Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
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: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | Next > | Last >
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18861621 - 09/19/13 04:44 AM (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)



If I understand correctly..are you saying that 'ownership' is basically an illusion?

I agree completely if thats the case.

Perhaps you could have worded OP a little differently and it wouldn't have confused fireworks, as he is rather easily confused and once confused will argue that he is right no matter how many times you prove him wrong.

Best just to tell him that he won like you would a little kid to make him (her?) feel better.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


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: hTx]
    #18861655 - 09/19/13 05:22 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Fireworks, you like to live in your own little fantasy world where you debate about topics that weren't even originally the topic at hand..




:orly:

If that's the case, then I'm sure you can explain to everyone how the matter that tehnix and myself are presently debating isn't originally the topic at hand. :smirk:

Quote:


Like our trust your rationality debate, in which I was talking about how most people believe themselves to be acting, thinking and reasoning rationally when in most cases that turns out to be false, and that on a long enough time-line, most "rational" beliefs tend to be completely proven wrong.

And you kept defending the process of rationality, we were arguing about two completely different things, and you, like now, were so blinded by your need to be right that you didn't even realize it.




Or, an alternative explanation - I disputed the idea that the beliefs that you labeled to be rational and later were proven wrong were never rational in the first place, that the criteria by which a belief or idea is considered to be rational isn't whether or not the person holding the belief or idea thinks it is rational. That certainly is not the definition of arguing about two completely different things.

I think it's interesting that you would judge me as being blinded by the need to be right. I find it interesting because, up until this point in time, you haven't in any way, shape, or form demonstrated that I was somehow blinded in the first place, setting aside, naturally, the speculation as to why I would be blinded. :lol: No, you haven't demonstrated this in the form of substantive idea. You've only made empty allegations that haven't held up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. :sorry:

So, what will it be, then, mate? If you want to join this debate, you can actually substantiate the notion that I'm debating a topic that wasn't the original one. I'm looking forward to your ideological basis for the allegation. If you weren't satisfied with the conclusion of the debate on rationality, then I suggest that you dig for it and give it a nice, big bump, for the sake of clarity, as this thread has enough pages already.

It was precious how you suggested that it's advisable to tell me I won, as if I were a little kid, but completely irrelevant. Who's living in a fantasy world now? :tongue2: :nono:
The only thing that matters is the ideological discussion. If you cannot complete the ideological discussion, then what does that tell you? :strokebeard:


--------------------
: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
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: hTx]
    #18861769 - 09/19/13 06:58 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
If I understand correctly..are you saying that 'ownership' is basically an illusion?

I agree completely if thats the case.

Perhaps you could have worded OP a little differently and it wouldn't have confused fireworks, as he is rather easily confused and once confused will argue that he is right no matter how many times you prove him wrong.




His wording the OP a little differently to reflect the notion that ownership is "basically an illusion" would have made absolutely no difference in the context of the points of contention being discussed. I'm grateful that you are concerned about whether or not I may be confused, but it seems like you should have studied a bit more thoroughly the nature of this debate and what it entails before drawing the conclusion that you actually think you know why I would be confused and how that might be helped.

Your fantasy about me arguing that I am right no matter how many times one might prove me wrong is absolute garbage. Do you really feel like you are an authority on the matter? Exactly what percentage of my post history have you examined in reaching such a conclusion, exactly? Do you really feel you've justified yourself enough by informing yourself with my posting history to allow yourself to break the forum rules to comment on my personal nature? Now, tell me, hTx, since you feel qualified to make such statements... where were you all the times when I conceded points? Where were you when I said "Wow, I'm wrong about that"? Do you A.) Want to admit that you don't actually know if it is the case or B.) Acknowledge that you dedicated yourself to researching the trends and characteristics of my posting over a considerable swatch of time and decided to lie about my manner of posting to make it seem like I argue I'm right in the face of proof that I'm not?

Hmm? Your assessment of my personal nature seems awfully transparent in the face of an absolute lack of any form of presented basis for such a conclusion. Do you enjoy making baseless accusations about what makes other people tick? Do you really think it makes sense to take a step back from the purpose of the forum, which is to discuss ideas, and start commenting on my intentions and motivations in posting? Do you really think you have such a grip on my personal flaws, such that you'll show up and pronounce, without the slightest bit of ideological basis for doing so, how I perform and why?

