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 >
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]
    #18781288 - 08/31/13 12:58 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
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: 






Of course we can own and share, we do it all the time subjectively, but is it real or an objective phenomena created by nature? Or is it created by man?




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]
    #18781306 - 08/31/13 01:04 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

The definitions of nature exclude man, because man excludes itself through ownership of nature. For man to be a part of nature, he cannot own nature.

Even though we are objectively part of nature, subjectively we are not, we create the division, nature doesn't.


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]
    #18781379 - 08/31/13 01:31 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

There's many broader definitions of nature that could be interpreted to include everything.

Man infers its independence from nature by creating that definition of nature, which wasn't naturally created according to the definition. How could any concept we create be considered natural then? If the creation of the concept is apart from nature then how could it be an accurate definition of what is 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"


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]
    #18781384 - 08/31/13 01:35 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Ownership is just pretend anyway, we can't really have true ownership. We die it Is where it had always been and will always be, no matter if we say this is ours now.

It's not like we die and can return with all our stuff.


--------------------
"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 (08/31/13 01:36 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]
    #18781407 - 08/31/13 01:42 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
Ownership is just pretend anyway, we can't really have true ownership. We die it Is where it had always been and will always be, no matter if we say this is ours now.

It's not like we die and can return with all our stuff.




Yeah!

Even more-so there isn't even a self to do the owning.


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]
    #18781448 - 08/31/13 01:56 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

So then we never really can go against nature through owning things natural like land. Because we aren't ever owning the land. We would really have to go against all laws of cause and effect to be a real owner of nature. I agree that would be completely unnatural in all definitions/contexts. It would require a God beyond all laws of physics.


--------------------
"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
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


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]
    #18781474 - 08/31/13 02:06 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
So you say it is natural, but where is the evidence anything is thinking it is owning




It's your problem if you think it's necessary to think "I'm owning something" in order to own something. In the real world, and, quite specifically, according to the basic and commonly-accepted definition of ownership, it's not necessary to think it in order to engage in it. It's your choice to accept such common definitions or not, but try not to pretend they mean something else - better to come up with your own word to speak of whatever it is that you're referring to. Schmownership might be a good one. :wink:

Quote:


and which atoms are doing the owning.




This is nonsense which I'll address below.

Quote:


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.




Actually, I do get to choose, and I chose well by addressing your question with an analogy that turned your ridiculous question on its head, because it revealed more opportunity to deconstruct the errors in your thinking, which I'll do below.

But first, for the fun question of which atoms are doing the owning. We humans generally don't catalog specific atoms, as they tend to come and go and be large in number. So, I won't tell you that Atom 45H-893D-009-021-BR3 is implied in the process of ownership, nor its counterpart, Atom 45H-893D-009-021-BR4, but what I will tell you is that any atoms presently involved in the respective human or animal are responsible for the phenomenon of ownership. It'd also suffice to say that every single atom in existence plays a supporting role in that particular act of ownership, since they are all interdependent and interrelated.
Does that clear it up for you? I sincerely hope it'll assist you in avoiding walking right into a fallacy of reductionism.

Quote:


Your analogy is a bad one, and your declaration of irrelevance says nothing other than your personal opinion.




No, it says more than that, because my declaration of irrelevance is ideologically supported, as can be demonstrated.

Quote:


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.




And atoms are also independent of the bodies in which they work. So, it turns out you think my analogy's apt after all. :grin:

Quote:


Does a corporation own its employees or are the employees owning the corporation?




The height of irrelevance. The only thing you need to know is that a corporation cannot exist without employees, and no individual employee retains the rights of ownership that belong to the corporation as a whole, yet the corporation is still recognized as an owner of those rights and properties. :shocked:
Similarly, an individual atom within your body doesn't have ownership over your favorite chew-toy, but you as a whole do. :thumbup:

Quote:

A corporation is not an organism.




I love it when you argue with the dictionary. It makes me smile. :tongue2:

Quote:


orΒ·ganΒ·ism
[awr-guh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
3.
any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism.
4.
any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.




