Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
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: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | Next > | Last >
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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]
    #18876006 - 09/22/13 01:50 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

"Animals protect their territory for many more reasons without the need of ownership, such as food, shelter, mates, water, protecting young, etc. and are never going around thinking that they own it, they are just a part or it."

"He don't care if anyone else comes around, unless it is edible and/or he is hungry or feels threatened. "

"It's in it's instinct to fight rivals and find mates, the location is besides the point. "

I don't really have the energy to go through all of what you said so I'm just going to drop it but thought I would throw this in from the Tibetan book of the dead.


"All phenomena are naturally uncreated.
They neither abide nor cease, neither come nor go.
They are without objective referent, signless, ineffable, and
free from throught.
The time has come for this truth to be realized!"

:sun:


I'm curious, if a person were to destroy self and concepts to the point of extinction; but still engage in ownership(possessing and reiterating that possession), but doesn't ever name or label anything; would that still be ownership? I guess it will always take a subject(self) to conceptualize what is happening. Otherwise its nothing but "innumerable impersonal processes."


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why argue something imperceptible.



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



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


I'm not arguing for it, I've been saying that anything is possible, these things are beyond our perceptions. For all I know, or you know, atoms, creatures every single thing could be communicating and they could be communicating ownership. They could also have a self. Our perceptions are so very small that no one could really say for sure(unless omniscient); if your argument is that they are not thinking they are owning then to me that is like you arguing something imperceptible.

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."

Just giving you my only real belief since you were saying that you have been playing skeptic to my beliefs... what beliefs?



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."

The rest is just thoughts, there is no concrete self, just showing you some minor bias within me, nothing solid.


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??????????????"

It may not be a universal experience, only an experience from known material phenomenon. Beyond that I don't know.


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."

all my statements about possibilities aren't stating what is actually happening, just possibilities.


Edited by Sse (09/22/13 04:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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
    #18876107 - 09/22/13 02:16 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Damn self and it's creation of divisions

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.

Self labeling self unnatural, creating another division/illusion.


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18879532 - 09/23/13 08:01 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

fireworks_god said:

The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning. :sorry:





You just admitted it was a concept, rofl, and therefore not natural.

Good Game.





That's quite the sense of humor you have there. :lol: I've been saying since the beginning of the discussion that a concept of ownership exists. The matter being debated is if the concept is derived from a preexistent phenomenon. I suggested that ownership is a natural phenomenon which was subsequently symbolized by humans as the concept of ownership, which you disagreed with.

Now, once again, the definition of the concept does not require that a majority agrees with the notion that someone is actually owning, as you suggested. As you made the claim, you can substantiate it. Well, you can try to. :smirk: While you're at it, did you agree with my assessment of what I considered to be your inaccurate usage of the phrase "slippery slope"?

Quote:

teknix said:
FWG is trying to correlate how an animal acts to mean they are thinking they are owning...




No, I'm not trying to draw such a correlation; in fact, I've explicitly stated, time and time again, not only that I am not suggesting this, but also that the question of whether or not they are thinking they are owning is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are exhibiting ownership in their behavior.

So, why such a failure of reading comprehension on your part, eh? If we've dived this many pages deep into this debate and you still have not grokked that I have presented, again and again, the idea that ownership is a phenomenon that exists independent of conceptualization, that conceptualization is not required for it to manifest itself, and that the question of whether or not animals think they are owning is completely irrelevant to the matter, it'd seem more than evident that there are serious flaws in your reading comprehension. You might want to look into them because flaws in reading comprehension can be severely limiting in one's quest to make sense of reality. :wink:

Quote:


... when the phenomena is called evolution by natural selection.

I think most of us can agree that animals are the way they are because of evolution, not because of concepts. (excluding humans)





It's bleedingly apparent from everything that I've posted on the matter that I think the behavior that animals manifest which is identical to ownership in humans is instinctual, that concepts are not required for the behavior to be exhibited by animals. I just said that very same thing in my last post to you. If we are going to get anywhere with the ideological exchange here, you are really going to need to step up your game, at least to the bare minimum level of paying attention to what is said and understanding it for what it means. :wink:

Quote:


Then look at it this way, if nature does own then everything you think you own, was stolen from nature. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, everything was stolen from nature then right?

Also according to that definition, if you steal something then it is rightfully yours. Is that really how ownership works among humans? The biggest baddest guy can take what he wants unless you can stop him and then it is rightfully his?




Fundamentally, yes, that is exactly what it means. Humans, being clever and ingenious monkeys, changed who "the biggest baddest guy" is and how he makes his decisions. Maybe that's what confuses so much your sense of what ownership is.


--------------------
: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
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

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]
    #18880335 - 09/23/13 12:14 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Phew guys :lol:
Ownership is just not an absolute (as often wrongly conceptualized by human), but only relative and contextual :sunny:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18885039 - 09/24/13 01:43 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
"All phenomena are naturally uncreated.
They neither abide nor cease, neither come nor go.
They are without objective referent, signless, ineffable, and
free from throught.
The time has come for this truth to be realized!"