Maybe you should consider taking a long and hard look at the reasons why you stepped into the matter in the way you did. It isn't as if you merely happened to speculate as to my personal nature and how it affects my posting, you waltzed right in and brazenly asserted that you know what that personal nature is. That's quite a bold and daring move, especially since, until now, you haven't brought with you any form of substantiation, and especially since, until now, in the terms of ideological discussion, you personally have never demonstrated any sort of proof that I have been wrong on a matter that we have discussed.

If you don't want to play the game of ideological discussion, you can fuck off, you know that, right? You don't have to be here, making unsubstantiated allegations about what makes the other posters tick. No one said it was obligatory to be here. No one said you had to stick it through and brandish about opinions on how other posters argue about being right simply because they continue onward with supporting their philosophical points of view.

It really makes me wonder where you got that idea in the first place - from me or from you? Did I ever say anything about me being right? Did I ever say anything about needing to be right? Did I ever state anything that addressed in any way, shape, or form the notion that I am right? What are you going on, huh? You think you know people, or something? You think that sticking to a point of contention within the context of an ideological debate inherently means that the person cannot accept being proven wrong? Is that, right, hTx? Come on, bud, let's go, illuminate the matter for us.


--------------------
: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]
    #18862192 - 09/19/13 09:39 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

teknix said:
That animals have ownership because you can correlate certain aspects that we use for ownership to them? But only a few of them right? Not the important ones which are conceptual.




No, my point is that animals and humans alike manifest exactly the same behavior, the behavior which we've conceptualized as ownership. Your value judgment that the conceptual aspect is important is baseless because it has absolutely no bearing on the manifestation of the behavior, as the behavior itself manifests from a level that precedes and operates independently of the ability to conceptualize, both in humans as well as in animals.






Your missing the conceptualization of calling something mine, and having the majority of others agree with that assessment. The natural society doesn't agree that a pride is his, other lions strongly disagree. They don't even consider themselves a lion afaik. Let alone consider themselves owning something, which that is the entire point, ownership requires a conceptualization to identify the item as belonging to a mental construct. Without that construct, created separate from nature, an item isn't being owned. A lion is one with nature, he doesn't get to choose where the pride or land goes when he dies.

Quote:


:haha: animals own.





Still your not providing any evidence of their ownership, where is your evidence? Any evidence you have provided was a slipery slope and not enough to justify any ownership.


Quote:


The fact that humans symbolized ownership doesn't mean that ownership only exists as a symbol. :smirk: There is absolutely no difference between human ownership and animal ownership. It's exactly the same thing. The fact that humans have represented it as a concept could never change that. :lol:





That doesn't negate that it could only exist as a symbol either . . .

The only link you have is that aggressive animals seem to defend a certain area. That is where the slippery slope comes in, when you think aggression is enough to give animals conceptual thought of ownership or even ownership in general.

Again you fail to provide any evidence and just repeat your opinion after you make a bare assertion. Sif your opinion is evidence, lol. So do you think that your assertion is evidence for your opinion and your opinion is evidence for your assertion?

:weirdeyes:

Nice logic bro.


Edited by teknix (09/19/13 09:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMemories
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18862307 - 09/19/13 10:05 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

I thought fireworks_god and Rahz both made good cases for their position.

Ownership is a conceptual placeholder for a type of behavior. The behavior is shared by many species, but the conceptual placeholder is not.

For the sake of our own conceptualization, we can say the animal owns a certain territory. Saying this doesn't mean we are trying to ascribe conceptualization of the behavior to the bear.

Also, we are part of nature, so everything is natural IMO.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: hTx]
    #18862410 - 09/19/13 10:29 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:

Fireworks, you like to live in your own little fantasy world where you debate about topics that weren't even originally the topic at hand..
[...]
And you kept defending the process of rationality, we were arguing about two completely different things, and you, like now, were so blinded by your need to be right that you didn't even realize it.


Ban me, idgaf, tytoz and johnm as mods fucking ruined this subforum.





hTx, please note that the forum rules require you to debate the topic and leave the individual poster out of it.  Fireworksgod's personal qualities aren't relevant here.  Please stick to the topic.

