|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18748670 - 08/23/13 07:42 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's simple unless you continue to confuse the products of nature with the products of the products of nature.
All your arguments have been rebutted.
Edited by teknix (08/31/13 12:51 AM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18748765 - 08/23/13 08:03 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The only one that agrees with you is you. And it's "you're".
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18749013 - 08/23/13 09:01 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying they think it is owning, they are expressing ownership through their actions. Ownership is a concept developed by man but the idea it is expressing is still visible in the more primal forms of nature.
-------------------- "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"
Edited by Sse (08/23/13 09:15 PM)
|
Sse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18749036 - 08/23/13 09:04 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: It's simple unless your retarded and continue to confuse the products of nature with the products of the products of nature.
All your arguments have been rebutted.
Depends on how you are defining nature is really what it boils down to imo
-------------------- "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"
|
kennedy


Registered: 02/11/09
Posts: 432
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18749949 - 08/24/13 01:52 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Quote:
kennedy said:
Quote:
teknix said: LOOK, it's not that hard to understand . . .
To have ownership we need two things . . . .
If one of those things is nature . . . .
There has to be something independent from nature . . . .
To own nature . . . .
That's where you come in!
I see what you're getting at, I guess... - That it doesn't make sense for something to own itself, so anything which owns nature is not nature- But the problem I see is that 'nature' is not a singular item, it's a conceptual category. I don't see why there couldn't be an owner/owned relationship within the larger schema of nature.
Exactly . . .
Quote:
Ownership is a concept too. It doesn't describe a true physical state between parts. It's a practical description. I don't actually possess some metaphysical control over the matter that I claim to own. It's just useful sometimes in social organization to talk in terms of ownership.
And if natural is defined as the observable products of nature, the products of the products of nature (concepts from us) are not innately natural, because they are just concepts or idea's, like ownership and tradition.
Like would you call cannibalism natural? Or think serial killers are only doing whats natural? No, and you wouldn't because as explained above . . . Yourself has to be independent of nature to own nature. Yourself as an organism can't own anything, only yourself as a concept could own anything.
What? Anyway, if you think concepts are unnatural then your whole mode of being and relating to the world is unnatural.
|
Sse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: kennedy]
#18750876 - 08/24/13 10:19 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If concepts aren't natural then how can you call anything natural?
-------------------- "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"
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18751414 - 08/24/13 12:58 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: No one here can honestly say if the animal is considering anything at all beyond acting on instinct, as ownership being a concept requires consideration of a sentient being.
No it doesn't. That is the flaw in your thinking. The concept of ownership is a human symbol that represents a natural phenomenon inherent in animal and human behavior. That phenomenon isn't contingent upon sentient consideration.
You might consider dropping the insults as well; I think they're beneath you.
--------------------
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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18751583 - 08/24/13 01:31 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said:
Quote:
teknix said: It's simple unless your retarded and continue to confuse the products of nature with the products of the products of nature.
All your arguments have been rebutted.
Depends on how you are defining nature is really what it boils down to imo
Nature is the observable / measurable universe.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18751596 - 08/24/13 01:36 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: No one here can honestly say if the animal is considering anything at all beyond acting on instinct, as ownership being a concept requires consideration of a sentient being.
No it doesn't. That is the flaw in your thinking. The concept of ownership is a human symbol that represents a natural phenomenon inherent in animal and human behavior. That phenomenon isn't contingent upon sentient consideration.
You might consider dropping the insults as well; I think they're beneath you.
If you can't say that an animal has a self, then you can't say it has ownership.
Again, how do you know what an animal is thinking? Do the animals communicate to you?
Ownership is a concept dependent upon a self.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18751611 - 08/24/13 01:39 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said: If concepts aren't natural then how can you call anything natural?
Concepts are a product of us, which we are a product of nature. So any concept or idea even, is a product of a product of nature at the minimum.
What is natural is what is, not what you think about it.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18751669 - 08/24/13 01:52 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Again, how do you know what an animal is thinking? Do the animals communicate to you?
I've already specified that the natural phenomenon symbolized by the concept of ownership doesn't require sentient consideration or thought. Your question is irrelevant.
Quote:
Ownership is a concept dependent upon a self.
No it isn't.
--------------------
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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18751683 - 08/24/13 01:56 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yes it is, unless you present evidence to the contrary.
So what if you said that, it doesn't make it true.
Which of "your" atoms are doing the owning?
None of it works without a you to own . . . .
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18751689 - 08/24/13 01:58 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Much like a right, it is something that "you" claim . . .
