|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: liquidlounge]
#18802162 - 09/05/13 05:39 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, that was like 36 pages worth before I got fed up.
|
liquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18802165 - 09/05/13 05:40 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Yeah, that was like 36 pages worth before I got fed up.
What?
-------------------- As far as I assume to know...
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: liquidlounge]
#18802207 - 09/05/13 06:04 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
To report him last time.
|
liquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18802230 - 09/05/13 06:19 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
What has that got to do with my post?
-------------------- As far as I assume to know...
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

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]
#18803361 - 09/05/13 01:25 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ownership
the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Possession
a : to seize and take control of : take into one's possession. b : to enter into and control firmly : dominate
If you were to take away any rights and just view ownership as an act, or as a state of possessing. And then take that definition of possession. Couldn't you say that does happen in nature, even without a possible self to acknowledge? Even just on an instinctual level, isn't that ownership?
The written concept itself may be unnatural due to it being a manmade concept, but the idea it is expressing is seen in nature. Even if the creature doesn't have a single conceptual image, just on the basis that it is expressing what we have defined.
They may need an intermediary(or a self) to define that act, which would be unnatural according to our perceptions(which we could be way off about, they may have conceptual imaging or thought that does define ownership in some rudimentary way) and your chosen definition. But regardless of what they think, since we are humans and we have observed and made broad definitions that do represent what we are observing, that term, defined above, does apply to nature. It may just be unnatural to define it according to your chosen definition. I guess if we can't define anything naturally then what is the point of having a definition for nature, if the definition itself is unnatural.
nature can't represent something natural because it is our concept
ownership can't represent something natural because it is our concept
is that what were saying?
Imo it can't be said to be an absolute argument because our perceptions only go so far. I can't prove a creature has conceptual thought or a self or some concept of ownership. But you can't prove that it doesn't either. And there is some science suggesting some creatures may have rudimentary conceptual thought. So I say we just can't say currently if you are correct.
I guess except that you said that self or sentience = unnatural too. Then as far as we know, many things could be living unnaturally. Though that doesn't go along with the definition of nature that you provided, just something included by your opinion I guess for sake of argument. But I guess it does go along with your argument if you are saying anything we can define would be unnatural. But who knows what they are defining/thinking. But if we figure it out(in relation to our perceptions) then that is unnatural.
Like you said earlier, unless I am mistaken. You are basically saying what the Buddha was saying. Self = delusion no-self = reality/Buddha nature/enlightenment/actuality? The uncreated is the only thing consistent and not built on delusion(limited perception). The rest may be subject to change
-------------------- "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 (09/05/13 04:49 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18804251 - 09/05/13 05:21 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
To: everyone.
Please cut out the personal comments and focus on the topic of this thread. I can't figure out wtf is going on here, but I'm going to be enforcing the rules past this point pretty strictly.
-johnm214
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18804703 - 09/05/13 07:11 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said: Ownership
the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Possession
a : to seize and take control of : take into one's possession. b : to enter into and control firmly : dominate
If you were to take away any rights and just view ownership as an act, or as a state of possessing. And then take that definition of possession. Couldn't you say that does happen in nature, even without a possible self to acknowledge? Even just on an instinctual level, isn't that ownership?
The written concept itself may be unnatural due to it being a manmade concept, but the idea it is expressing is seen in nature. Even if the creature doesn't have a single conceptual image, just on the basis that it is expressing what we have defined.
They may need an intermediary(or a self) to define that act, which would be unnatural according to our perceptions(which we could be way off about, they may have conceptual imaging or thought that does define ownership in some rudimentary way) and your chosen definition. But regardless of what they think, since we are humans and we have observed and made broad definitions that do represent what we are observing, that term, defined above, does apply to nature. It may just be unnatural to define it according to your chosen definition. I guess if we can't define anything naturally then what is the point of having a definition for nature, if the definition itself is unnatural.
nature can't represent something natural because it is our concept
ownership can't represent something natural because it is our concept
is that what were saying?
Imo it can't be said to be an absolute argument because our perceptions only go so far. I can't prove a creature has conceptual thought or a self or some concept of ownership. But you can't prove that it doesn't either. And there is some science suggesting some creatures may have rudimentary conceptual thought. So I say we just can't say currently if you are correct.
I guess except that you said that self or sentience = unnatural too. Then as far as we know, many things could be living unnaturally. Though that doesn't go along with the definition of nature that you provided, just something included by your opinion I guess for sake of argument. But I guess it does go along with your argument if you are saying anything we can define would be unnatural. But who knows what they are defining/thinking. But if we figure it out(in relation to our perceptions) then that is unnatural.
Like you said earlier, unless I am mistaken. You are basically saying what the Buddha was saying. Self = delusion no-self = reality/Buddha nature/enlightenment/actuality? The uncreated is the only thing consistent and not built on delusion(limited perception). The rest may be subject to change
What animal really takes control of an area as human's do?
We don't really allow anything in our hovels excepts for pets, which are generally considered under our possession. Even if a lion is contesting another lion, he isn't contesting the insects, or birds, or elephants that wanna go through or even inhabit the same space, he just don't like other lions and that's where he happens to be, if he's bigger and badder than the other lion leaves, if not then he leaves, never was the land really in the lions possession.
He fights other males that come around him, regardless where he is.
|
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] 1
#18804710 - 09/05/13 07:12 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Then it's just a matter of degree.
-------------------- "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
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18804717 - 09/05/13 07:14 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
He has no right to it because animals don't have inherent rights without being able to claim them.
Quote:
I guess except that you said that self or sentience = unnatural too. Then as far as we know, many things could be living unnaturally. Though that doesn't go along with the definition of nature that you provided, just something included by your opinion I guess for sake of argument. But I guess it does go along with your argument if you are saying anything we can define would be unnatural. But who knows what they are defining/thinking. But if we figure it out(in relation to our perceptions) then that is unnatural.
Like you said earlier, unless I am mistaken. You are basically saying what the Buddha was saying. Self = delusion no-self = reality/Buddha nature/enlightenment/actuality? The uncreated is the only thing consistent and not built on delusion(limited perception). The rest may be subject to change
Basically, it's just there being a lion, as a part of nature rather than owning it.
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

