Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | Next >
InvisibleDisoRDeR
motional
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18901017 - 09/27/13 10:48 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah, that's what I've found strange about this thread.  Perhaps the thread title can be reduced... 'To conceptualize implies division.'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblessed

Registered: 07/16/11
Posts: 1,085
Loc: ation: Tasmania Flag
Last seen: 14 days, 31 minutes
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18905173 - 09/28/13 11:54 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
By the Big Bang/Evolution standpoint, it, that is, what caused/(is) the Big Bang/(universe) to happen, and the process of evolution to unfold (expand), IT has made man and land and Stan (the Lion). These three (of many things) can not then claim "true" ownership over each other, for they exist only because of the "force" that caused the Big Bang and the process of evolution. Am i right or am i wrong?



It seems like you're wrong, but I don't know what you're implying by "'true' ownership". Ownership is ownership. The fact that something beyond the entity and object in question caused the Big Bang to occur doesn't negate the possibility of ownership. In fact, the fact that the universe was brought into existence supports that possibility.




Hello fireworks_god :smile: Sorry for the delayed response.

By true ownership i mean this, that what one "owns" is not in anyway shape or form, owned at the same time by another. Using the two children with the lego blocks as an example, the two kids are fighting over their toys in their room, this therefor (as you are rightly saying) means that they (the kids) "own" the lego blocks (because the blocks are in their possession). But, as i referred to before, it is in fact, the mother who truly owns the lego blocks. Despite the fact that the mother went to the shop and bought the lego blocks, in the minds of the two kids, the blocks belong to them. So they are right, but they are also wrong.  In the end, to whom do the lego blocks ultimately belong to?, the mother. But, look into the mind of the children and all they can fathom is that these blocks are theirs (they don't see the big picture). And what is the big picture? the children own what was given to them, agreeing with you fireworks_god, as this is what ownership implies and what i see you are saying. but!!, they are also wrong (you too sorry) because the lego blocks are the mothers and she allows the kids to play with them. Making the mother the true owner of the blocks. This to me is true ownership. The blocks belong to the mother, the children believe (as we believe we own things) that they own the blocks. Both can't be right.

Lego Blocks = Land
Child 1 = Man
Child 2 = Lion
Mother = The Creator Of The Universe (and ALL it contains)

As stated before, the problem lies with the word own, for it has two (or more) side to it meaning (and they don't all agree with each other), what someone makes they own, what someone buys they own, what someone finds they own, what someone overpowers from another they own, what someone steals from another they own, and so on and so on. It's because of these different causes (make,find,buy...) that have the effect (being labeled and accepted as owned, ownership) that the confusion in this thread arises from imo. My point is that, what made the universe owns the universe (and all it contains). If then, two of the made things within the universe says it owns the other, it doesn't remove the ownership status of the maker of all the universe (that is, if there is one?), and that what the two are fighting over (man and lion for land) are fighting over what belongs to another.  I don't know teknix viewpoint but If by now it's not obvious, i whole heartily believe in the God of the Bible, and that because of him everything exists. as the Bible says;

1Corinthians 10:26 for, β€œThe earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything

Now if you don't believe that the God of the Bible made the universe and all it contains, then just replace God the creator, with whatever you believe made us all, Big Bang/Evolution, nothing, something, it, Crusty the Clown and so on. But the same principle stands, it made us, and therefor it owns us. This fit's withing the context of word own/ownership (e.g This chair is mine because i made it)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
Man (as far as we can tell) is the only animal/creature/created being that seems to have the ability to think and reason, not that other animals can't, but no where near to the level that we can. It is in this ability, that we claim lands, and animals, and do all that we do, good or bad.



