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: Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 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: fireworks_god]
    #18825056 - 09/10/13 08:01 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


I think control can just be as little as having power over.

If I say one pride of lions has control over an area for many generations, then to me that just means they are dominating the area without being dominated. Their territory has remained in their hands, they have remained the dominating force within those boundaries.






Quote:


This fits well in with what I was saying. I referred to control as the ability of determining what happens. In this example, the lions determine what happens with their territory in the sense that is relevant to them - holding it for themselves in place of it being held by other lions. :smile:





Think about this in terms of evolution a minute.

The biggest and baddest lion get's to mate with all the lioness' and make more big and bad little cubs, so they are only working toward evolution by natural selection, no ownership is necessary.

They all want to mate with the lioness' but only one of them will get too and the offspring produces, has it in their DNA to do the same thing.

The Bigbadass lion is going to chill wherever he wants too, and if another lion comes around him he's gonna try to kick his ass. He's going to raise the cubs to be the same way, and they are going to chill wherever is the best place to chill. He's not gonna let another male lion chill there, because it his against his instinct from DNA. If the father thought it was a pretty chill spot, then other lions probably think that too, including the little bad ass cubs.

He don't care if anyone else comes around, unless it is edible and/or he is hungry or feels threatened. If one lion did let other lions mate in the past, their genes would have been lost to the big bad ass who didn't let others mate. because the big badasses genes will carry on. Not the lion who plays nice.

So in this case natural selection is favoring the aggressive attribute and Therefore they are only doing what they are programmed to do.

Quote:


Other creatures may have conceptual thought.





I'm sure they could, but if they do we don't know it, so why should we assume that they do unless we have evidence for it?


Edited by teknix (09/10/13 08:23 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]
    #18825144 - 09/10/13 08:24 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


I think control can just be as little as having power over.

If I say one pride of lions has control over an area for many generations, then to me that just means they are dominating the area without being dominated. Their territory has remained in their hands, they have remained the dominating force within those boundaries.






Quote:


This fits well in with what I was saying. I referred to control as the ability of determining what happens. In this example, the lions determine what happens with their territory in the sense that is relevant to them - holding it for themselves in place of it being held by other lions. :smile:





Think about this in terms of evolution for a minute.

The biggest and baddest lion get's to mate with all the lioness' and make more big and bad little cubs, so they are only working toward evolution by natural selection, no ownership is necessary.

They all want to mate with the lioness' but only one of them will get too and the offspring produces, has it in their DNA to do the same thing.

The Big badass lion is going to chill wherever he wants too, and if another lion comes around him he's gonna try to kick his ass. He's going to raise the cubs to be the same way, and they are going to chill wherever is the best place to chill. He's not gonna let another male lion chill there, because it his against his instinct from DNA. If the father thought it was a pretty chill spot, then other lions probably think that too, including the little bad ass cubs.

He don't care if anyone else comes around, unless it is edible and/or he is hungry or feels threatened. If one lion did let other lions mate in the past, their genes would have been lost to the big bad ass who didn't let others mate. because the big badasses genes will carry on. Not the lion who plays nice.

So in this case natural selection is favoring the aggressive attribute and Therefore they are only doing what they are programmed to do.

Quote:


Other creatures may have conceptual thought.





I'm sure they could, but if they do we don't know it, so why should we assume that they do unless we have evidence for it?


Edited by teknix (09/10/13 09:55 PM)


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]
    #18826452 - 09/11/13 04:06 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Think about this in terms of evolution for a minute.




This is a great idea.

Quote:


...
He don't care if anyone else comes around, unless it is edible and/or he is hungry or feels threatened. If one lion did let other lions mate in the past, their genes would have been lost to the big bad ass who didn't let others mate. because the big badasses genes will carry on. Not the lion who plays nice.

So in this case natural selection is favoring the aggressive attribute and Therefore they are only doing what they are programmed to do.




Exactly, you're describing the genetic basis for ownership - being territorial. That is what ownership is.
Everything you just described concerning lion behavior applied in the same measure to humans. As humans have evolved, they've conceptualized this behavior, and both the behavior and the conceptualization of the behavior have continued to evolve together.
This is why I suggested earlier that you look at it through the prism of evolution. :wink:


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

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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]
    #18826790 - 09/11/13 07:56 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Aggressiveness doesn't implicate ownership at all, :sorry:

Many humans own things without having to be aggressive towards other males.


