meant to mean that one could set those things as right and wrong internally and then subsequently follow them, then there would be no need to even mention an agent based morality as they would all fall into one category.

While the agent based morality and the master morality are similar, I know that there are nuances of difference. Same goes for the rules based morality and the slave morality. The slave morality seeks to say "we are all the same" and while someone who follows a rules based morality (especially in the social sense) seeks to be like others who follow that same "common" good, they are not exactly the same.

I, as a general rule, view agent vs. rules to be internal vs. external.

quote:

When a free man defines what in his opinion an ethical cast code is and then scrupulously sticks to that code, even when it's hard, he is displaying "an ethical system stemming from a sense of duty to a predefined set of rules" - a rule based morality.


I would agree, and a free person, if he genuinely believed such predefined rules to be the antithesis to what he believed to be right and good, then he would either submit against his principle (i.e. just follow the rules set out for him) or he would do what he felt was right.

quote:

I really don't see any logical way you could claim he is not, but maybe you could help me out?


There is a person's status, and a person's internal sense of being. Again within the Gorean paradigm, anyone who is not owned/enslaved/etc. is free. Their status is free. That does not make them internally free nor does it make them internally a slave. It was simply a status used to delineate those who were in a collar, and those who were not.

Now whether that person strives for personal truth and freedom or not is a personal thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I think in the end, it all boils down to the philosophical breakdown.  Agent based morality = Master.  Rules based morality = slave.  To me, a free woman is not a mastered woman.  She is free.  She does not seek an outside source to dictate how she is to live.  She may listen to the ideas of others and perhaps take the advice of others but when it comes to the core of her life, she lives it based on her own personal ethic and core principles.


Perhaps I should have worded it this way - If you are a slave, then your morality is most likely rules based. If you are free, than your morality is most likely agent based. If you are internally free, you are not mastered by an outside influence. If you are mastered by an outside influence, than you are not internally free.

quote:

I really think the agent/rule based morality is a bad description for Gorean moralities.
Norman is very clearly referring to Nietzsche's master/slave morality when he talks about Gorean morality, but master/slave morality is not the same concept as agent/rule based morality is. Equating the two leads to confusion, in my opinion, like what happens when people take it one step further and say "agent based morality = free; rule based morality = slave".
Which we both agreed isn't true.


I do agree that they are not exactly the same, but they are quite similar in nature. The Gorean morality, aka the Master morality is quite similar to the agent based and likewise the slave morality (what Norman called the morality of Earth) is very similar to the rules based morality. The former are those in which a person starts from a central point and strives for excellence based on experience, self-gleaned knowledge, and personal truth. The latter are those which seek sameness - it seeks for all to follow a predefined ideal of what is right and what is wrong. It seeks for one to rise to the level that others have set.

quote:

This I can agree with, though, with the addition that no matter what the person is seeking mastery (as I like to call it) or enslavement (as you like to call it) doesn't actually take place until they find an outside source who will actively take control over their lives.


I agree wholeheartedly. One cannot be a slave (or enslaved, or mastered) without that dominating influence or force in their life.

quote:

Thus... in the end... it all falls down on the determination of the man in her life, and how good he is at determining what she in naturally inclined to be towards him.


I think that in the end, it falls down to both people. I don't believe that man (as a general rule) can decide a woman's nature but he certainly may recognize it. Her nature will be what it is. If, however, her nature reacts to his own in such a way that mastery and subsequent enslavement is the ideal, then I would imagine he would see that and make it so.

quote:

I would also like to add that I believe that even if a person isn't seeking for an outside source to take control, and even if they are seeking to internally be free, they still can meet an outside source who -despite of what they were seeking- do just that anyways. Maybe not with all individuals... but I do dare say... with most...


I agree. There's always a bigger dog out there. :)

Well wishes, ishy!

Cav's ally

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: The need to be property - 5/18/2010 7:19:42 AM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline 		 
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you ally, I've been busy over the weekend while Master was home, and I've been working on my final ethics and psychology papers for college which left me really sick of writing, even when I had a spare moment to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

By saying "predetermined" in itself, the prefix of "pre" implies that such was set beforehand. If it was meant to mean that one could set those things as right and wrong internally and then subsequently follow them, then there would be no need to even mention an agent based morality as they would all fall into one category.