Long before humans could be considered to have the ability of reason and thinking, to a level beyond the one you're presuming animals are left at, humans were already claiming lands, animals, and essentially doing what it is that humans do. That is, of course, if you want to stick within the framework of evolution.  :wink:



If evolution is true?, then regardless of what stage man was in his evolving, the fact is the universe already was, and by was, i mean made, and by made, i mean already owned (think of the chair just mentioned). If we humans, came (evolved) to think and started saying i "own" this, this (starting to think for itself) mankey, was already owned by it's maker (nature/evolution or God). I don't believe in the Big Bang/Evolution theory, and therefor agree with what the Bible says, that God made us, which means he owns us. If God did make us?, What we think we own is therefor ultimately pointless. To expand on this point, God, could see a man and a lion fighting over some land (we now have guns, but before the fight was more even) and say to both man and lion, "you two keep fighting, im just gonna take back the land that i made". What would happen to the fight between man and lion? it would become pointless (and impossible).

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
But, if you truly believe in the Big Bang/ Evolution? then as stated above, and i think the point that teknix post is about, is that we are part of the dish, the spaghetti sauce can't say to the spaghetti "i own you", for evolution made the whole dish.



I'd wager that the reasoning behind this conclusion is faulty. I hinted at this above when I doubted that the fact that what we can for the purpose of this debate refer to as the "force" that caused the Big Bang, thereby spurring the process of evolution, negates the possibility of ownership. To go further in examining this potential faultiness in reasoning, I'd ask you a question posed in the spirit of your analogy - is the melting of the parmesan cheese once scattered across the steaming noodles and sauce an excluded phenomenon simply because someone whipped up the tasty dish and threw it all together on a plate? I'd suggest that it's not excluded. Why would it be different in the case of ownership?



Going with your analogy of my analogy, who/what did the scattering of the parmesan cheese? This hints at a maker of the dish, and in this light, it is the maker of the dish that owns it, and we are all part of the dish (including the parmesans cheeses and the result of the melting (e.g. when a butterfly turns into a caterpillar). Im not saying that we can't own something or anything, but that what we own belongs to something greater then us humans, and just because it doesn't come down out of the sky and point out this fact does not there for mean it's truly ours. The maker of said thing (the universe), is the owner of said thing (the universe).

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
My understanding of what you are saying is that, i take a tree (or more) and make a chair(s).  Now i have (by man's ability to think/reason) made/created this chair, which i now own (in my mind and in the minds of others), but this is only in our minds, and the chair that i "own", in fact still belongs to the universe (Big Bang/Evolution or God), and i have just fashioned it to my liking but, it still ultimately belongs to one of the two forces that made allthings and im just borrowing it/using it, so to speak.



I think that your understanding of what ownership means is more of a misconception than anything. Ownership is a relative description of a relationship between objects and entities. It doesn't require to any degree at all a sense that somehow the entity or the object is separate from the universe, or god, or nature, or from oneself, for that matter. Ownership exists, and it doesn't mean any of that.



Yes i agree with you that ownership as you describe here is possible, something/someone possessing an object (whatever it is) and from this understanding, which agrees with a dictionary, ownerships IS possible, or as you put it, possessor + possessed = ownership.  What i've seen teknix point to be about is that, if you rise above this view point and look at ownership again in the context of the universe, then what we humans run around possessing and therefor own, was/is in fact already owned by what made it (by, be it nature/God or whatever).  So if God made the earth and all it contains, and a man says in his mind "this is mine" by possessing the object, isn't he in fact claiming ownership of what belongs to God?

So fireworks_god, imo,you are right, ownership does exists, but...... you are also wrong because what you claim to be yours (any part of the universe), belong ultimately to God/Big Bang. Why?  because he/it made it.

Teknix imo is also right because whatever made the universe, owns it (no part of this made universe can then truly claim ownership of what belongs to another (the maker of the universe)), he is also wrong imo, because he used a word that fits his original post viewpoint but also fits another viewpoint that doesn't 100% agree with each other.