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] 1
#18804843 - 09/05/13 07:48 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Males defend the pride's territory, which may include some 100 square miles (259 square kilometers) of grasslands, scrub, or open woodlands. These intimidating animals mark the area with urine, roar menacingly to warn intruders, and chase off animals that encroach on their turf.
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/african-lion/
The males associated with a pride tend to stay on the fringes, patrolling their territory.
They seize, dominate and establish their territory through scent marking. They occupy their chosen territory for many generations.
"larger prides have a strong advantage in competition against neighboring groups. Larger prides are able to expand the size and quality of their territories and thereby gain greater reproductive success"
Ownership doesn't have to come with rights
Ownership
the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Possession
a : to seize and take control of : take into one's possession. b : to enter into and control firmly : dominate
This video makes it sound like elephants try to avoid lion territory
-------------------- "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 (09/05/13 08:03 PM)
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

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]
#18804921 - 09/05/13 08:09 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: What animal really takes control of an area as human's do?
I think its pretty similar but obviously our ownership has evolved and become more complicated for many reasons.
As our "prides" have expanded we've seized neighboring territory. Our means of defense/offense and marking has become more complicated as we've evolved.
Luckily we seem to become more civilized with our ownership. Though many do still savagely invade and control territory
Who's to say what will happen in the future though, survival is the number one priority.
imo your argument is based on your perceptions, not one of us can say what is going on out there beyond our perceptions/understandings/imaginations. But I guess if it is the case that they do have conceptual imagery or thought and do have some understanding of what they are possessing/controlling; to you that would also be unnatural.
But can't you see by your logic that the concept of nature is a manmade concept and isn't natural? How can we ever say what is nature/natural then? Or is it that the creation of the concept isn't natural but what is represents may be?
Edited by Sse (09/05/13 08:53 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18805876 - 09/06/13 12:06 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I disagree, ownership is completely fabricated, and yourself is only imposing it on animals, through the similarities of your personal idea's of ownership combined with observations, rather than just observations.
Would you deny ownership is a construct of the human mind?
The concept of nature is man-made, but nature is not.
Remember discussing observations verse your thoughts of observations?
|
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]
#18806145 - 09/06/13 03:13 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: I disagree, ownership is completely fabricated, and yourself is only imposing it on animals, through the similarities of your personal idea's of ownership combined with observations, rather than just observations.
The evolution of the concept of ownership, together with the evolution of humans themselves, indicates that the reverse is true.
Quote:
Would you deny ownership is a construct of the human mind?
Yes, I would deny it. The concept of ownership is the result of the working of the human mind; however, ownership itself is a natural phenomenon that humans subsequently conceptualized, in the same manner as they have conceptualized other aspects of reality. Humans have a knack for conceptualizing reality. 
Quote:
The concept of nature is man-made, but nature is not.
Just as the concept of ownership is man-made, but ownership is not.
--------------------
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
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18806153 - 09/06/13 03:24 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18806970 - 09/06/13 11:00 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: I disagree, ownership is completely fabricated, and yourself is only imposing it on animals, through the similarities of your personal idea's of ownership combined with observations, rather than just observations.
The evolution of the concept of ownership, together with the evolution of humans themselves, indicates that the reverse is true.
Quote:
Would you deny ownership is a construct of the human mind?
Yes, I would deny it. The concept of ownership is the result of the working of the human mind; however, ownership itself is a natural phenomenon that humans subsequently conceptualized, in the same manner as they have conceptualized other aspects of reality. Humans have a knack for conceptualizing reality. 
Quote:
The concept of nature is man-made, but nature is not.
Just as the concept of ownership is man-made, but ownership is not. 
Rofl, all concepts are man made and therefore not natural.
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