--------------------
: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: Sse]
    #18781492 - 08/31/13 02:14 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

So I should have said "Living organism" . . . Which is what I meant, so why don't you post the first two definition rather than just the ones that suit your purpose?

It doesn't make your analogy any less bad . .


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]
    #18781501 - 08/31/13 02:17 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
So then we never really can go against nature through owning things natural like land. Because we aren't ever owning the land. We would really have to go against all laws of cause and effect to be a real owner of nature. I agree that would be completely unnatural in all definitions/contexts. It would require a God beyond all laws of physics.




We aren't owning the land, yet we are calling it such, which isn't correct . . .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleas7859
Stranger
Registered: 08/15/13
Posts: 49
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18781507 - 08/31/13 02:19 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
To own requires an object to be owned and an owner of that object.

In nature one object doesn't own another object, therefore ownership is not natural.

Atoms do not own one another, and if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature.

Nature does not have an owner in reality, ownership can only be in a dualistic theory.

Therefore if you think you are something separate to own parts of nature that owner cannot be nature for nature could not own itself.

Everything we create is not natural, just because we are created naturally. (usually)



I'm not sure I agree with the premise "In nature one object doesn't own another object."

If we look at ourselves as 'objects', then we can clearly say that in nature objects exist which produce 'ideas' (such as ownership), which results in these 'objects' "owning" other objects.

So, in my opinion, your premise is false - so too the conclusion - rendering the argument unsound.


--------------------



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]
    #18781531 - 08/31/13 02:27 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

It's your problem if you think it's necessary to think "I'm owning something" in order to own something. In the real world, and, quite specifically, according to the basic and commonly-accepted definition of ownership, it's not necessary to think it in order to engage in it. It's your choice to accept such common definitions or not, but try not to pretend they mean something else - better to come up with your own word to speak of whatever it is that you're referring to. Schmownership might be a good one. :wink:





That isn't the point, but a strawman you are building. Ownership requires an owner and the owner can only exist in thought as a concept of self, or a self-image.


Quote:


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.




Actually, I do get to choose, and I chose well by addressing your question with an analogy that turned your ridiculous question on its head, because it revealed more opportunity to deconstruct the errors in your thinking, which I'll do below.





Maybe if your analogy was a proper one, however it is not. Corporations do not have independent thoughts or DNA apart from humans idea of such.


Quote:


But first, for the fun question of which atoms are doing the owning. We humans generally don't catalog specific atoms, as they tend to come and go and be large in number. So, I won't tell you that Atom 45H-893D-009-021-BR3 is implied in the process of ownership, nor its counterpart, Atom 45H-893D-009-021-BR4, but what I will tell you is that any atoms presently involved in the respective human or animal are responsible for the phenomenon of ownership. It'd also suffice to say that every single atom in existence plays a supporting role in that particular act of ownership, since they are all interdependent and interrelated.
Does that clear it up for you? I sincerely hope it'll assist you in avoiding walking right into a fallacy of reductionism.






Hardly, atoms don't own, they interact . . . that much should be obvious.


Quote:


No, it says more than that, because my declaration of irrelevance is ideologically supported, as can be demonstrated.





Then give me an objective demonstration showing ownership as an objective phenomena.


Quote:


And atoms are also independent of the bodies in which they work. So, it turns out you think my analogy's apt after all. :grin:





I don't know if you're being serious right now or make silly jokes, atoms don't go home at the end of the day and they don't think as far as we can tell. Does your atoms become unbound and separate to their individual homes after 8 hours of work . . .I can't believe you're even arguing about that, I know you can do better.


Edited by teknix (08/31/13 03:15 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: fireworks_god]
    #18781545 - 08/31/13 02:32 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Corporations do not fall into the definition of natural, as the animals we inhabit this planet with do. So you probably want to think of something natural if you are to make a proper analogy.


