Can you have an “experience” of hypotenuse, or of multiplication, or of “democratically elected government”?

Of course not… these are merely concepts. We can contemplate them and have an experience of engaging in that action, but we’re not experiencing those “things” because they aren’t actual things.

In the same way, we can’t *experience* “not deserving” or “not having rights” since deserving and rights are merely concepts. We can experience the effect of BELIEVING that we don’t deserve or THINKING that we have no rights.

If we believe and act like “rights” and “deserve” are real things, then there’s no way to solve the “problems” of not-deserving or no-rights, because we’re tilting at windmills. We’re fighting something that isn’t real.

I’m fond of noticing when people confuse thoughts with feelings; when, for example, they say, “I’m feeling betrayed,” or “I feel like you don’t understand me.” No… betrayed and understanding are concepts and you can’t feel a concept. You can THINK that you have been betrayed and have a feeling that follows that. You can BELIEVE you’re misunderstood and have a reaction to that idea.

A definition used internally can have whole different meaning externally. It’s what internal that is of importance.

What is real, he is saying I think, is first-order experience, as opposed to second order concepts.

Once we are having ‘relations’ with others we are in a second-order, ie, conceptual, realm.

And thus a confused one.

But first-order is also seamlessly integrated by and into concepts. Hard to see a flower and not have ‘its’ parts–petals, stem, leaves in terms of what we been told they afford—e.g., passing along nutrients, attracting bees, etc. It’s all second hand–part of the second order in essence.

So why solidify the first order as part of the price of debunking the second?

The REALITY is the behavior. The “rights” are the justification.

I’m busy dismantling lies as they come to my attention. Thanks for another one.

That’s not exactly right. It isn’t as if I’m *doing* anything. I am not sure how to explain it. The best I’ve got so far is that I seem to have become Teflon to a lot of lies recently. They just don’t stick.

Love, Ann

I guess it really does boil down to one group granting another group the so-called right to do something, have something, say something, etc. Yes, rights are a concept, an idea, but they’re also a reality. Just because it doesn’t have a direct physical representation we label a “right” like we would label a “baseball” or a “hamburger” doesn’t mean it isn’t a reality. It’s a reality created by a consensus among members of a society. Some of those members may disagree with each other about which rights are valid or which rights should be extended to whom, but by determining as a society that such-and-such right exists, we give the concept of that right an existence and make it as real as it can get. I dislike the notion that ideas aren’t “real”. We make them real by giving them a life of their own.

Both of them imply someone outside of yourself as the judge and/or jury.

Deserve? According to whom?

“I’ve worked hard and I deserve a raise!” In this case, it’s simple to see that you’re arguing with someone who has the power to make that decision… and whether you disagree with each other or not, “deserving” is really not necessary — do the work that reliably leads to a raise, get noticed, and you’ll get it… the concept of “deserving” is optional.

“I deserve to be happy.” (or have a relationship, or to be treated in a particular way, etc.) Well, who are you talking to now? Santa Claus?

“I do/don’t FEEL like I deserve _____ (fill in the blank).” Deserving is not a FEELING. It’s a concept. Confusing a concept with a feeling is the fast-track to misery. Especially because, often, the more accurate statement would be, “I think that I should/shouldn’t get what I want and since it hasn’t landed in my lap, I will now make this petulant statement to demonstrate the incongruity between my thoughts and reality!”

I bet you can see where I’ll be going with “Rights.”

Same place.

Nobody HAS rights. A bunch of bodies CREATE THE IDEA of rights. “Rights” are a made up notion that, once we make them up, we use them to short-circuit arguments about the topics of our rights.

Rather than discuss WHY one group or person oppresses another, the oppressed group merely screams, “I have the RIGHT!” which, as far as I’ve seen, rarely if ever makes the oppressing party exclaim, “Holy Smokes! You’re absolutely correct! I have no idea what I’ve been thinking. My apologies!”

At this moment, there’s a “rights” argument going on in the courtroom — a religious group who thinks they have the “God-given right” to behave in a particular way is arguing with the state and federal government in a country where all humans have the right to NOT behave in that way.

(You’ll notice that by not mentioning WHICH religious group, that statement will be true at any time … there’s always going to be some clash of “rights” in the news.)

But what I’m pointing to is not about the spectrum of do-don’t (other than to highlight the problem of trying to resolve the issue while still IN the spectrum).

Agreed — “do/don’t deserve”, and “do/don’t have the right” are the same thing-ish. But I’m not making a point that you don’t deserve a thing. That is, “not deserving anything” is not the same as “not deserving any thing.”

Carol… What does the fact of your sitting have to do with rights, claims, etc.?

(we’re getting warmer)