Home | Community | Message Board


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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >
InvisibleRaven Gnosis
π”°π”’π”―π”­π”’π”«π”±π”¦π” π”¦π”‘π”ž
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/11
Posts: 1,311
Loc: Necoc Yaotl
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Impulze]
    #18778195 - 08/30/13 04:26 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Dat reply funktion. :wink:


--------------------
To be human is to be fettered, to endure what one is, in perpetuum, no matter what the debility or perversity.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleImpulze
Another you

Registered: 10/14/12
Posts: 132
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Raven Gnosis]
    #18778938 - 08/30/13 07:32 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Sorry, wasn't quite sober yet as i posted :gumby:


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: Raven Gnosis]
    #18779817 - 08/30/13 11:54 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Raven Gnosis said:
Although the idea that one can own a thing is naturally occurring, I find it none the less delusional(in a sense), as it only exists in abstract.
When you exit the sense of separateness, identity, born of the functions of our anterior frontal lobes, what does it become?

Are we any more separate entities fighting over territorial circuits and objects than we are living temporary agglomerations of atoms fighting over temporary agglomerations of atoms that on a sub-atomic level there is essentially no separateness between?
Aren't we in essence just... fighting over what we all are?

Where does this sense of self and ownership that is dependent on a small chunk of fatty tissue fit into the grand scheme of things?

Where is this, what we call 'a man' to say that he owns these things on his body? Did he and his sense of ownership ever truly exist at all?





:thumbup:


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: teknix]
    #18779822 - 08/30/13 11:57 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

crumblebum said:
Okay. I suppose I said I would dip my tippy toes into this goddamned train wreck, so I will

Can anyone trying to argue OPs point define, WITHOUT USING THE WORD IN THE DEFINITION, what nature is? I can assume that "natural" things are things derived from nature, but there is no clear definition of nature itself.





Quote:

teknix said:
The universe didn't create your idea of self, you did.

naΒ·ture
ˈnāCHΙ™rSubmit
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.




Try to formulate a real argument rather than condescending remarks and an assumed superiority, it doesn't seem like your here to argue as much as you are here to just talk shit.


Edited by teknix (08/31/13 12:05 AM)


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: Impulze]
    #18779825 - 08/30/13 11:58 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Impulze said:
Everything is nature, even cities and and the ideas created by it's inhabitants are a part of everything, even if you don't like it.




Sure, by your own little made up definition of nature . . . maybe . . .


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: Icelander]
    #18779837 - 08/31/13 12:02 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
Quote:

Rool Kat said:
5 pages of mental masturbation. 

The OP is built on baseless and unsupported allegations, largely passing unchallenged.

Arguing with the OP is like arguing with that original AI-like program, Eliza.

Naturally this post itself makes no contribution to original thought, and is thus completely appropriate to this thread.




It might be better to accept life as it appears and work from there rather than trying to make the things we don't like "unnatural".  It might be more worthwhile to question the things we choose to own rather than the ownership itself.




It doesn't have anything to do with likes or dislikes, only what is.

It seems that you dislike the word unnatural, so maybe that post was written to yourself to consider more deeply.


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: teknix]
    #18779841 - 08/31/13 12:03 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

You can call yourself an owner of things, but what is doing the owning?

Considering you are nothing more than a compilation of atoms interacting with other atoms, where is the owner?


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: Rool Kat]
    #18779847 - 08/31/13 12:06 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Rool Kat said:
@crumblebum:  Thank you!

@Icelander: Was that addressed to me?  Or to the OP? Or just an observation?

No matter, in any event;  :thumbup:




All aboard the fail boat!

:failboat:


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]
    #18779853 - 08/31/13 12:08 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
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. :lol:
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.

naΒ·ture
ˈnāCHΙ™rSubmit
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? :what:

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.




So you say it is natural, but where is the evidence anything is thinking it is owning and which atoms are doing the owning. Any evidence doesn't say that it is explicitly ownership, (Which is in your ball park to show to be true) yet they could be maintaining or even using it, the ownership is our construct . . .

What is observed and what you think about what is being observed are different, not hard . . .