:sun:






Cool, so the tibetan book of the dead would agree that ownership is not a natural phenomena, but more of a created idea or concept. :cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18885048 - 09/24/13 01:45 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
Damn self and it's creation of divisions

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.

Self labeling self unnatural, creating another division/illusion.




Not really, self doesn't literally exist, it is created.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18885056 - 09/24/13 01:47 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


concept of ownership exists.





therefore:

Quote:


nat·u·ral
ˈnaCHərəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

    1.
    existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.






It is not natural, case closed ^.^

Nature has never invented any concept that I have seen, it generally produces phenomena and leaves humans to do the conceptualizing.


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]
    #18885501 - 09/24/13 03:46 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Nature has never invented any concept that I have seen, it generally produces phenomena and leaves humans to do the conceptualizing.




Couldn't agree more. So, now maybe you could redirect your attention to the fact that what we've actually been debating the entire time is the question of whether or not the conceptualization of ownership is derived from a natural phenomenon? :lol:


--------------------
: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
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18885892 - 09/24/13 05:18 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

I'm happy with ownership being unnatural, considering there is not evidence to the contrary.

There isn't really a you to own, you as a thought isn't really you, you as an organism can only use things. Once you say own, you begin describing a human concept dependent on an idea of self, or something independent from nature to own it or to have it. Even you, the thought, is a concept and not natural, let alone the idea of you owning something. SO without the thought of you, there isn't owning, and there is no evidence that an animal has such thoughts without being able to communicate them.


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]
    #18887040 - 09/24/13 10:25 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

There isn't really a you to own, you as a thought isn't really you, you as an organism can only use things. Once you say own, you begin describing a human concept dependent on an idea of self, or something independent from nature to own it or to have it. Even you, the thought, is a concept and not natural, let alone the idea of you owning something. SO without the thought of you, there isn't owning, and there is no evidence that an animal has such thoughts without being able to communicate them.




We agree on some things. I don't think anyone really owns anything in the sense that a thought is only a thought. I also agree from an existential view there is no self and thus no one to do the owning.

As far as what we don't agree on, there is plenty of evidence humans do things as a product of thought and there is evidence animals do many of the same things. It doesn't seem logical to assume animals don't have thoughts or concepts. The crow video I posted clearly shows a set of activities that would require a human to conceptualize in order to complete. Because of the evidence I don't hold a null POV. To my mind a null POV would simply be "I don't have any idea and thus cannot draw any conclusions". And yet we are both confident we know to some degree what might be or not be happening inside an animals head.

The other contention is the use of natural. It's true that if the definition of natural is "not made or caused by humankind" as you have quoted this would mean human concepts are unnatural. It would also mean that human running, walking, kisses and hugs are unnatural. Human smiling is unnatural, etc. Trying to pick and choose what human activity is unnatural doesn't remain true to the definition unless we expand the definition. So even if I were to accept your quoted definition of natural I would have to say "So what?" to something being unnatural. The standard definition can't explain why some behaviors are worthy of expressing and why some aren't. It is only when we examine the behavior itself and touch upon it's qualities that we might have reason to accept it for what it is and let it go if it feels right. I think ownership as a concept is something that has evolved in the expression of the mind and in the context of being human it's totally natural in so much as it's a human tendency. Being overly possessive and unable to let go is an additional quality worth consideration, though still natural in so much as it's one of many possible reactions to stress of some kind. Humans are just another flavor of the wild.

You've said much the same in earlier posts and I agree with you, and that's why I argued much the same could be said without ever bringing up the possibility that something isn't natural. I think it's important because there can be an implied metric which in practice translates familialy to "Because I said so", religiously to "Because God said so", socially to "Because an authority said so".

Perhaps I have an inability to let go of these implied metrics or an inability to understand yours, but they seem helpful and I have tried to figure where you have implied meaning into natural/unnatural beyond it's basic objective gist. I would like for there to be more togetherness in the philosophy but I cannot in good conscience agree with something I don't understand. I've been as tenacious as you in this thread because it's an interesting topic, so I hope we can at least keep that in the context.


--------------------
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." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

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]
    #18888998 - 09/25/13 12:07 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

I have no problem to see 'ownership' in nature :shrug:
If lions would have nuclear bombs, they would use it too :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrumblebum
The Guy Who's Really Bad At Sex


Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Cyclohexylamine]
    #18891107 - 09/25/13 08:44 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

tymoteusz3 said:
Quote:

crumblebum said:
Quote:

Icelander said:
Quote:

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




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




Whatever jerkwad.

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





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




Yeah, I'm a dickhead some of the time. I was trying to objectively examine OP, which made sense to me, but is an asshole thing to do in public either way. Sorry. Won't (absolutely will) happen again.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
    #18891669 - 09/25/13 10:29 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

There isn't really a you to own, you as a thought isn't really you, you as an organism can only use things. Once you say own, you begin describing a human concept dependent on an idea of self, or something independent from nature to own it or to have it. Even you, the thought, is a concept and not natural, let alone the idea of you owning something. SO without the thought of you, there isn't owning, and there is no evidence that an animal has such thoughts without being able to communicate them.