While the agent based morality and the master morality are similar, I know that there are nuances of difference. Same goes for the rules based morality and the slave morality. The slave morality seeks to say "we are all the same" and while someone who follows a rules based morality (especially in the social sense) seeks to be like others who follow that same "common" good, they are not exactly the same.
I, as a general rule, view agent vs. rules to be internal vs. external.


First of all, I think you are making a mistake here when you talk about "the" agent/rule based morality. The concept of an agent/rule based morality is not an actual system of morality by itself, instead, they are terms used to define how people deal with different systems of moralities.
For example, one can use Kantian ethics either from a moral agency approach, which leaves you at your own devises when it comes to determining which maxims should become rule, or you can approach it from a rule based approach, which results in a rigorous set of rules like "killing is bad".
The same thing applies for utilitarianism; from a agent based approach it leaves you at self-determining "the greater good" while from a rule based approach it leads you to a democratic system in which the majority decides "the greater good".

The terms agent/rule based morality can be applied to virtually any ethical system out there, depending on the method you take when approaching said ethical system, but an agent/rule based morality is not an actual system of morality that stands on it's own.

So it isn't true that because these both ways of approaching moralities often work in close correlation with each other that the fact that they have overlaps makes that they should rule each other out. The difference between the two of them is not that one is enforced from an external source while the other is not, but that one is predetermined, while the other one is fluent and can be changed on the spot.

Rule based approaches of morality CAN be enforced by external sources. Take a Catholic for instance, who literally follows the Bible commands because the Bible says he should. That would be an example of a rule based morality enforced by an external source.
However, a person reading about and studding different religions, who would then actively choose to follow that same Bible because they found themselves agreeing with the Bible is displaying an act of moral agency in determining which rule based morality they choose to follow. Once they determine that they are going to follow the Bible commands, they are following a rule based morality, but the method of determining that they would do so what an act of moral agency just the same.
Both methods of establishing morality often closely work together.
Now the pure form of moral agency would be if a person independently from the Bible came to the same conclusion about what is right and what is wrong as the Bible does, and then independently from the Bible decided to do everything the Bible says you should do, without ever formalizing that in an official set of codes or rules.

It would also be incorrect to say that a person following a rule based morality seeks to be the same as other people attempting to follow the same rule based morality. The goal of following a system of rules is not to emulate other people following the rules, but to purely follow the rules.
The morality of slaves, as Norman describes it in the books says that slaves try to be the same, which means that if the "herd" would change direction, and it would slowly become socially accepted to break certain rules, then the slaves would be quick to follow the general direction of the group, and forsake the rule based morality they used to ascribed to in favor of a new rule. Thus, according to the concept of a rule based morality, they would considered to be immoral at that point, for no longer upholding a rule which they sought to uphold.

When a person with Norman's version of the master morality would follow a rule based morality, they would not do the same thing. instead, they would still uphold the old rules, even if the group changed it's opinion and turned away from the rule, they would still go against the pressure of the herd and stick to the code which they choose to uphold.
This would make the "immoral" from the perspective of somebody with a slave morality, but it would be a moral act according to the master morality, and it would be a moral act according to the system of a rule based morality.

I think it would be much more accurate to describe both Norman's master as well as slave morality as being a "virtue ethics" with both moralities having opposite sets of values described as virtues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
quote:

When a free man defines what in his opinion an ethical cast code is and then scrupulously sticks to that code, even when it's hard, he is displaying "an ethical system stemming from a sense of duty to a predefined set of rules" - a rule based morality.


I would agree, and a free person, if he genuinely believed such predefined rules to be the antithesis to what he believed to be right and good, then he would either submit against his principle (i.e. just follow the rules set out for him) or he would do what he felt was right.


The thing about mixing moral agency with rule based morality systems is that when somebody chooses a rule based morality out of an act of moral agency, the predefined rules are never enforced or demanded of the person from an outside source, but rather are an internal determination of what the person upholding the rules believes to be right or wrong.