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18751716 - 08/24/13 02:05 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The universe didn't create your idea of self, you did.
na·ture ˈnāCHərSubmit noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Edited by teknix (08/24/13 02:27 PM)
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18752232 - 08/24/13 04:15 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
You seem to think humans are some kind of unique creatures, and all other animals are just animals. You don't give animals enough credit IMO and you give humans way too much credit. Humans have a great deal of similarities to other animals so it would be wrong to assume things like ownership are exclusively human. What do you think humans are anyway, that we're able to defy nature, or even hold the unique thought of it?
Anyway, the definition of natural is anything not influenced by humanity. Nothing we say or do or think is ever 'natural'. Philosophically it's a mostly useless (and diversionary) word. Natural and un-natural are just ideas that exist in our minds.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Sse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18752813 - 08/24/13 07:33 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"Ownership is a concept dependent upon a self. "
Ownership: the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Possess: to seize and take control of : take into one's possession, to enter into and control firmly : dominate
Instinctually products of nature are doing this all the time, maybe without a second thought. We developed the concept but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to creatures who aren't evolved in ways to say to themselves "This is my territory, I control and own this"
They are acting as if they own it, and that falls under the category of expressing ownership, imo.
Eliminate all concepts then you don't have a guideline to define anything. Then there isn't anything to say about anything. But if you bring back the concept of ownership, it can still be applied to many scenarios in the wild. Regardless of what the creatures are thinking, it takes our understanding to label something so I guess since we created the concept of ownership(even though it is very savagely expressed), what it means doesn't apply naturally, because what we create is unnatural. In this thought then what we define as natural is wholly unnatural. So I guess we don't have the power to say what is or isn't natural.
I see what you are saying though, it takes our understanding and consideration/perspective to put that label on primal life(as far as we know). And if our understandings and considerations are not products of your chosen definition of nature then it is unnatural for ownership to exist anywhere outside of our conceptual thought and within our conceptual thought. But at the same time, having the concept of what is natural is unnatural and labeling anything unnatural isn't natural.
So then it seems we are left with all thoughts and concepts are delusional.
"What is natural is what is, not what you think about it. " So if we stop thinking about what is natural, we are left with what is, which is everything around us and everything that is happening, does happen and will happen regardless of what we decide to label it.
"Nature is the observable / measurable universe. " isn't the creation of concepts a way of observing or measuring "consistent characteristics or essential features" but as they say you can often tell more about the perceiver then the thing being perceived.
-------------------- "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"
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18754345 - 08/25/13 07:51 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: So what if you said that, it doesn't make it true.
It isn't a matter of my saying it making it true; it's a matter of you repeating the exact same, already-answered question again.
Quote:
Yes it is, unless you present evidence to the contrary.
The definition of ownership itself doesn't specify that the possessor has to have a sense of self in order to possess. It isn't necessary to describe the phenomenon of ownership.
Quote:
Which of "your" atoms are doing the owning?
That's like asking which employee is doing the owning of a corporation's property, or it's rights. In other words, it's an irrelevant and a particularly bad way of trying to make your point.
Quote:
The universe didn't create your idea of self, you did.
na·ture ˈnāCHərSubmit noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Although the matter of a sense of self is irrelevant to the topic of ownership, are you really proposing that a person's sense of self was something they themselves created? 
And, to tie your definition-quoting back into the topic at hand, humans didn't create ownership. It's a natural phenomenon that expresses itself through animals and humans alike. The concept of ownership is of human origin, a symbol of that naturally occurring phenomenon.
--------------------
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
|
kennedy


Registered: 02/11/09
Posts: 432
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18754942 - 08/25/13 11:59 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Sse said: If concepts aren't natural then how can you call anything natural?
Concepts are a product of us, which we are a product of nature. So any concept or idea even, is a product of a product of nature at the minimum.
What is natural is what is, not what you think about it.
If we are a product of nature, then our thoughts are a higher order product of nature, not something dependent of it.
So, what's the whole point of this assertion anyway? Do you think people should renounce their ownership of objects so they can become more 'natural?'
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: kennedy]
#18758264 - 08/26/13 01:54 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think ownership does have an illusion invoking perception of permanence but in a more general sense there is effort behind the ownership. Sure, some people didn't work for what they have but it was, fairly or not, bestowed upon them by someone else. Who am I to say whether the universe as it manifests through other humans is fair or not? I am! And that is more polarity in action. Protesting ownership is a protest for it, if ownership is seen as a manifestation of desire. It goes back to the old Zen dilemma, should one desire the end of desire? Or should we try to be okay with not being okay?
I think perhaps nature can own itself. There is nothing else to say where it belongs, which is here... unless one believes nothing should exist. Just another bubble of polarity rising from the pot of existence?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
handwaveee
Stranger
Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 94
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
#18761409 - 08/26/13 08:59 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
A "low iq" person can be like "he took my stuff, I hate, I beat"
an animal can be like errggh stuff, we chase, we fucking bite!!!
|
|