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: Rahz]
    #18779868 - 08/31/13 12:16 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

crumblebum said:
Okay. I suppose I said I would dip my tippy toes into this goddamned train wreck, so I will

Can anyone trying to argue OPs point define, WITHOUT USING THE WORD IN THE DEFINITION, what nature is? I can assume that "natural" things are things derived from nature, but there is no clear definition of nature itself.




I have already given the standard definition which is: Anything not caused by human kind. The opposite of natural being artificial. Natural sweetener: honey. Artificial sweetener: Splenda.

Of course, humans were caused by nature so I would argue (as I have) that the word nature is useless in a philosophical context. But if the word must be applied philosophically then it will mean A- everything (since humans were caused by nature... in which case the word is useless) or B- not-human in which case it is impossible for a human to have a natural thought. Obviously people tend to associate themselves with nature, at least when it suits their purpose but when one starts talking about one thing being natural and another thing not being natural it stinks of diversionary tactics and inflating the importance of one course of action over another. This is what religious people do.

This is why I have argued that if someone doesn't like something they should just say so. "I have a negative outlook towards ownership". So simple, except it doesn't carry the universal importance of saying "It ain't natural!" as though there's some Godly standard we can measure each thing by. Either humans are considered natural or not, but either way the point is moot.

If the OP had started the thread by listing the negatives of ownership we might have gotten to the heart of the matter, which is that ownership can also be highly diversionary and people can set themselves up with all manner of illusions to create an image of permanence to avoid their death anxiety. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe it is. So maybe let's work that angle.?:shrug:

To own does infer an independence from nature, and that is the point of it. The universe exploded guys. It's still one, but also in pieces. Paradox.




:thumbup:

It's a good post for the most part, but I don't base the premise on my personal feelings, only what appears to be logically sound.

Natural is to objective reality as artificial is to subjective reality.


Edited by teknix (08/31/13 12:56 AM)


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]
    #18779886 - 08/31/13 12:25 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

That's like asking which employee is doing the owning of a corporation's property, or it's rights. :lol:
In other words, it's an irrelevant and a particularly bad way of trying to make your point.






Sorry, answer the question or recant . . . It is the point and evidence for the point, you don't get to pick and choose which points you will address.

Your analogy is a bad one, and your declaration of irrelevance says nothing other than your personal opinion. It is a bad analogy because you are still inferring a self or larger entity that is owning the littler ones, employees are also independent of the places they work. Does a corporation own its employees or are the employees owning the corporation? No, they work with one another to achieve some objective, usually based on expanding more ownership, which is contrary to the premise. A corporation is not an organism. There are many more reasons it is a bad analogy but the point is made.


What besides a thought or idea is doing the owning, and is it really doing any owning?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18780024 - 08/31/13 01:26 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The distinction between natural and artificial separate your subjective reality from the objective one, observations verse thoughts of your observations.

The entire premise points directly at ones ego and the attachments to that idea, so it is not without purpose.




Ownership is also not without purpose. Someone likes something enough to want to keep it around and you're worried about whether this creates illusions of independence? Maybe so in many cases, but that's the point. Ownership is a subjective opinion that has actual effects in objective reality and unless you know of some mystic un-natural force that exists outside nature, it's the position and tendencies of those atoms you talked about that gives rise to subjectivity. Ego is a natural occurrence.

If the concept of ownership wasn't advantageous to survival it would have never happened. The thought of being something more than human is nice, but to suggest we're not natural the way we are egos and all is really stretching the meaning of the word.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't have egos? Desires? Feelings?


--------------------
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." β€”Ayishat Akanbi


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: Rahz]
    #18780204 - 08/31/13 02:48 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

That wasn't the argument.

I would suggest that the illusion of ownership isn't necessary and neither is the illusion of an ego. Ultimately it brings about more suffering imo.

I don't think that ownership has any inherent use, and it is only useful because of the way society has been structured around it. I think We could manage fine without ownership, if society was structured in a manner that would accommodate it or was built around sharing of resources rather than the supposed owning of them.

You wouldn't have anything to lose or leave behind when you die for instance.


Edited by teknix (08/31/13 03:16 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18780456 - 08/31/13 07:28 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

But it is necessary for everything to be just the way it is. You're talking about a different reality than the one that actually exists. Ironically, this is what you are calling un-natural.