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: as7859]
    #18781555 - 08/31/13 02:35 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

as7859 said:
Quote:

teknix said:
To own requires an object to be owned and an owner of that object.

In nature one object doesn't own another object, therefore ownership is not natural.

Atoms do not own one another, and if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature.

Nature does not have an owner in reality, ownership can only be in a dualistic theory.

Therefore if you think you are something separate to own parts of nature that owner cannot be nature for nature could not own itself.

Everything we create is not natural, just because we are created naturally. (usually)



I'm not sure I agree with the premise "In nature one object doesn't own another object."

If we look at ourselves as 'objects', then we can clearly say that in nature objects exist which produce 'ideas' (such as ownership), which results in these 'objects' "owning" other objects.

So, in my opinion, your premise is false - so too the conclusion - rendering the argument unsound.




You make a good point, but it isn't objective, we only subjectively own anything, through our thoughts and idea's. Objectively there isn't ownership.


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]
    #18781589 - 08/31/13 02:47 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

because there isn't any infinite true ownership, it really only applies to our subjectivity, which is just to define within our limited lifespan/control. So we aren't going against nature ever because we don't have that power.

Ownership of that magnitude doesn't exist.

In relation to ourselves and our society we are able to establish our sense/view of ownership, which is all that is really relevant. To categorize what people are currently holding dominion over. This gives them the right to do as they please(within the law) with their ownerships for as long as they hold that title; though it is all a subjective game that will eventually be turned into natural vapor, no matter what an individual thinks of their ownerships.

In a way we are owning the land but only due to the way our society has been formatted. It's a word that doesn't really have to include complete unassailable control. It is relevant to our society, I doubt very many people really think they have such control over nature. Even if they did they would be completely delusional, unless they are some entity that I am unaware of, which could be possible.

imo the concept ownership can be made relevant to what is observed in nature, just not absolute or with the knowledge of the observed creatures intent. However according to that definition, it would be unnatural to put that label or any other conceptual label on anything. so I agree to an extent, it just depends on what sort of context the individual is applying/implying.


--------------------
"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 (08/31/13 02:49 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleas7859
Stranger
Registered: 08/15/13
Posts: 49
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18781601 - 08/31/13 02:50 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

as7859 said:
Quote:

teknix said:
To own requires an object to be owned and an owner of that object.

In nature one object doesn't own another object, therefore ownership is not natural.

Atoms do not own one another, and if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature.

Nature does not have an owner in reality, ownership can only be in a dualistic theory.

Therefore if you think you are something separate to own parts of nature that owner cannot be nature for nature could not own itself.

Everything we create is not natural, just because we are created naturally. (usually)



I'm not sure I agree with the premise "In nature one object doesn't own another object."

If we look at ourselves as 'objects', then we can clearly say that in nature objects exist which produce 'ideas' (such as ownership), which results in these 'objects' "owning" other objects.

So, in my opinion, your premise is false - so too the conclusion - rendering the argument unsound.




You make a good point, but it isn't objective, we only subjectively own anything, through our thoughts and idea's. Objectively there isn't ownership.



Nature produced subjectivity. We come from nature; we are not independent of it. Nature produced objectivity and subjectivity. Thus, everything is natural: our thoughts, our ideas, physical objects. It all exists within nature. Thus, I still believe the argument to be unsound.

It just depends on definitions of words we have in our language. Does 'nature' only mean physical things? Does it also only mean things like animals, plants; but things that are man-made are not? I would argue against anyone who believes the latter because quite clearly anything man ever does is just as much a part of nature as a plant going through photosynthesis (for example). But, as you read above, I go further and define it as even the 'abstract'. Something that is 'abstract' is still 'something'. We may not comprehend 'how', but in my opinion it still 'is'.

Just my opinion of course!


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18781641 - 08/31/13 03:07 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Even though we are objectively part of nature,

:thumbup:

This is my standpoint on the issue.  So all we do is also part of nature. Nature it seems, within itself, includes the ability to view itself subjectively.


