It's mine, mine, mine, and not yours

If you like it, you want to make it yours and preferably exclusively yours.

And when it is yours, you care about it more than when it isn't.

You care more because you like it, not because you own it.

I know that you absolutely adore macarons parisiens. Suppose you are promised to have a dozen of them delivered every week.

From Laudrée? Or Gérard Mulot? Can I choose? Is this arrangement forever?

Now wipe that rather viscous liquid off your face, please. It's just a hypothesis.

What does such a hypothesis have to do with our discussion?

If you are not involved in any way with the ownership of the pâtisseries, you don't mind whether one closes or not.

As long as I can get the same macarons...

But if you happen to have some stake in the ownership of a pâtisserie, you would make efforts so that it would stay happily open.

My interest is not in the macaron business, but purely in the macarons.

Think about your house. Your ultimate interest is in the service that it provides, but that means you are interested in the house as well. They are inseparable. The point is that exclusive or near-exclusive ownership has great significance in terms of how we treat that object.

What concerns us is the function of the house, such as the quality of the roof, the number of toilets, the orientation and the size of the windows, etc. However, if we are renting the house, we tend to be less careful about its maintenance as compared to when we own it.

You see?

Isn't that about responsibility and not ownership, though?

Even as a tenant, you have certain responsibilities, and in fact, it is in your interest to do your best for its maintenance. We know that if the tenant buys the same house, her/his attitude toward the house changes.

Doesn't it depend on the landlord whether we feel like doing our best or not?

To some extent, yes. But I can safely say that, on average, owners are more concerned than renters. The principle applies to any rental: car, furniture, sports equipment, party dresses, etc. That is one of the important reasons why home ownership is encouraged by numerous governments around the world.

Why are they worried whether we look after our dwellings or not?

Once the house becomes yours, you start thinking about the neighborhood more as your neighborhood. You will be much more concerned about the wellness of the community, and hence, of the nation.

You don't want any anti-government riot down the street that would damage and even destroy your house.

For example, yes.

On the other hand, we know that making everything belong to everybody does not work.

Collectivism and communism have made a grave error in that sense. Our desire to own is so basic that any system that attempts to suppress it is doomed to fail.

We could say that they tried to satisfy that very desire of everyone by making ownership a collective one.

Yes. But remember: if it purports to be everything, it is in fact nothing.

Applying that to our case, we can say: if something belongs to all of us, it is equivalent to not to belonging to anyone. Right?

Unfortunately, the answer is 'yes.' If all of us could muster the same enthusiasm that we have for our own houses for our ultimate home, the planet earth, we wouldn't have had serious environmental problems in the first place.

I think the key is the knowledge that something belongs to me, but not to the archenemy in your class or office.

True, we take greater care if that allows us to exhibit our superiority to people whom we are not fond of. The same principle works with those that you like, too. In that case, we may say that it is pride---instead of superiority---that you feel.

It sounds more benign, but the core principle remains the same.

Right again. You want your family members, for example, to be proud of you, but that does not make too much sense if every family has a member who has achieved exactly what you have. In other words, instead of individual against another individual, it is family against another family.

I'd say ownership is a powerful device for enlarging or enhancing who you are.

You can become more desirable and elevated in status if you own an object that everyone else wants but does not have. The item that you own is an extension of who you are.

We know many men who flaunt their pretty lovers and spouses in the identical manner as they show off their fancy cars, Rolex watches and fat cigars.

Women tend to put similar items on exhibition: successful lovers and spouses, Hermès scarves and so on. Perhaps you remember---we talked about how we treat our family members as extensions of ourselves. We bring up the members' skills and abilities in a certain domain, when the person in front of you has an upper hand vis-à-vis you in that field.

You may be better at flapping your ears than I am, but let me tell you, my brother is reaaaaallly good at it. That one?

If an object is under collective ownership, it is not clear to which individuals it owes its current existence. In contrast, if it belongs to you and nobody else, people around you will get an unmistakable message that you alone are responsible for its condition, splendid or miserable. In short, private ownership gives a clear signal as to who had the power to acquire it and who put in the efforts for its upkeep.