-johnm214


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18862489 - 09/19/13 10:53 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

hTx said:
If I understand correctly..are you saying that 'ownership' is basically an illusion?

I agree completely if thats the case.

Perhaps you could have worded OP a little differently and it wouldn't have confused fireworks, as he is rather easily confused and once confused will argue that he is right no matter how many times you prove him wrong.




His wording the OP a little differently to reflect the notion that ownership is "basically an illusion" would have made absolutely no difference in the context of the points of contention being discussed. I'm grateful that you are concerned about whether or not I may be confused, but it seems like you should have studied a bit more thoroughly the nature of this debate and what it entails before drawing the conclusion that you actually think you know why I would be confused and how that might be helped.

Your fantasy about me arguing that I am right no matter how many times one might prove me wrong is absolute garbage. Do you really feel like you are an authority on the matter? Exactly what percentage of my post history have you examined in reaching such a conclusion, exactly? Do you really feel you've justified yourself enough by informing yourself with my posting history to allow yourself to break the forum rules to comment on my personal nature? Now, tell me, hTx, since you feel qualified to make such statements... where were you all the times when I conceded points? Where were you when I said "Wow, I'm wrong about that"? Do you A.) Want to admit that you don't actually know if it is the case or B.) Acknowledge that you dedicated yourself to researching the trends and characteristics of my posting over a considerable swatch of time and decided to lie about my manner of posting to make it seem like I argue I'm right in the face of proof that I'm not?

Hmm? Your assessment of my personal nature seems awfully transparent in the face of an absolute lack of any form of presented basis for such a conclusion. Do you enjoy making baseless accusations about what makes other people tick? Do you really think it makes sense to take a step back from the purpose of the forum, which is to discuss ideas, and start commenting on my intentions and motivations in posting? Do you really think you have such a grip on my personal flaws, such that you'll show up and pronounce, without the slightest bit of ideological basis for doing so, how I perform and why?

Maybe you should consider taking a long and hard look at the reasons why you stepped into the matter in the way you did. It isn't as if you merely happened to speculate as to my personal nature and how it affects my posting, you waltzed right in and brazenly asserted that you know what that personal nature is. That's quite a bold and daring move, especially since, until now, you haven't brought with you any form of substantiation, and especially since, until now, in the terms of ideological discussion, you personally have never demonstrated any sort of proof that I have been wrong on a matter that we have discussed.

If you don't want to play the game of ideological discussion, you can fuck off, you know that, right? You don't have to be here, making unsubstantiated allegations about what makes the other posters tick. No one said it was obligatory to be here. No one said you had to stick it through and brandish about opinions on how other posters argue about being right simply because they continue onward with supporting their philosophical points of view.

It really makes me wonder where you got that idea in the first place - from me or from you? Did I ever say anything about me being right? Did I ever say anything about needing to be right? Did I ever state anything that addressed in any way, shape, or form the notion that I am right? What are you going on, huh? You think you know people, or something? You think that sticking to a point of contention within the context of an ideological debate inherently means that the person cannot accept being proven wrong? Is that, right, hTx? Come on, bud, let's go, illuminate the matter for us.



tl;dr


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


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]
    #18862836 - 09/19/13 12:24 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

fail to provide any evidence and just repeat your opinion after you make a bare assertion

I feel like your doing exactly that.


Can you provide any evidence to support any of this? Or is it your observations/opinions/assumptions? Unless you are omniscient I don't think you have the vantage point to prove any of these assertions or the past assertions throughout this thread.

The natural society doesn't agree that a pride is his, other lions strongly disagree. They don't even consider themselves a lion afaik. Let alone consider themselves owning something, which that is the entire point, ownership requires a conceptualization to identify the item as belonging to a mental construct. Without that construct, created separate from nature, an item isn't being owned. A lion is one with nature, he doesn't get to choose where the pride or land goes when he dies.

I just can't objectively say that something is or isn't happening.

Ownership isn't natural because it's a human concept. Conceptualizing nature isn't natural because it's a human concept.

Nature = human concept = unnatural

Are they engaging in some form of rudimentary conceptual thought/imagery that isn't contingent with a language. It is possible.