I can't add anymore to this thread, all my cards are on the table :smile:

p.s I made a thread recently on ownership (It is made with the viewpoint that God made us). If you would like to understand more of my take of true ownership? then please, check it out :smile:

Ownership


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: blessed]
    #18905431 - 09/29/13 01:21 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:



By true ownership i mean this, that what one "owns" is not in anyway shape or form, owned at the same time by another. Using the two children with the lego blocks as an example, the two kids are fighting over their toys in their room, this therefor (as you are rightly saying) means that they (the kids) "own" the lego blocks (because the blocks are in their possession). But, as i referred to before, it is in fact, the mother who truly owns the lego blocks. Despite the fact that the mother went to the shop and bought the lego blocks, in the minds of the two kids, the blocks belong to them. So they are right, but they are also wrong.  In the end, to whom do the lego blocks ultimately belong to?, the mother. But, look into the mind of the children and all they can fathom is that these blocks are theirs (they don't see the big picture). And what is the big picture? the children own what was given to them, agreeing with you fireworks_god, as this is what ownership implies and what i see you are saying. but!!, they are also wrong (you too sorry) because the lego blocks are the mothers and she allows the kids to play with them. Making the mother the true owner of the blocks. This to me is true ownership. The blocks belong to the mother, the children believe (as we believe we own things) that they own the blocks. Both can't be right.

Lego Blocks = Land
Child 1 = Man
Child 2 = Lion
Mother = The Creator Of The Universe (and ALL it contains)






Nice analogy, I think the way you put it makes it pretty damn simple. While I don't fully agree, I barely disagree.

:congrats:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: blessed]
    #18905515 - 09/29/13 01:46 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

blessed said:
Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
By the Big Bang/Evolution standpoint, it, that is, what caused/(is) the Big Bang/(universe) to happen, and the process of evolution to unfold (expand), IT has made man and land and Stan (the Lion). These three (of many things) can not then claim "true" ownership over each other, for they exist only because of the "force" that caused the Big Bang and the process of evolution. Am i right or am i wrong?



It seems like you're wrong, but I don't know what you're implying by "'true' ownership". Ownership is ownership. The fact that something beyond the entity and object in question caused the Big Bang to occur doesn't negate the possibility of ownership. In fact, the fact that the universe was brought into existence supports that possibility.




Hello fireworks_god :smile: Sorry for the delayed response.

By true ownership i mean this, that what one "owns" is not in anyway shape or form, owned at the same time by another. Using the two children with the lego blocks as an example, the two kids are fighting over their toys in their room, this therefor (as you are rightly saying) means that they (the kids) "own" the lego blocks (because the blocks are in their possession). But, as i referred to before, it is in fact, the mother who truly owns the lego blocks. Despite the fact that the mother went to the shop and bought the lego blocks, in the minds of the two kids, the blocks belong to them. So they are right, but they are also wrong.  In the end, to whom do the lego blocks ultimately belong to?, the mother. But, look into the mind of the children and all they can fathom is that these blocks are theirs (they don't see the big picture). And what is the big picture? the children own what was given to them, agreeing with you fireworks_god, as this is what ownership implies and what i see you are saying. but!!, they are also wrong (you too sorry) because the lego blocks are the mothers and she allows the kids to play with them. Making the mother the true owner of the blocks. This to me is true ownership. The blocks belong to the mother, the children believe (as we believe we own things) that they own the blocks. Both can't be right.

Lego Blocks = Land
Child 1 = Man
Child 2 = Lion
Mother = The Creator Of The Universe (and ALL it contains)

As stated before, the problem lies with the word own, for it has two (or more) side to it meaning (and they don't all agree with each other), what someone makes they own, what someone buys they own, what someone finds they own, what someone overpowers from another they own, what someone steals from another they own, and so on and so on. It's because of these different causes (make,find,buy...) that have the effect (being labeled and accepted as owned, ownership) that the confusion in this thread arises from imo. My point is that, what made the universe owns the universe (and all it contains). If then, two of the made things within the universe says it owns the other, it doesn't remove the ownership status of the maker of all the universe (that is, if there is one?), and that what the two are fighting over (man and lion for land) are fighting over what belongs to another.  I don't know teknix viewpoint but If by now it's not obvious, i whole heartily believe in the God of the Bible, and that because of him everything exists. as the Bible says;