All of us are eager to show to others that we are powerful enough to obtain consent from the object to be possessed, or from its former owner to transfer its ownership to us.

Isn't it funny and sad at the same time that we discover tremendous energy in order to get ahead of, or even defeat, not only the ones that we do not like but also anyone around us? In the same vein, if collective efforts are to be fruitful, we need a common enemy.

All we need is not love, but a galaxy wide contest for containing the excessive emission of greenhouse gases!

Do you think extraterrestrial beings are as stupid and selfish as we are? The paradox here is that we would not survive collectively, if we do not follow our egotistic instincts to some degree---that is, if we do not look after the little world around each of us, because that is what most of us are equipped to do and no more.

Let us be selfish for the common good, then.

There is great danger in saying that. 'Everyone for her/himself' certainly does not aggregate into 'the system for itself.' It's a fallacy of composition. Here's another tenet of mine: the optimal is between the extremes.

Isn't that a logical fallacy as well---that any compromise between two positions is correct?

I think not. The Golden Mean Fallacy concerns any two propositions that are present, not necessarily the extremes.

Okay, another one of yours: we will never come to an agreement where that optimal is.

Because if we unanimously agree, it means someone had her/his arm twisted.

Comrade, it's a promising start for the new year!

Gotta have it, it's retail therapy

Absolutely anyone with an artistic pair of eyes can take good pictures these days.

We agreed on that last time. The 'auto' functions of the latest cameras and Adobe Photoshop go a long way in compensating for the lack of technical skills in photography.

I do not see many photographers making efforts to take good pictures, though. When tourists come to a scenic spot, they very often use it as a simple backdrop for hastily composed group pictures. How artistic can that be, and hence, interesting to others?

I thought your complaint was that there were too many of overly serious amateur photographers.

Yes, that is one of my complaints.

Another is that there are too many of bad photographers, is that it?

Comrade, you're beyond my wildest dreams... I have noticed that if it is a couple, the guy usually does the shooting and orders his spouse/lover/girlfriend to pose in front of a monument, etc. It's often a command. "You stand there," kind of a line, his model scurries to the spot indicated by his finger, she turns around to look at the camera, and immediately a click.

Now, are we talking about the artistic values of tourist photos, the manners of tourist-photographers, or relationship dynamics?

They are all related; if a person fails in one, s/he tends to also fail in the other two. How many times did I stand next to a guy to mumble to myself, "Oh no, you shouldn't do that. Her clothes/hair-do/posture does not make your disastrous angle any better."

Mon dieu ! Have you thought about the possibility of his thinking along the same line about you? "What's the use of taking a picture of a church, from behind a pillar? The poor soul must be nuts. The fact that I can't tell where this person originated confirms my suspicion," for example?

To me, ill-taken pictures of a tourist spot have no value other than for establishing an alibi.

That the photographer was there with her/his legitimate partner, whoever that is? You never know with digital trick these days...

... I know! The purpose of such pictures is to rub it in that they went to places where their friends and families have not been but would love to.

That may be true, because many say things such as, "You have been to Mars, haven't you? Oh, I had forgotten, but you are from Mars, aren't you? Then, you don't have to see these pictures of sexy rocks from that marvelous planet. But, John, I know you haven't been there, come see these photos. Aren't they gorgeous?"

For some reason, it is almost guaranteed that people who forcibly make you look at their photographs take horrible shots.

It makes sense, doesn't it? If the goal is simply to show off to others that you had the opportunity to go to a place where they have not been, or never would even if they wanted to, why care about artistry? Plus, being artistic does not mean anything to some people, you know.

There is something more fundamental to our urge to snap.

Which is...?

It can be traced to our desire to possess what we find beautiful.

Taking photographs is the second best after purchasing the pyramid, you mean?

If Napoleon Bonaparte's people had the technology to cart off the pyramid, they would have. Think about the fate of obelisks that presently sit far away from where they used to be---the one at the Spanish Steps in Rome, another at la Place de la Concorde in Paris, and so on.

Nowadays we create images of the object which become ours instantly.