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]
#18806988 - 09/06/13 11:09 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
As far as I know, and as far as you know. Creatures do have conceptual imagery or thought and do recognize ownership in a way that we don't understand.
So even if our observations are wrong, that doesn't mean you are right. Unless you insist that that would also be unnatural. But that's more along the lines of something Buddha would say though I don't think unnatural would be his word choice. Maybe just another form of a conditioning
But regardless of that, according to the definitions of ownership and possession that I provided, what we observe in nature is spot on. They don't even have to think about it, it is in action(that's all it takes for it to be considered ownership). The concept may be manmade but what it is representing is seen all over the planet.
I think the idea that ownership is symbolizing is seen very clearly in nature.
I mean look at how the lions control/patrol their territory. They are very possessive. Once they out grow their territory, it's time to expand and dominate new territory. Then they've got their males patrolling the boarders that they construct with scent markings. Other creatures get chased out, or are to afraid to enter, elephants seem to avoid it unless they have to enter. It's to ensure their offspring have the resources they need. It's a harsh world out there and for many creatures in order to survive they have to become possessive/territorial.
http://blog.snapshotserengeti.org/2013/06/03/living-with-lions/
"Basically, lions harass, steal food from, and even kill hyenas, cheetahs, leopards, and wild dogs. Their aggression usually has no visible justification (e.g. they donβt eat the cheetahs they kill), but can have devastating effects. One of my main research goals is to understand how hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, and wild dogs survive with lions. As I mentioned the other week, I think the secret may lie in how these smaller carnivores use the landscape to avoid interacting with lions.
Top predators (the big ones doing the chasing and killing) can create what we call a βlandscape of fearβ that essentially reduces the amount of land available to smaller predators. Smaller predators are so afraid of encountering the big guys that they avoid using large chunks of the landscape altogether."
"Rofl, all concepts are man made and therefore not natural. "
You just said the creation of the concept, nature, wasn't natural but what it represents is; I think that is the same thing he is saying.
-------------------- "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"
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: BlueCoyote]
#18806995 - 09/06/13 11:10 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18806999 - 09/06/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said:
You just said the creation of the concept, nature, wasn't natural but what it represents is; I think that is the same thing he is saying.
The concept isn't natural, so? What does that prove?
How many different life-forms are going to feed off that one dead animal do you think?
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

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]
#18807015 - 09/06/13 11:15 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It proves to me according your own logic that the act of creating the concept of nature is unnatural but what it is actually representing is a true representation of nature. Just not the act of physically creating the concept.
-------------------- "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"
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

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]
#18807023 - 09/06/13 11:19 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
As many animals as the lions will allow. If they see other predators like the ones listed above then they will also kill or chase those away. Probably leaving the eating to the ones that are sneaky/desperate enough or are scavengers not really of concern to the lions territory/food source/survival.
-------------------- "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 (09/06/13 11:21 AM)
|
|