Thus, if a person out of an act of moral agency defines for himself that "killing is wrong" and sets themselves as a rule in their rule based morality system that one should never kill, but is then confronted with a situation in which they have to kill out of self-defense, there are two options in which they can keep their moral integrity: either the person upholds their self-imposed rule based system because they out of an act of moral agency decide that "killing is wrong, even in self-defense"; or they decide that "killing is justified if it's in self-defense" in which case they redefined their self-imposed rule based morality, and are thus morally justified to kill.

Likewise, there are two options in which a person in that situation can loose their moral integrity, and that's when they decide in an act of moral agency that "killing is wrong, even in self-defense" but they get scared, and kill anyways; or they decide that "killing is justified if it's in self-defense" but when the moment is there, miss the spirit, or the guts to actually kill when needed to.

Following a rule based morality doesn't imply that one can not decide to change the rules, it only implies that one can only change the rules if there is a true, justified reason for doing so. Breaking the rules one has set for oneself at whim, just because it's convenient would mean somebody is being immoral while trying to uphold a rule based morality. While not changing the rules when a person's sense of right/wrong demands that they do so would cause a person to be immoral while trying to uphold an agent based morality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

There is a person's status, and a person's internal sense of being. Again within the Gorean paradigm, anyone who is not owned/enslaved/etc. is free. Their status is free. That does not make them internally free nor does it make them internally a slave. It was simply a status used to delineate those who were in a collar, and those who were not.

Now whether that person strives for personal truth and freedom or not is a personal thing.


That's my point though ally, withing the Gorean paradigm a person's status is sole linked to their legal status, not to their internal sense of being.
But yet, here on Earth, we link a person's status sole to their internal sense of being, and absolutely ignore their legal status.

The way we here on Earth determine if we deem somebody to be a slave or not is absolutely a 100% directly in opposition to how a person is determined to be a slave in the books.
If Norman clearly demonstrated that internal sense of being has absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery... then why do we here on Earth insist that internal sense of being is the only way to determine slavery?

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

Perhaps I should have worded it this way - If you are a slave, then your morality is most likely rules based. If you are free, than your morality is most likely agent based. If you are internally free, you are not mastered by an outside influence. If you are mastered by an outside influence, than you are not internally free.


I like that a lot better, though again I feel that "virtue ethics with opposite virtues" would be a better way to describe it, seeing that with both the master and the slave morality, people are both employing rule and agent based ethics.

Other than that... again... if mastery is a matter of degrees, then how much mastery is needed to determine a person is not longer internally free?
Again, why the need for the black and white?

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I do agree that they are not exactly the same, but they are quite similar in nature. The Gorean morality, aka the Master morality is quite similar to the agent based and likewise the slave morality (what Norman called the morality of Earth) is very similar to the rules based morality.


You again talk about "the" agent based morality, and "the" rule based morality ally, and compare them to Norman's master/slave morality as if they are an ethical system that stands on it's own.
From what I learned, agent/rule based ethics aren't self-sporting ethical system, but are instead ways of approaching self-sporting ethical systems.
In other words, just stating that you follow a rule based morality doesn't lead us to an actual morality, because it doesn't define HOW the rules are picked... for that you need an actual ethical system, like Nietzsche's, Kant's, Socrates', Hume's, Mill's or Norman's and so on...
The same applies for a moral agency approach... stating that you "act in reference to right and wrong" doesn't lead to a system of morality unless you define the ethical system you actually use to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Maybe I'm missing something in my education, but I've been doing some research lately and I still can't find "an" agent/rule based morality that is an ethical system all by itself. If such a system exists I would be grateful if you could reference me to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

quote:

Thus... in the end... it all falls down on the determination of the man in her life, and how good he is at determining what she in naturally inclined to be towards him.


I think that in the end, it falls down to both people. I don't believe that man (as a general rule) can decide a woman's nature but he certainly may recognize it. Her nature will be what it is. If, however, her nature reacts to his own in such a way that mastery and subsequent enslavement is the ideal, then I would imagine he would see that and make it so.