Just from action alone, without knowing anything else about a territorial animals mindset, they are representing the ownership that we've developed into a conceptual language. The idea or thought that they are owning, may only be relevant to our understandings, our conceptual labels. Then according to that one concept of nature; human concepts aren't created naturally. So in order for us to label ownership it takes something apart from nature to do so, at least according to that definition and due to our limited human point of view/vantage.

I say it would be more accurate to say, our concepts are not natural due to this definition of nature. Also this one concept of nature contradicts itself. All human concepts are apart from nature, because this definition of nature might imply that. One way of interpreting this particular concept of nature says that the concept of nature itself infers independence.

As for what is going on beyond my perceptions. I can't ascertain. My pov is limited.


--------------------
"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: Sse]
    #18863044 - 09/19/13 01:18 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

I provided the negation of the purported phenomena.

There isn't evidence that animals are really thinking they own, so why should you think they do?


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: Memories]
    #18863046 - 09/19/13 01:19 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Memories said:
I thought fireworks_god and Rahz both made good cases for their position.

Ownership is a conceptual placeholder for a type of behavior. The behavior is shared by many species, but the conceptual placeholder is not.

For the sake of our own conceptualization, we can say the animal owns a certain territory. Saying this doesn't mean we are trying to ascribe conceptualization of the behavior to the bear.

Also, we are part of nature, so everything is natural IMO.




Why do you think it is shared by many species? What exactly leads you to believe that?

Do you believe in Jesus as god for instance? Should I have to provide evidence against that proposition if I disagree because of a lack of evidence?


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]
    #18863076 - 09/19/13 01:24 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:


I just can't objectively say that something is or isn't happening.






Sure you can, you corroborate with others, and take out the same measuring stick, take gravity for instance. We can all drop 2 items of varying weight at the same time from a top of a building and use a stop watch to time how long it takes them to hit. Then we can compare our data with others who did the same experiment, and if the results are the same, every time, then we can say it is most probably a constant phenomena, until the is evidence provided to the contrary or experiments are giving varying results which we can't corroborate.

You guys are playing the believers here, not me.

I'm playing the skeptic to your beliefs.

So how do you like those apples?

:aliendance:


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]
    #18863207 - 09/19/13 01:59 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Were not talking about gravity here :p

Gravity still may be subjective, only in relation to our material world, our narrow view. Objective to known material phenomenon. Beyond that I don't know.

There isn't evidence that animals are really thinking they own, so why should you think they do?

my point exactly, why think the opposite?


Why argue something imperceptible.

Many times throughout this thread you have spoken as if you had an inside view into the minds and inner workings of other creatures.


I'm playing the skeptic to your beliefs.

Throughout this thread it seems like the opposite is more likely. I don't think I've claimed any beliefs or made direct statements suggesting what is actually happening in other creatures minds.

I guess you could say I believe possibilities are endless

I do prefer to look at the world and everything in it as happening from a natural course of action, it has all flowed and unraveled into what we have here today.

But on a smaller scale, of course I separate natural and artificial in my day to day life. I prefer more direct to the source and less synthesized/processed things. Same as how I differentiate health encouraging and not health encouraging. Sometimes they are both natural. Perhaps I am stigmatizing artificial things because I'm sure many could be viewed as health encouraging but for myself personally I prefer closer to the source when I can.

I don't think I care to call the concepts or the conditioning/development of self unnatural. I like to think of it as all part of the natural process, natural teachers. Maybe even everything we've created artificially might be a natural teacher or encourager of different modes of evolution.

I think by calling it natural it gives rise to more acceptance within me, things have progressed and we as individuals didn't have a whole lot of control over that progression or the selves that we have developed. To think of myself as unnatural it just doesn't sit right with me. I guess that is a bias that I could do without. I can understand calling it delusional, self relevant, possibly unhealthy but I feel everything is embraced by nature and learned from or killed by... I'm just going to continue holding my mind in the now while working towards dissolving labels and bias. In the end you probably won't be able to differentiate the unnatural from the natural anyhow.

I try to act out of health and betterment of my self, part of that is recognizing things as unhealthy and another part is claiming ownership. I can work towards destroying all concepts and arrive at no self; oneness with everything, no bias, no labels, nothing to be upset by, nirvana. But I feel that even then I would be driven by betterment and health, I still feel like I would need to step up and defend what I need to keep me living; to claim ownership when necessary. I just won't be attached to the outcomes in the slightest.