1Corinthians 10:26 for, β€œThe earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything

Now if you don't believe that the God of the Bible made the universe and all it contains, then just replace God the creator, with whatever you believe made us all, Big Bang/Evolution, nothing, something, it, Crusty the Clown and so on. But the same principle stands, it made us, and therefor it owns us. This fit's withing the context of word own/ownership (e.g This chair is mine because i made it)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
Man (as far as we can tell) is the only animal/creature/created being that seems to have the ability to think and reason, not that other animals can't, but no where near to the level that we can. It is in this ability, that we claim lands, and animals, and do all that we do, good or bad.



Long before humans could be considered to have the ability of reason and thinking, to a level beyond the one you're presuming animals are left at, humans were already claiming lands, animals, and essentially doing what it is that humans do. That is, of course, if you want to stick within the framework of evolution.  :wink:



If evolution is true?, then regardless of what stage man was in his evolving, the fact is the universe already was, and by was, i mean made, and by made, i mean already owned (think of the chair just mentioned). If we humans, came (evolved) to think and started saying i "own" this, this (starting to think for itself) mankey, was already owned by it's maker (nature/evolution or God). I don't believe in the Big Bang/Evolution theory, and therefor agree with what the Bible says, that God made us, which means he owns us. If God did make us?, What we think we own is therefor ultimately pointless. To expand on this point, God, could see a man and a lion fighting over some land (we now have guns, but before the fight was more even) and say to both man and lion, "you two keep fighting, im just gonna take back the land that i made". What would happen to the fight between man and lion? it would become pointless (and impossible).

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
But, if you truly believe in the Big Bang/ Evolution? then as stated above, and i think the point that teknix post is about, is that we are part of the dish, the spaghetti sauce can't say to the spaghetti "i own you", for evolution made the whole dish.



I'd wager that the reasoning behind this conclusion is faulty. I hinted at this above when I doubted that the fact that what we can for the purpose of this debate refer to as the "force" that caused the Big Bang, thereby spurring the process of evolution, negates the possibility of ownership. To go further in examining this potential faultiness in reasoning, I'd ask you a question posed in the spirit of your analogy - is the melting of the parmesan cheese once scattered across the steaming noodles and sauce an excluded phenomenon simply because someone whipped up the tasty dish and threw it all together on a plate? I'd suggest that it's not excluded. Why would it be different in the case of ownership?



Going with your analogy of my analogy, who/what did the scattering of the parmesan cheese? This hints at a maker of the dish, and in this light, it is the maker of the dish that owns it, and we are all part of the dish (including the parmesans cheeses and the result of the melting (e.g. when a butterfly turns into a caterpillar). Im not saying that we can't own something or anything, but that what we own belongs to something greater then us humans, and just because it doesn't come down out of the sky and point out this fact does not there for mean it's truly ours. The maker of said thing (the universe), is the owner of said thing (the universe).

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

blessed said:
My understanding of what you are saying is that, i take a tree (or more) and make a chair(s).  Now i have (by man's ability to think/reason) made/created this chair, which i now own (in my mind and in the minds of others), but this is only in our minds, and the chair that i "own", in fact still belongs to the universe (Big Bang/Evolution or God), and i have just fashioned it to my liking but, it still ultimately belongs to one of the two forces that made allthings and im just borrowing it/using it, so to speak.



I think that your understanding of what ownership means is more of a misconception than anything. Ownership is a relative description of a relationship between objects and entities. It doesn't require to any degree at all a sense that somehow the entity or the object is separate from the universe, or god, or nature, or from oneself, for that matter. Ownership exists, and it doesn't mean any of that.