--------------------
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." β€”Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: crumblebum]
    #18780764 - 08/31/13 09:55 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

crumblebum said:
Quote:

Icelander said:
Quote:

crumblebum said:
I really do wonder about people like OP tho. Is he 14? Mentally ill? How do you plop stuff into the bowl like this and not realize how incoherent/poorly thought out it is?




I suggest not getting into personalisms about posters. :nono:




Whatever jerkwad.

But really, all kidding aside, I REALLY do wonder. He clearly thinks he's making not only sense, but really GOOD sense.





Crumblebum: Leave the personalisms out of PS&P. This is your only warning.


--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:


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: Rahz]
    #18780941 - 08/31/13 11:09 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
But it is necessary for everything to be just the way it is. You're talking about a different reality than the one that actually exists. Ironically, this is what you are calling un-natural.




If that were true, then how would there ever be change or anything ever change?

I agree that things in the present couldn't be any different, but not that they are the way they are out of any necessity, and not that the future can't be any different.

Things are the way they are because of the past, which we can't change, however the future is always up for grabs. Most of our ancestors were idiots.


Edited by teknix (08/31/13 11:16 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
SaαΉƒsāra

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]
    #18781057 - 08/31/13 11:47 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Impulze said:
Everything is nature, even cities and and the ideas created by it's inhabitants are a part of everything, even if you don't like it.




Sure, by your own little made up definition of nature . . . maybe . . .




Nature is a broad term. You chose 2 definitions of nature earlier in this thread that would apply to his comment.

Nature is what ever definition of nature you choose which is a manmade concept. Since it is a manmade concept then the definition of nature is automatically unnatural according to your recent definition. If it is unnatural to define nature then we might as well stop trying to argue it.


--------------------
"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
OfflineSse
SaαΉƒsāra

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: Sse]
    #18781117 - 08/31/13 12:03 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

For many people ownership may be unhealthy but not for everyone.

We can acknowledge ownership without being greedy and overly possessive. We can own and still share, we can own and still realize in the big picture we are only using; that it is only a temporary thing to distinguish what a person is currently in use of and what a person would like to be asked about before something is used by someone else. I don't think ownership itself is a problem for society. It's the attachment to anything that brings malcontent.

I wouldn't be against a more open sharing society though, I do think that people often accumulate material wealth so that they can ensure security for their family and the generations to come. To give their family some insurance. Which is understandable in this current day and age because shit could go bad in the blink of an eye. If our society were to develop a more open and sharing community, that would be able to insure a good future for everyone then perhaps we wouldn't be such packrats and money grubbers.

Maybe some day in the very distant future

I think whatever happens nature provides :smile: It seems like there are natural systems at work that will sort of work things out for the better on an individual level. Even if it is just us naturally learning what causes our own pain and then gradually transcending it. Shit may get much much worse as a whole but because of that things will get better individually, within. Which will then show as a whole. or we will just end up killing the planet, its resources and be forced to become savage greedy cannibals hiding in bunkers in the mountains eventually turning on our own teams, perhaps wiping everyone out or maybe a select few will survive and rebuild something better with what they've learned. :tongue: who knows :sun: 



Edited by Sse (08/31/13 12:47 PM)


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: Sse]
    #18781273 - 08/31/13 12:52 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Impulze said:
Everything is nature, even cities and and the ideas created by it's inhabitants are a part of everything, even if you don't like it.




Sure, by your own little made up definition of nature . . . maybe . . .




Nature is a broad term. You chose 2 definitions of nature earlier in this thread that would apply to his comment.

Nature is what ever definition of nature you choose which is a manmade concept. Since it is a manmade concept then the definition of nature is automatically unnatural according to your recent definition. If it is unnatural to define nature then we might as well stop trying to argue it.




One definition I made up on a whim, the other is from a dictionary. So use the dictionary version if you will. Which the dictionary version distinguishes man from nature, because man infers it's independence from nature through ownership of nature.


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: teknix]
    #18781279 - 08/31/13 12:55 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Sure the word "nature" is a concept, just as is the word universe, which none of those are literal observations, only words used to describe the observations.

Ownership is not observable in nature unless you include man. That is because we don't know what the animals are thinking about their actions, if anything.

How do you suppose to observe ownership in any definitive way? nature can be observed empirically.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,711 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 10,653 162 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. 0 members, 5 guests and 7 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 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.