I didn't mean "determining" as in "deciding" but rather as in "assessing".
I agree that a woman's nature is what it is, but under the Gorean paradigm, the only way a woman can actually be happy expressing that nature is if the men in her life are good at assessing what she is naturally inclined to be towards them, and then hold her to that.
This counts for both the free woman and the kajira.
A free woman would obviously be miserable if the men around her miss-assessed her nature and treated her like a slave, and so would the kajira be miserable is she was miss-assessed and given more freedom than she wishes or can handle.

I wish you well,

ishy

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: The need to be property - 5/18/2010 7:30:45 AM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline 		 
quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves

BTW... i would love to know your thoughts on what Nietzche thought of as the slave morality vs. the master morality, since i believed you said it has nothing to do with rules based vs. agent-based moralities. And then also, explain how/if you think Nietzche's ideas in this regard correlate with Gorean thought.



Greetings sgs,

first of all, it has to be clear to anybody that's ever read Nietzsche that his version of the master/slave morality is not the same thing as Norman's version of the master/slave morality.
Though Norman has clearly drawn some ideas from Nietzsche, both concepts are not the same thing. In fact, Norman incorporates just about any ethical or moral system out there in his work, even theories that are usually regarded to be absolutely contradictory to each other, but while he draws on all of them, it's very rarely that he ever copies anything without fundamentally changing it, and Nietzsche was no exception to that.

My own personal opinion is that Norman's most fundamental change is that he switched the most common systems of micro-ethics (applicable to the individual) with the most common systems of macro-ethics (applicable to the system or state) and thus created a whole new system, but more on that another time, should you be interested.

Nietzsche described the master morality as a "self-glorifying" morality. A morality in which what he calls the "noble man" (as in aristocracy in Europe) justifies his claim to power by virtue of the fact that he holds it. A person living by the master morality basically believes that living in a culture of dictatorship is good, as long as he is the ruling force himself, and he will only seek allies in those who while help him gain and hold more power. The virtues of "the strong" are anything that brings additional strength, even if it means dishonesty, or the repression of others. Honor would be a concept useless to a person living with such a morality, unless the concept of honor can be manipulated to enhance the self-glorification of it's holder (and we know that Gorean men would not consider such a type of honor to truly be honor).

A person living with a slave morality on the other hand, would have as virtues friendship, love, honesty, kindness, patience, responsibility, humility, diligence and motivation. Nietzsche also describes people with a slave morality to have an intense distrust for thing unfamiliar to them, and to strangers, because their virtues are such that they can be easily abused if they would trust the wrong people. He states that to a person with a slave morality, anything that can inspire fear would be viewed as "bad", while all those things would be considered "good" to a person with a master morality.
Further Nietzsche also very literally and specifically states that although he has chosen the term master/slave morality, he does not try to make an implication about the strive or lack of strive towards personal freedom a person living with either morality would have, claiming that people with a slave morality have and equally pressing desire to be free as people living with a master morality.

From what I know from him, Gandhi would be the perfect example of a person with a slave morality according to Nietzsche, even though Gandhi most defiantly had a very strong desire to be free from the British oppression, and in his own, non-violent way, fought very hard to accomplish that goal.

As you can see, there are some superficial similarities between Norman's and Nietzsche's master/slave morality, but apart from using the same term and a similar emphasis on "standing strong" versus "going with the flow" they really don't have all that much in common, and are most defiantly not the same thing.

Nietzsche's master morality does have an extremely strong leaning towards using an agent morality method of approaching ethics, much stronger then just about any other ethical system I can readily think of.
This is because a person living with a master morality considers themselves to be the law, and the creator of virtues, and thus the only accurate source of determining what it right and what's wrong. At the same time, a person with a master morality would have a very strong tendency to rebel against any type of rule based approach towards their ethics, because they would not wish to codify their ethical system in any way that might hold them to a higher moral standard that stands in the way of achieving their immediate goal.
For instance, a person with a master morality could very easily decide that it's wrong for anybody to lie to them, but justify that it is right for him to lie to others, and so on. They would be very resistant to follow something like a code of honor, or cast codes and so on.