Yes i agree with you that ownership as you describe here is possible, something/someone possessing an object (whatever it is) and from this understanding, which agrees with a dictionary, ownerships IS possible, or as you put it, possessor + possessed = ownership.  What i've seen teknix point to be about is that, if you rise above this view point and look at ownership again in the context of the universe, then what we humans run around possessing and therefor own, was/is in fact already owned by what made it (by, be it nature/God or whatever).  So if God made the earth and all it contains, and a man says in his mind "this is mine" by possessing the object, isn't he in fact claiming ownership of what belongs to God?

So fireworks_god, imo,you are right, ownership does exists, but...... you are also wrong because what you claim to be yours (any part of the universe), belong ultimately to God/Big Bang. Why?  because he/it made it.

Teknix imo is also right because whatever made the universe, owns it (no part of this made universe can then truly claim ownership of what belongs to another (the maker of the universe)), he is also wrong imo, because he used a word that fits his original post viewpoint but also fits another viewpoint that doesn't 100% agree with each other.

I can't add anymore to this thread, all my cards are on the table :smile:

p.s I made a thread recently on ownership (It is made with the viewpoint that God made us). If you would like to understand more of my take of true ownership? then please, check it out :smile:

Ownership





Isnt that just semantics? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. So of course God owns all, but as a matter of speech we say that I own something in my possession. That isnt wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Deviate]
    #18905524 - 09/29/13 01:49 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

You're not really owning it though, your just using it and thinking your owning it through self.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
SaαΉƒsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18907029 - 09/29/13 12:49 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

I think ownership can exist without a single thought of ownership by the thing owning. I guess where self comes in, is when we place the label of ownership, or even using onto something were doing or something else is doing.

Could anything be naturally said to be using something? Or is that where independence from nature occurs, when we begin labeling?

To go back to the examples of lions... according to national geographic, the male lions duty in a pride is to mark territory and patrol borders. The females will also roar and chase/fight off intruders. These intruders are other lions, smaller predators, or larger animals that also compete for resources like food and water. Isn't that all that it requires for ownership to exist? Something in possession and defended? The act of possessing and controlling? Isn't that what separates owning from just using?


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18910216 - 09/30/13 07:26 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

For me, I see it clearly in the example of the lions, men and the prey.
Those, who eat the prey, did own it finally.

In the German language, there is a strict differentiation between temporary ownership (Besitz) and general ownership (Eigentum).
General ownership is clearly an invention from humans and more has a judical funktion, while temporary ownership happens everywhere in 'nature'.


Edited by BlueCoyote (09/30/13 07:33 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: blessed]
    #18910771 - 09/30/13 10:59 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

blessed said:
Hello fireworks_god :smile: Sorry for the delayed response.




No problem, man, it all shows up in the "My Threads" tab for me anyway. :wink:

Quote:


By true ownership i mean this, that what one "owns" is not in anyway shape or form, owned at the same time by another. Using the two children with the lego blocks as an example, the two kids are fighting over their toys in their room, this therefor (as you are rightly saying) means that they (the kids) "own" the lego blocks (because the blocks are in their possession). But, as i referred to before, it is in fact, the mother who truly owns the lego blocks. Despite the fact that the mother went to the shop and bought the lego blocks, in the minds of the two kids, the blocks belong to them. So they are right, but they are also wrong.  In the end, to whom do the lego blocks ultimately belong to?, the mother. But, look into the mind of the children and all they can fathom is that these blocks are theirs (they don't see the big picture). And what is the big picture? the children own what was given to them, agreeing with you fireworks_god, as this is what ownership implies and what i see you are saying. but!!, they are also wrong (you too sorry) because the lego blocks are the mothers and she allows the kids to play with them. Making the mother the true owner of the blocks. This to me is true ownership. The blocks belong to the mother, the children believe (as we believe we own things) that they own the blocks. Both can't be right.




I understand the point you are making; however, I think it's flawed to designate the mother as the "true" owner and the children as the owners. I think the reason why it is flawed is reflected well in the intention of the mother in relation to the children and the legos. She indeed has bought them, yet her possession of them is conditioned on her relationship with her children. She would not consider the legos to be her possession in the same manner as she would her wedding ring. Her relationship with her children changes her sense of possession in regards to the legos. I would not personally suggest that the legos ultimately belong to her; I'd recognize that the possession of the legos is mutually shared in a specific manner that reflects the nature of the relationship of all those involved.