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]
    #18826860 - 09/11/13 08:15 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

I wasn't referring to aggressiveness; I was referring to territoriality. :sorry:


--------------------
: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
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]
    #18827230 - 09/11/13 10:49 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Why assume anything?

Why assume that what you think is, is all that is?

Lion prides are a bit more complicated then that. There are multiple males, the number varies and then there are a bunch of related females that they mate with. The males patrol the perimeter of their scent marked territorial bounds while the females hunt. They seem to kill, and chase off other predators or large animals that are also in competition of the same resources.

How can you say what a lion doesn't care about? All these assumptions are based on your perceptions and perspective, but that doesn't make it absolute.

This thread is partly built on you thinking you know what is going on in the mind of creatures.

If you say definitively that a lion isn't thinking or considering ownership, you could be wrong.

You pov is limited, so there is no definitive. You could be completely wrong.


--------------------
"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 (09/11/13 10:54 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]
    #18827248 - 09/11/13 10:55 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
I wasn't referring to aggressiveness; I was referring to territoriality. :sorry:




It doesn't matter if that is what you are referring too, especially considering you didn't define territorial.

My point stands.


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]
    #18827261 - 09/11/13 10:58 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
Why assume anything?

Why assume that what you think is, is all that is?

Lion prides are a bit more complicated then that. There are multiple males, the number varies and then there are a bunch of related females that they mate with. The males patrol the perimeter of their scent marked territorial bounds while the females hunt. They seem to kill, and chase off other predators or large animals that are also in competition of the same resources.

How can you say what a lion doesn't care about? All these assumptions are based on your perceptions and perspective, but that doesn't make it absolute.

This thread is partly built on you thinking you know what is going on in the mind of creatures.

If you say definitively that a lion isn't thinking or considering ownership, you could be wrong.

You pov is limited, so there is no definitive. You could be completely wrong.




They are not assumptions, they are observations of nature.

He pisses to keep other males away from him, so what. Maybe deep down he doesn't want to have to fight, and warns other males he's chilling there.

You are the one with the burden of proof. Yet you have no evidence for your claims that a lion is considering anything his, or owning something.

So there null hypothesis (mine) seems most likely until evidence is provided to the contrary.


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]
    #18827264 - 09/11/13 10:59 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Your point is nothing but an assumption if you ask me

imo your post would be more accurate if you said, "this definition of nature, infers human concepts are unnatural."

"I have no idea what is going on in the heads of creatures, because I am only human with human perceptions. I truly don't know what is going on beyond them."


--------------------
"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]
    #18827270 - 09/11/13 11:01 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

My point is that this thread is pointless, if you cant prove to me what all territorial animals are thinking then all I see is you pretending to know what animals are thinking. Or what nature is thinking


--------------------
"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 (09/11/13 11:03 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: fireworks_god] * 1
    #18827311 - 09/11/13 11:19 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

being territorial. That is what ownership is.


:cookiemonster:


--------------------
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
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: Rahz]
    #18827729 - 09/11/13 01:07 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

but from tek's view point, that human created concepts and their meanings are unnatural; calling it ownership, or them possessing/dominating their territory/resources is unnatural because it's from human definition. It may be true but in any way that we will conceptualize it, it will be unnatural.

Maybe it's only true from our perspective. Ultimately, for all we know, we could be living in total delusion. Perhaps from an objective perspective they aren't even lions but a field of flowers, but only look like lions from our subjective eyes.


--------------------
"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
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse] * 1
    #18827831 - 09/11/13 01:34 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Ownership is a noun derived from the verb own. A verb describes an action. In this case all that's needed is to establish some type of exclusive use. A lion is obviously guarding the land for it's exclusive use in regards to other lions. You can call it whatever you like, but it's exhibiting ownership by it's actions. 

The confusion stems from the idea that because humans use language and have discreet words that somehow it changes the meaning in some way that would qualify humans for 'special use' of the word. Lions don't own land in the same way they can't murder anyone. They kill, they possess. Humans do the same thing we just have a larger variety of words to describe the nuanced qualities of our actions. Lions probably aren't as complex in their reasoning but their actions aren't totally foreign to ours either.

I'm perfectly fine saying lions possess a territory rather than saying that 'lion own the savannah'. The thing is, when we talk about owning something we're talking about possessing it, holding it for exclusive use. We can get nuanced about the social network supporting our claims of ownership (which provides it with a more human like connotation) but the basic idea is the same. The lion is possessing the land. This describes an active relationship between the lion and the land. Whether we call it ownership or not is a minor semantic issue.