Even though Nietzsche's master morality is an almost exclusively agent based morality, his slave morality isn't necessarily a rule based approach of ethics either. People with a slave morality still would have an extremely strong tendency to "act in accordance to right or wrong", in some sense even stronger than a person with a master morality would, because they would hold firm in their belief that if lying is wrong, then it's wrong... either for them to do unto others or for others to do unto them.
From that of course derives that they do tend to codify their views in rule based systems such as "lying is wrong" and then follow a rule based ethical system when sticking to those rules, but they would still very strongly do this out of a sense of moral agency.
Therefor, it is better to describe the slave morality as a system of virtue ethics which has as virtues the ones I named above, while the virtues for the master morality are almost absolute opposite.

While Norman's master/slave morality has some similarities, like for instance the fact that people with a slave morality under both Norman and Nietzsche have a tendency to apply their virtues to all (as in "lying is bad for everybody"). Also under both Norman and Nietzsche, people with master moralities do the opposite, they assume that ethical systems can only be applicable to the individual ("lying can be okay for me, but wrong for you" or "touching a weapon can be okay for me, but wrong for you").
Further a lot of Nietzsche's slave virtues are also the Gorean slave virtues, though not all.
Many of Nietzsche's slave virtues are master virtues under Norman's system, or become applicable to both.

Norman also lays a much greater emphasis on mixing a rule based approach to the master ethics, by creating cast systems, and having the free give so much importance to their sense of honor and duty towards themselves. Basically, Norman creates a system in which the master ethics are stifled, and kept in check by a rule based system, to prevent the master ethics from becoming a self-glorifying ethical system where self-importance is the only thing that's important to the person with the master morality.
Instead, he makes people with a master morality be heavily tied to their community and to the sense of duty and social accountability that comes with that.

A person with a Nietzschian master morality would never feel a sense of duty or social responsibility towards their community like that, unless the consequences would be beneficial to the individual in the long run, even if that mean that the actual consequence to the community from that sense of duty was a negative one.
The witch burners in midievil Europe would be an example of Nietzsche's master morality, where a self-glorifying morality which presented itself to act from a sense of duty towards the community actually did the community more harm than good, all to the benefit of those who, supposedly, try to show social responsibility.

Hope that made sense, I'm by no means a scholar when it comes to subjects like these... any questions just let me know and I'll try to clarify as best I can.

I wish you well,

ishy



_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to sweetgirlserves)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: The need to be property - 5/18/2010 5:24:56 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves

i feel secure when i am made to feel like i am property... etc. Since obviously, i am not able to legally 'be' property. I think a good question for any 'mastered' girl to ask herself is... if a law was passed that stated that one person could actually become the property of another, would you sign on the dotted line and become your Master's actual property? I really can't answer that question yet myself. It would be interesting to hear what someone like ally, who has been with her Master for so many years, would say. Personally, I do believe probably that there are slaves and also, perhaps some of those 'mastered FW' who would say 'yes', if that's what he wanted.... and when she would be truly willing to sign on the dotted line, then i believe the 'absolute' mastery has been achieved, since she has his complete and total trust and surrender to him for the rest of her life.



Greetings sgs,

There is a quite a difference between the scenario you posted "signing yourself over if possible" and the question I asked "would you get on the plane if he told you he sold you to a guy in Saudi-Arabia".
Your scenario is all about the trust and the faith you have in your Master. It basically boils down to: "do I trust him with my life, or not?"
Now if you are actually mastered by him, then yes, you would trust him with your life, but this is because you know that you can... and my guess is that you know you can trust him like that exactly because he doesn't literally view you as property.
You know that he wouldn't sell you to some guy in Saudi-Arabia, or kill you, or neglect your needs. You know that he wouldn't just dump you for a "younger model" as soon as you broke a leg, or got sick, or something like that. In short, you trust him... because you know he wouldn't actually view you, or treat you like property.