Quote:


Going with your analogy of my analogy, who/what did the scattering of the parmesan cheese? This hints at a maker of the dish, and in this light, it is the maker of the dish that owns it, and we are all part of the dish (including the parmesans cheeses and the result of the melting (e.g. when a butterfly turns into a caterpillar). Im not saying that we can't own something or anything, but that what we own belongs to something greater then us humans, and just because it doesn't come down out of the sky and point out this fact does not there for mean it's truly ours. The maker of said thing (the universe), is the owner of said thing (the universe).




There's a flaw in the assumption that an entity that makes an object therefore owns it - the fact that an object is made by an entity does not necessitate that the entity owns the object. Ownership requires a state of possessiveness in order to exist because that is what ownership is. The fact alone that an entity or a force produced an object in particular does not mean that ownership exists.

Quote:


Yes i agree with you that ownership as you describe here is possible, something/someone possessing an object (whatever it is) and from this understanding, which agrees with a dictionary, ownerships IS possible, or as you put it, possessor + possessed = ownership.  What i've seen teknix point to be about is that, if you rise above this view point and look at ownership again in the context of the universe, then what we humans run around possessing and therefor own, was/is in fact already owned by what made it (by, be it nature/God or whatever). 




This viewpoint, however, is based upon an assumption that the forces responsible for the existence of reality are presumed to possess reality. Without an exhibition of that possession, there's actually no reason to imagine that it exists.
Furthermore, even if it were the case, we would be talking about a relationship of possession within which multiple entities exhibit possession and the truth of who "actually" owns something would be dependent upon the specific nature of this relationship. As I referred to earlier, having the claim of creating something or being responsible for it coming into someone else's hands doesn't confer a sense of "true" or "ultimate" ownership in and of itself.

Quote:


So fireworks_god, imo,you are right, ownership does exists, but...... you are also wrong because what you claim to be yours (any part of the universe), belong ultimately to God/Big Bang. Why?  because he/it made it.




I think this is a pertinent analogy: if a factory assembles a tractor, does that mean the factory ultimately owns the tractor, even after its keys rightfully fall into the hands of the farmer? :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18911981 - 09/30/13 04:25 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

[...]
"I think this is a pertinent analogy: if a factory assembles a tractor, does that mean the factory ultimately owns the tractor, even after its keys rightfully fall into the hands of the farmer? :wink:"
Maybe yes, for warranty reasons :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #18914442 - 10/01/13 02:40 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
[...]
"I think this is a pertinent analogy: if a factory assembles a tractor, does that mean the factory ultimately owns the tractor, even after its keys rightfully fall into the hands of the farmer? :wink:"
Maybe yes, for warranty reasons :wink:




Does god require that we keep the receipt? :tongue2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18914510 - 10/01/13 03:21 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
[...]
"I think this is a pertinent analogy: if a factory assembles a tractor, does that mean the factory ultimately owns the tractor, even after its keys rightfully fall into the hands of the farmer? :wink:"
Maybe yes, for warranty reasons :wink:




Does god require that we keep the receipt? :tongue2:



Warranty is limited and god doesn't need any receipts :highfive:
:lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #18929285 - 10/04/13 01:32 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
For me, I see it clearly in the example of the lions, men and the prey.
Those, who eat the prey, did own it finally.

In the German language, there is a strict differentiation between temporary ownership (Besitz) and general ownership (Eigentum).
General ownership is clearly an invention from humans and more has a judical funktion, while temporary ownership happens everywhere in 'nature'.




Nice!