Edited by Sse (09/19/13 03:40 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]
    #18863813 - 09/19/13 04:45 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
Were not talking about gravity here :p

Gravity still may be subjective, only in relation to our material world, our narrow view. Objective to known material phenomenon. Beyond that I don't know.






What are you talking about??????????????

Quote:



my point exactly, why think the opposite?





You mean why not believe it anyway? Obviously because there isn't enough evidence for it.

Quote:


Why argue something imperceptible.





I don't know, why are you arguing for it?

Quote:


Many times throughout this thread you have spoken as if you had an inside view into the minds and inner workings of other creatures.





When? Show these many times, it should be easy since there are so many, my claim is the opposite, that we don't know the inner working and therefore cannot conclude they are thinking to own anything.

Quote:


Throughout this thread it seems like the opposite is more likely. I don't think I've claimed any beliefs or made direct statements suggesting what is actually happening in other creatures minds.





I guess what you think and what really is are two separate phenomena.

Quote:


I guess you could say I believe possibilities are endless





I'm not interested in your beliefs right now, I'm interested in what we can know.

Quote:


I do prefer to look at the world and everything in it as happening from a natural course of action, it has all flowed and unraveled into what we have here today.





Good for you. The rest is of what you wrote is your opinion/beliefs/ideology and not of much consequence to the debate. Not that it's bad, just irrelevant to the debate.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMemories
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18863914 - 09/19/13 05:00 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Memories said:
I thought fireworks_god and Rahz both made good cases for their position.

Ownership is a conceptual placeholder for a type of behavior. The behavior is shared by many species, but the conceptual placeholder is not.

For the sake of our own conceptualization, we can say the animal owns a certain territory. Saying this doesn't mean we are trying to ascribe conceptualization of the behavior to the bear.

Also, we are part of nature, so everything is natural IMO.




Why do you think it is shared by many species? What exactly leads you to believe that?

Do you believe in Jesus as god for instance? Should I have to provide evidence against that proposition if I disagree because of a lack of evidence?




When I own something, it means an item is mine to use unless someone takes it from me. When a male moose dominates a harem of female moose, the females are its to use until something takes them from it. This behavior is evidence of the moose in engaging in a behavior that we as English speaking people have agreed to call owning.

Owning is just a word that we use as a placeholder for conceptualizing what I described. The moose doesn't conceptualize, but behaves in the same manner.


Edited by Memories (09/19/13 05:02 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]
    #18863975 - 09/19/13 05:12 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

I'm going to address the rest of what you said because I think you are getting closer and actually trying to consider it.

Quote:

Sse said:

I don't think I care to call the concepts or the conditioning/development of self unnatural.





It is unnatural, it creates a you and them division, rather than condoning an us mentality, not that it can't be good, it is simply an illusion without any substance, regardless if you consider it good or bad.


Quote:


I think by calling it natural it gives rise to more acceptance within me, things have progressed and we as individuals didn't have a whole lot of control over that progression or the selves that we have developed.





You are revealing how caught up you are in the illusion and how strong your attachment to that illusion is, nothing changes but perspective.

Quote:


To think of myself as unnatural it just doesn't sit right with me.





Of course it doesn't because you are talking about yourself, and seeing it would destroy your so called self, or reveal that it was all an illusion. You feel like it is bad because you are looking from the perspective of self, so yourself feels threatened, or is it you that feels threatened on behalf of yourself?

Quote:


I guess that is a bias that I could do without. I can understand calling it delusional, self relevant, possibly unhealthy but I feel everything is embraced by nature and learned from or killed by...





There are still feelings without the need of a self, instead of seeing through the self, you are just being, rather than being something delusional, or some idea or construct of the mind.

Quote:


I'm just going to continue holding my mind in the now while working towards dissolving labels and bias. In the end you probably won't be able to differentiate the unnatural from the natural anyhow.





There is a mind in the now, but it isn't yours, because yourself  is intercepting the now and delaying it from you, by the time it reaches you it has already been through yourself.

Quote:


I try to act out of health and betterment of my self, part of that is recognizing things as unhealthy and another part is claiming ownership.