So again, I ask you the question: is this really about being property, or is it about being HIS woman?
If he would tell you: "Here sign these papers to make yourself legally my slave, so that I can legally sell you to some guy in Saudi-Arabia" would you still sign the papers?
Would any girl on this board seek to sign the papers in those circumstances? Ally, what about you?

My position is very firmly that this is NOT about being property, it's about being HIS, period.
If it was all about being property, then any man would do... it wouldn't matter at all who owned you, because it was all about being property and you can be that towards any man.
Instead, it's all about him, about your particular man, about being his, about being what he wants you to be.

Legal slavery, ANY system of legal slaver, including the Gorean one, is a system that operates under "ethical egoism". This is the notion that everybody has the ethical responsibility to look out for themselves, and only themselves, and that if everybody does that, then everybody will get everything they deserve.
Under ethical egoism, the only reason a person would look out for anybody else if it's in their own self-interest, if you didn't need to consider the needs of another to benefit yourself, you wouldn't do so. In fact, it would almost be unethical to do so if you live by this morality.
This is why I claim that slavery is a parasitical relationship: the morality that supports legalized slavery demands that one does not consider the needs of a slave unless it's absolutely necessary to benefit the owner (like providing food and water to prevent the slave from dying.)

Gorean mastery is different though and does not operate at all under a system of ethical egoism. In fact, if either party in the mastery relationship would operate from a system of ethical egoism, mastery would be absolutely impossible to achieve. Instead, mastery is an expression of a certain kind of utilitarian ethics, which is an ethical system that is almost the absolute opposite from ethical egoism.
Utilitarian theory states that we should always act in such a way so that we achieve the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people and this is exactly what the Gorean men on this board do with their kajirae.
They are the leaders, and the rulers of their house, but at the same time, they are responsible and accountable leaders who very seriously consider the outcome of their actions towards all members of their family before making a decision. You will nearly always see these men pick that course of action which maximizes the happiness of their "group", EVEN if it means that the man in question has to make a personal sacrifice which would benefit his slave. The reason us girls trust these men so much that we would sign ourselves over to them legally if we could is we know that these men are acting under a utilitarian morality and will have our best interest in mind when they make their choices.

I sometimes jokingly say that Master seems obsessed with doing the "right" thing... but it's more than a joke, he really operates that way all the time. While his morality is Gorean and thus not strictly utilitarian (Gorean morality is not strictly any other morality, but a mix of very many with some very heavy adaptations that make it unique) utilitarian reasoning is still a very large part in his decision making process, and this is something I've seen time and time again with just about any man I know who identifies as Gorean.
The problem is that utilitarian theory does not mix with slavery at all, because it requires that you consider the "good" for the group as a whole, including the "slaves" which goes direction against the ethical egoism theories that endorse the concept of slavery.

This is why I'm so stuck on the fact that I don't consider us to be "property" because while we might like being made to feel as if we are property we would run from any man that actually operates from an ethical egoism morality, because such a man would totally ignore who we are as human beings, and what our needs are.
All girls I've seen around these parts who are looking for an "owner" are looking for a man who operates, at least in part, from a utilitarian point of view and who has ingrained in his morality that he will always take our best interest into consideration when making his decision.
That's why I feel that we demand as much from our "owners" as they demand of us: we have very strict requirements towards the men who master us, because it is only when those requirements are met that mastery can actually be achieved.

I really hate talking about "the need to be property" because if that's what it's all about, then we take the men out of the equation... we don't need HIM in particular, we would instead be satisfied with any random man operating from an ethical egoism morality, and that's just not the case. None of us would ever even consider begging the collar of a man who has an ethical egoism morality.
The only reason we feel safe and secure being called "slaves" is because we are "slaves" to men whose morality doesn't allow them to actually view us as real property in the same sense that a cow, or a car, or a house is property.

Again, nothing wrong with enjoying the fact that he calls you a slave, or that you enjoy feeling as if you are property... but it's rather important that the morality behind mastery and slavery are very different things, and if fact, almost absolute opposites.

I wish you well,

ishy



_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to sweetgirlserves)
Profile   Post #: 77
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> RE: The need to be property Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2012
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.297