Quote:


I think this is a pertinent analogy: if a factory assembles a tractor, does that mean the factory ultimately owns the tractor, even after its keys rightfully fall into the hands of the farmer? :wink:





That carry's with it the assumption that they owned (generally and Eigentum) the parts in the first place. When the parts were really Besitz.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirCollis
Stranger
Registered: 10/01/13
Posts: 2
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18929893 - 10/04/13 06:40 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Good Day everybody

I am new to this forum, this is such a great topic and opinions.

To contribute, I think that ownership is a rule or a law that exists within the universe, like gravity, like light, like air.

I like using programming analogy because I am a programmer.

You can program and create an entity, then you can program and create a world that entity interacts with, how that interaction happens is dependent on the rules of the world that you created and the rules that govern the entity. 

Every organism on earth desires to "own" something in someway, it is like we are programmed to want to own, yet ownership only exists given a certain set of conditions are met.

That is to say you can physically walk into a strangers house and start living there, yet there is something that prevents that from happening. You can but you can't, the universe is programmed that way.

So to own is natural and passes from entity to entity depending on which entity meets the conditions that allow for ownership.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18930156 - 10/04/13 08:42 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
That carry's with it the assumption that they owned (generally and Eigentum) the parts in the first place. When the parts were really Besitz.




And what would that mean if they were really Besitz, as it pertains to this debate? What relationship does Besitz describe?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18934025 - 10/05/13 12:00 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Using things, rather than owning them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18943305 - 10/07/13 03:31 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Using things, rather than owning them.




Well, "besitz" doesn't refer to usage, so whether or not an object is considered one's besitz doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether or not someone is using it. Therefore, the concept as expressed through the German word "besitz" doesn't represent in the slightest your point of view on the matter.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18944129 - 10/07/13 10:41 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Could it be the same difference between possess (anal. Besitz) and own (anal. Eigentum) ?
Hmmm the differences seem to blur in English :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEywa_devotee
Goddess Worshiper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/04/10
Posts: 1,088
Loc: State of Confusion, Arkan... Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #18948034 - 10/08/13 03:11 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

The idea of true ownership itself is a false belief. In a finite world everything is borrowed and used for a time. For example you may believe you own your house, but you are really renting it from the government, and the government is renting their armed forces to secure and assert ownership of their country.


--------------------
"Love one another." "To Love is to know me." "Love is the Law, Love under Will." "In Compassion, all sorrows end." Regardless of the Master, the message is the same- Choose love and you shall live, Choose Fear and you shall die. Help bring peace to this Earth: Love one another, and serve others before yourself.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Eywa_devotee]
    #18950088 - 10/08/13 03:17 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Eywa_devotee said:
The idea of true ownership itself is a false belief. In a finite world everything is borrowed and used for a time. For example you may believe you own your house, but you are really renting it from the government, and the government is renting their armed forces to secure and assert ownership of their country.




:congrats:

I think this is the mindset that leads towards enlightenment and the Golden Age of humanity.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18950337 - 10/08/13 04:22 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
:congrats:

I think this is the mindset that leads towards enlightenment and the Golden Age of humanity.




The ideas that ownership isn't absolute and timeless and that governments collect taxes on property have been around for a long time now. By your standard, then, we've already reached enlightenment and the golden age. :smirk:

Since that isn't the case, however, it seems pretty clear that it's just one more example of erroneous thinking. :lol:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,707 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja
* The nature of self-serving beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 7,500 28 10/13/02 12:12 AM
by johnnyfive
* The Ownership/Theft Paradox Anonymous 1,718 14 06/23/03 02:45 PM
by Sclorch
* Is the physical world independent of consciousness?
( 1 2 all )
Divided_Sky 3,765 27 08/25/04 11:11 AM
by Zahid
* Natural vs. synthetic drugs skaMariaPastora 2,857 16 03/19/02 01:31 AM
by rum
* Independent Verification
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Swami 10,628 162 09/05/03 07:28 AM
by tak
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,866 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Independent Truth- a road to greater empowerment and freedom
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,974 25 09/04/04 06:59 AM
by Simisu

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
25,823 topic views. 1 members, 13 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.