As I have said, ownership IS an inference of independence from nature and I have mentioned the paradox of a unified reality creating it's own friction. By teknix logic eating isn't natural. Why would nature eat itself? If there is nothing outside nature, there is nothing for nature to eat. Therefore a lion eating a buffalo infers an independence from nature! And I agree, it does infer an independence from nature. The reality may not be the same as the inference, but it doesn't need to be. Look around and bask in the paradox of existence. Tell me it's not happening. Just close those peepers and maybe it will all go away.


--------------------
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
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: Rahz]
    #18828560 - 09/11/13 04:19 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

What infers independence, just that definition of nature? And human concepts?

I'm confused about the logic myself. Existence wouldn't be nature, water wouldn't be nature, nature wouldn't be nature, nothing we could explain would be nature.

As far as I know, everything we view could only be relevant to our selves, for whatever reasons. I may or may not be able to tell you it isn't happening if I had a different vantage point, or an objective vantage. But for now this is how we've evolved, this is the world view that we have been conditioned to see and experience. Though I may not be able to speak for everyone.


--------------------
"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
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]
    #18829188 - 09/11/13 06:29 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

being territorial. That is what ownership is.


:cookiemonster:





You can't link aggression to ownership. Aggression is an independent phenomena.

Quote:


5. Biology Displaying territoriality; defending a territory from intruders: territorial behavior; a territorial species.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/territorial





So what is constituting ownership?

Like I said, a Lion doesn't care if there are insects or birds, or much else around him other than Male Lions. That comes from aggression which is an evolutionary feat cause by aggressive animals being continually bred, because that trait is beneficial. No concepts of ownership there. You can't even show a lion to have any concepts, let alone one of ownership.

An intruder is a misnomer even, because they are generally only aggressive towards a specific intruder, rather than all intruders.

A lion as no concept of ownership or any idea of self to own with, it is one with nature, unlike most man.


Edited by teknix (09/11/13 06:35 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: Rahz]
    #18829220 - 09/11/13 06:37 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Ownership is a noun derived from the verb own. A verb describes an action. In this case all that's needed is to establish some type of exclusive use. A lion is obviously guarding the land for it's exclusive use in regards to other lions. You can call it whatever you like, but it's exhibiting ownership by it's actions. 

The confusion stems from the idea that because humans use language and have discreet words that somehow it changes the meaning in some way that would qualify humans for 'special use' of the word. Lions don't own land in the same way they can't murder anyone. They kill, they possess. Humans do the same thing we just have a larger variety of words to describe the nuanced qualities of our actions. Lions probably aren't as complex in their reasoning but their actions aren't totally foreign to ours either.

I'm perfectly fine saying lions possess a territory rather than saying that 'lion own the savannah'. The thing is, when we talk about owning something we're talking about possessing it, holding it for exclusive use. We can get nuanced about the social network supporting our claims of ownership (which provides it with a more human like connotation) but the basic idea is the same. The lion is possessing the land. This describes an active relationship between the lion and the land. Whether we call it ownership or not is a minor semantic issue.

As I have said, ownership IS an inference of independence from nature and I have mentioned the paradox of a unified reality creating it's own friction. By teknix logic eating isn't natural. Why would nature eat itself? If there is nothing outside nature, there is nothing for nature to eat. Therefore a lion eating a buffalo infers an independence from nature! And I agree, it does infer an independence from nature. The reality may not be the same as the inference, but it doesn't need to be. Look around and bask in the paradox of existence. Tell me it's not happening. Just close those peepers and maybe it will all go away.




Yeah, great circular argument there buddy, the entire premise is that they don't own anything, so you can't claim they are owning it before it has been found to be true, and then use that claim that they are owning as evidence of ownership.

:rolleyes:


--------------------
.6th and 7th sense theory
.Now is forever. .ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞTheﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞUnseenﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ is seenﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ by the blindﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ eye.ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ.When the inevitable time comes, go with your head held high,without regret or remorse, in your subconscious mind.
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ


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]
    #18829226 - 09/11/13 06:38 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

First, show evidence that a lion can conceptualize, then show he conceptualizes ownership.