Most of us have become civilized in that sense, because we simply take pictures of the object instead of stealing it, carving off a piece of it, or defacing it with graffiti.

The use of flashes when we are not supposed to is still destructive.

Vandalizing acts are based on our desire to demonstrate to the public our power over the fate of that object. If benign, the desire takes the form of owning the object in question. On the other hand, vandalism is self-defeating, since it makes the object less desirable.

We obviously wish to see objects that touch us, but our desire to claim power is even bigger...

Isn't it scary? The same pattern is seen in purchases of so-called souvenirs. When we are very much taken by the place we visit, we feel the urge to purchase something that is unique to that location.

It's a variation on the theme of owning what you like, I take it.

That's why some of us spend money on ridiculous, ugly, and/or useless items that we would never purchase had we found them at the grocery store that we visit weekly. We see similar phenomena in relationships. If you like someone, you want to be her/his best friend, or if the sexual orientation is right, her/his lover/spouse. You want that person to be yours.

True, we even acknowledge that desire by saying, "be mine," "tuyo/tuya para siempre," etc.

It doesn't even have to be romantic relationships. You have heard children arguing, "He's my papa," "No, he's my papa," although they are siblings. I remember wanting to be the only child holding hands with either my mother or father, but it was problematic because there were more than two children in the family and all of us wanted that exclusivity.

I have a feeling that there is more to our desire to possess what we like and admire.

I think it is the nature of being fond of something and what the disclosure of that information entails. Being in favor of something means we are inclined to make concessions for that object or person.

In other words, when you announce that you admire something, you are also telling people that you would do more for preserving or obtaining it than for other things in the world.

You are showing your weakness, so to speak. In numerous languages, the expression, "to have a weakness for something," means "to be fond of it."

Whereas dislike and hatred are more linked to combativeness.

As you make your weakness public, you naturally seek compensation for that act.

Naturally?

Alas, that is our animal instinct, and the compensation is in the form of obtaining an exclusive relationship with that object or person.

Mutual submission?

Exactly.

But I don't mind at all telling people that I admire Itzhak Perlman's performance as well as Gil Shaham's.

Some people can hurt you by telling you how better other violinists are and that you understand nothing about classical music.

I am old enough not to be bothered by such childish behavior.

What if someone says s/he will give you a ticket to Perlman's concert that is impossible to obtain on your own, and in turn, you have to share with her/him what you'd rather keep as a secret? Your preferences can be used to manipulate you.

You make it sound as if we were so calculating.

But we are, at least unconsciously. As I have been emphasizing, the civilization consists in acknowledging the unsavory streaks and suppressing them. Talking about civilization, I have been appalled lately of blatant appeals to our base desires by the retail sector.

Is it more than telling you how good a certain product is?

I saw signs such as, "Gotta have it" and "Retail therapy."

Hmmm, pretty raw, I'd say.

I'm glad that you agree. The terrifying thing is that, although I was very much displeased and even shocked when I first read them, they became rather convincing after some time.

Gotta have it...? How do you know? Gotta have it? Really? Gotta have it? Perhaps. Gotta have it, maybe. Gotta have it. Gotta have it. Gotta have it! GOTTA HAVE IIIITTT!... Is this how it goes?

... Kind of...

Retail therapy? How shameful you talk about your profit making scheme as if you were helping us. Retail therapy may work for others, but not for me. Let's examine the first word, retail. Yes, I purchased something. Therapy? Well, the purchase has not exactly made me unhappy. Retail therapy. Perhaps. Retail therapy, maybe. Retail therapy. Retail therapy. Yes, retail therapy, because I'm happier after buying! ... This is how it works, right?

...

Comrade, I'm calling my marketing people right now. What do you say to holding a press conference about the triumph of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

I'd rather have a discussion with a sociologist or a psychologist over the effects of words and the power of propaganda...

Are you sure? Think about it. There will be lights, cameras, microphones, and everyone will be focusing on you, baby... oops, comrade!

If I am not allowed to see a sociologist or a psychologist, can I have a session with a psychiatrist?