--------------------
"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


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]
    #18781644 - 08/31/13 03:08 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
because there isn't any infinite true ownership, it really only applies to our subjectivity, which is just to define within our limited lifespan/control. So we aren't going against nature ever because we don't have that power.

Ownership of that magnitude doesn't exist.

In relation to ourselves and our society we are able to establish our sense/view of ownership, which is all that is really relevant. To categorize what people are currently holding dominion over. This gives them the right to do as they please(within the law) with their ownerships for as long as they hold that title; though it is all a subjective game that will eventually be turned into natural vapor, no matter what an individual thinks of their ownerships.

In a way we are owning the land but only due to the way our society has been formatted. It's a word that doesn't really have to include complete unassailable control. It is relevant to our society, I doubt very many people really think they have such control over nature. Even if they did they would be completely delusional, unless they are some entity that I am unaware of, which could be possible.

imo the concept ownership can be made relevant to what is observed in nature, just not absolute or with the knowledge of the observed creatures intent. However according to that definition, it would be unnatural to put that label or any other conceptual label on anything. so I agree to an extent, it just depends on what sort of context the individual is applying/implying.




I don't even know what is "going against nature"? What does that mean? Being apart from nature? Being unnatural? Being artificial? What?

If going against nature and unnatural is synonymous then where are you?


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]
    #18781647 - 08/31/13 03:08 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
Even though we are objectively part of nature,

:thumbup:

This is my standpoint on the issue.  So all we do is also part of nature. Nature it seems, within itself, includes the ability to view itself subjectively.




Hardly, I don't even think that's what I meant. Being a part of nature doesn't imply that all we do is a part 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: as7859]
    #18781657 - 08/31/13 03:11 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

as7859 said:
Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

as7859 said:
Quote:

teknix said:
To own requires an object to be owned and an owner of that object.

In nature one object doesn't own another object, therefore ownership is not natural.

Atoms do not own one another, and if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature.

Nature does not have an owner in reality, ownership can only be in a dualistic theory.

Therefore if you think you are something separate to own parts of nature that owner cannot be nature for nature could not own itself.

Everything we create is not natural, just because we are created naturally. (usually)



I'm not sure I agree with the premise "In nature one object doesn't own another object."

If we look at ourselves as 'objects', then we can clearly say that in nature objects exist which produce 'ideas' (such as ownership), which results in these 'objects' "owning" other objects.

So, in my opinion, your premise is false - so too the conclusion - rendering the argument unsound.




You make a good point, but it isn't objective, we only subjectively own anything, through our thoughts and idea's. Objectively there isn't ownership.



Nature produced subjectivity. We come from nature; we are not independent of it. Nature produced objectivity and subjectivity. Thus, everything is natural: our thoughts, our ideas, physical objects. It all exists within nature. Thus, I still believe the argument to be unsound.

It just depends on definitions of words we have in our language. Does 'nature' only mean physical things? Does it also only mean things like animals, plants; but things that are man-made are not? I would argue against anyone who believes the latter because quite clearly anything man ever does is just as much a part of nature as a plant going through photosynthesis (for example). But, as you read above, I go further and define it as even the 'abstract'. Something that is 'abstract' is still 'something'. We may not comprehend 'how', but in my opinion it still 'is'.

Just my opinion of course!




Nature produced us, which we produced subjectivity, subtle difference but relevant to this topic.

Where is subjectivity without us?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18781664 - 08/31/13 03:14 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Icelander said:
Even though we are objectively part of nature,

:thumbup:

This is my standpoint on the issue.  So all we do is also part of nature. Nature it seems, within itself, includes the ability to view itself subjectively.




Hardly, I don't even think that's what he meant. Being a part of nature doesn't imply that all we do is a part of nature.





How could it not be. What stands outside of nature?  I can think of nothing that does not spring from nature itself.  If you want to make the case that nature can act unnaturally then that's your right.


--------------------
"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


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 10,654 162 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, 6 guests and 2 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 0.024 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.