Goodluck . . .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblessed

Registered: 07/16/11
Posts: 1,086
Loc: ation: Tasmania Flag
Last seen: 11 days, 8 hours
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18829832 - 09/11/13 08:42 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

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



Say like a creator and a creation :thumbup:

Quote:

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



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

Quote:

teknix said:
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.



Man (as far as we can tell) is the only animal/creature/created being that seems to have the ability to think and reason, not that other animals can't, but no where near to the level that we can. It is in this ability, that we claim lands, and animals, and do all that we do, good or bad. we are unique on the earth by this ability, it's as if we are almost like god's (compared to all other living creatures on this planet).  But, if you truly believe in the Big Bang/ Evolution? then as stated above, and i think the point that teknix post is about, is that we are part of the dish, the spaghetti sauce can't say to the spaghetti "i own you", for evolution made the whole dish.

If you (the spaghetti sauce) think yourself above the (spaghetti) Then in you are in fact agreeing with the Creator Of The Universe (The God of the Bible)


Quote:

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



Evolution being true = no, no one or thing on earth at least can claim true ownership.

Bible being true = Same thing but God made all and has made us man stewards of his house/creation.

Think of it this way, if Bible being true?, the whole universe, and i mean it 100% (as far as it reaches) it a clock/watch.
And this clock/watch is in the hand of it's creator God(that is he is outside of our universe)

(the watch is the WHOLE universe 200%. The Hand is it's creator, Evolution (the force behind it) or God, depending on what you believe)

Quote:

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



The only one that can truly think/say this is the creator of all things, if part of the creation (say us humans), then no, none can say so

Quote:

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



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

If i am right on these points teknix?, then i agree with you.

In the end it's like two children fighting over lego blocks, one says " it's mine give it back!!!!" the other says "NO!!!!!!!!!!! it's mine", At which at the same time the mother pokes her head in the room and says "really?, well the fact is, it's mine, and im just letting you two little spoiled brats play with them, no me, no blocks, comprendea???"

At which point one of them gets what the mother is saying, and says to the other kid "here you go" :grin:


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]
    #18830362 - 09/11/13 10:21 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

What I claim is that the apparent behavior is akin to what we would call ownership. And though there is nothing outside nature this doesn't prevent nature from clashing with itself, eating itself, fighting itself. To own (an inference of independence from nature) is a natural occurrence. It's all just part of the big swirling yin yang pie of life.


--------------------
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: blessed]
    #18830877 - 09/12/13 12:48 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

blessed said:
Quote:

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



Say like a creator and a creation :thumbup:

Quote:

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



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

Quote:

teknix said:
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.



Man (as far as we can tell) is the only animal/creature/created being that seems to have the ability to think and reason, not that other animals can't, but no where near to the level that we can. It is in this ability, that we claim lands, and animals, and do all that we do, good or bad. we are unique on the earth by this ability, it's as if we are almost like god's (compared to all other living creatures on this planet).  But, if you truly believe in the Big Bang/ Evolution? then as stated above, and i think the point that teknix post is about, is that we are part of the dish, the spaghetti sauce can't say to the spaghetti "i own you", for evolution made the whole dish.

If you (the spaghetti sauce) think yourself above the (spaghetti) Then in you are in fact agreeing with the Creator Of The Universe (The God of the Bible)


Quote:

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



Evolution being true = no, no one or thing on earth at least can claim true ownership.

Bible being true = Same thing but God made all and has made us man stewards of his house/creation.

Think of it this way, if Bible being true?, the whole universe, and i mean it 100% (as far as it reaches) it a clock/watch.
And this clock/watch is in the hand of it's creator God(that is he is outside of our universe)

(the watch is the WHOLE universe 200%. The Hand is it's creator, Evolution (the force behind it) or God, depending on what you believe)

Quote:

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



The only one that can truly think/say this is the creator of all things, if part of the creation (say us humans), then no, none can say so

Quote:

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



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

If i am right on these points teknix?, then i agree with you.

In the end it's like two children fighting over lego blocks, one says " it's mine give it back!!!!" the other says "NO!!!!!!!!!!! it's mine", At which at the same time the mother pokes her head in the room and says "really?, well the fact is, it's mine, and im just letting you two little spoiled brats play with them, no me, no blocks, comprendea???"

At which point one of them gets what the mother is saying, and says to the other kid "here you go" :grin:




I think you got it bro!

:thumbup:

:bearbreakdance:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


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. 2 members, 9 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.