All of this can exist just fine without a yourself.

Quote:


I can work towards destroying all concepts and arrive at no self; oneness with everything, no bias, no labels, nothing to be upset by, nirvana. But I feel that even then I would be driven by betterment and health, I still feel like I would need to step up and defend what I need to keep me living; to claim ownership when necessary. I just won't be attached to the outcomes in the slightest.




There is no destroying anything, you are just looking through the illusion, looking at the self and seeing it as the thought that it is, and all that it could ever be, it doesn't really exist and it never did, you are simply thinking it does and that it somehow represent you or who you are. Who you are is not the self.

Look up the Cartesian Theater on wiki, and just look at the absurdity of it.


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]
    #18863989 - 09/19/13 05:15 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)



Here is yourself that is creating an infinite regression. In all it's unfounded glory.

All you have to do is look to see beyond it, just once.

See why you can't experience now through the self?


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: Memories]
    #18864000 - 09/19/13 05:19 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Memories said:
Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Memories said:
I thought fireworks_god and Rahz both made good cases for their position.

Ownership is a conceptual placeholder for a type of behavior. The behavior is shared by many species, but the conceptual placeholder is not.

For the sake of our own conceptualization, we can say the animal owns a certain territory. Saying this doesn't mean we are trying to ascribe conceptualization of the behavior to the bear.

Also, we are part of nature, so everything is natural IMO.




Why do you think it is shared by many species? What exactly leads you to believe that?

Do you believe in Jesus as god for instance? Should I have to provide evidence against that proposition if I disagree because of a lack of evidence?




When I own something, it means an item is mine to use unless someone takes it from me. When a male moose dominates a harem of female moose, the females are its to use until something takes them from it. This behavior is evidence of the moose in engaging in a behavior that we as English speaking people have agreed to call owning.

Owning is just a word that we use as a placeholder for conceptualizing what I described. The moose doesn't conceptualize, but behaves in the same manner.




Yeah, no shit, what does this "mine" consist of?

When humans own something it is yours by right or claim, when a moose mates with a harem or w/e it is because he is the biggest and baddest moose.

If another moose even bigger and badder comes along and takes over, no one is like hey, stop, wait a minute, that was his harem. The female moose don't care, the other moose dont care, non of the other animals care, and we sure as fuck don't care. But if it was your you would care, so what is the difference?


Edited by teknix (09/19/13 05:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMemories
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18864013 - 09/19/13 05:21 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Memories said:
Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Memories said:
I thought fireworks_god and Rahz both made good cases for their position.

Ownership is a conceptual placeholder for a type of behavior. The behavior is shared by many species, but the conceptual placeholder is not.

For the sake of our own conceptualization, we can say the animal owns a certain territory. Saying this doesn't mean we are trying to ascribe conceptualization of the behavior to the bear.

Also, we are part of nature, so everything is natural IMO.




Why do you think it is shared by many species? What exactly leads you to believe that?

Do you believe in Jesus as god for instance? Should I have to provide evidence against that proposition if I disagree because of a lack of evidence?




When I own something, it means an item is mine to use unless someone takes it from me. When a male moose dominates a harem of female moose, the females are its to use until something takes them from it. This behavior is evidence of the moose in engaging in a behavior that we as English speaking people have agreed to call owning.

Owning is just a word that we use as a placeholder for conceptualizing what I described. The moose doesn't conceptualize, but behaves in the same manner.




Yeah, no shit, what does this "mine" consist of?

When humans own something it is yours by right or claim, when a moose mates with a harem or w/e it is because he is the biggest and baddest moose.




It means only I can use it. A male moose doesn't share his harem. Only it can use it unless another male moose comes and takes the harem from it.


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: Memories]
    #18864036 - 09/19/13 05:27 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Computer crashed, I had to retype what I wrote before so re-read it.

Humans own by claiming ownership as a right, and other humans tend to agree and enforce anothers owners, that isn't true in nature. I already said all of this before anyway, go back and read.

It boils down to evolution by natural selection and instinct built into their DNA, not ownership.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineandrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18864043 - 09/19/13 05:29 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)



--------------------
Jesus loves you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | Next > | Last >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds


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. 2 members, 3 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 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.