We agree on some things. I don't think anyone really owns anything in the sense that a thought is only a thought. I also agree from an existential view there is no self and thus no one to do the owning.

As far as what we don't agree on, there is plenty of evidence humans do things as a product of thought and there is evidence animals do many of the same things. It doesn't seem logical to assume animals don't have thoughts or concepts. The crow video I posted clearly shows a set of activities that would require a human to conceptualize in order to complete. Because of the evidence I don't hold a null POV. To my mind a null POV would simply be "I don't have any idea and thus cannot draw any conclusions". And yet we are both confident we know to some degree what might be or not be happening inside an animals head.

The other contention is the use of natural. It's true that if the definition of natural is "not made or caused by humankind" as you have quoted this would mean human concepts are unnatural. It would also mean that human running, walking, kisses and hugs are unnatural. Human smiling is unnatural, etc. Trying to pick and choose what human activity is unnatural doesn't remain true to the definition unless we expand the definition. So even if I were to accept your quoted definition of natural I would have to say "So what?" to something being unnatural. The standard definition can't explain why some behaviors are worthy of expressing and why some aren't. It is only when we examine the behavior itself and touch upon it's qualities that we might have reason to accept it for what it is and let it go if it feels right. I think ownership as a concept is something that has evolved in the expression of the mind and in the context of being human it's totally natural in so much as it's a human tendency. Being overly possessive and unable to let go is an additional quality worth consideration, though still natural in so much as it's one of many possible reactions to stress of some kind. Humans are just another flavor of the wild.

You've said much the same in earlier posts and I agree with you, and that's why I argued much the same could be said without ever bringing up the possibility that something isn't natural. I think it's important because there can be an implied metric which in practice translates familialy to "Because I said so", religiously to "Because God said so", socially to "Because an authority said so".

Perhaps I have an inability to let go of these implied metrics or an inability to understand yours, but they seem helpful and I have tried to figure where you have implied meaning into natural/unnatural beyond it's basic objective gist. I would like for there to be more togetherness in the philosophy but I cannot in good conscience agree with something I don't understand. I've been as tenacious as you in this thread because it's an interesting topic, so I hope we can at least keep that in the context.




Look, if ownership is dependent upon an Idea of self, then we must also consider that if animals are displaying ownership then it is implying self. Are animals just as sentient as us? And if so how can you justify stealing from them, as they would have the same rights to ownership that we claim...?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: crumblebum]
    #18891690 - 09/25/13 10:33 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

crumblebum said:
Yeah, I'm a dickhead some of the time. I was trying to objectively examine OP, which made sense to me, but is an asshole thing to do in public either way. Sorry. Won't (absolutely will) happen again.




:nothingtoadd:

:trollcop:


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]
    #18892328 - 09/26/13 01:34 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Look, if ownership is dependent upon an Idea of self, then we must also consider that if animals are displaying ownership then it is implying self. Are animals just as sentient as us? And if so how can you justify stealing from them, as they would have the same rights to ownership that we claim...?




It's hard to form any solid level of confidence regarding animals ability to form an idea of self at least on the same conceptual levels that humans can develop. I grant you that but observing other mammals I often get the sense there's a transient sense of self that easily comes and goes. This is not so different from humans as we can loose ourselves as well but I'd guess other animals have less need for a sense of self in the way a human might consider things. I do think humans in their complexity have the ability to get side tracked analyzing or avoiding their fears and this can become detrimental as our self concepts diverge and become convoluted. My idea is that an animal self is formed more from a sense of the raw individuality of form rather than from complex ideas and associations with the exterior world, much like a person in the wild might hold a sense of self apart from 'everything else' without fleshing it out much. Without the complex forms to hold a self together it dissolves in the moment more easily. In either case a sense of self would be born from the struggle to survive, the stressfulness, the fear response. Without the adversity I don't think any animal would ever develop a sense of self as there would be no need. That's not so say a bug would have a self but it is still acting as though there is one through it's individuality. It seems this thing we call a self does require some brain power but it's just a reflection of what's already going on in the material world. Maybe it's all illusion in some way but humans and other animals still have to deal with having these individual bodies and individual needs.

I think most people have at least some vague notion that at least some of the animals we eat might be sentient. It seems like being stuck between a rock and a hard place in that we've probably evolved eating whatever prey we could catch and those animals taste pretty delicious but our brains have evolved to the point we perceive a shared evolution, shared needs, shared senses etc. and we might begin to get the idea we're eating ourselves. A lion isn't going to be too worried about whether it's dinner feels bad, perhaps because it is simple, perhaps because it can't afford to. Many people do go vegetarian and while there are some good health ideas involved science doesn't really support vegetarianism increasing longevity. Even if there was some marginal improvement I think the primary logic behind most vegetarianism is to avoid eating sentient creatures. As for the rest they either don't care or they put it out of their mind and only occasionally consider the cognitive dissonance that comes from their dietary habits.

There are no rights which cannot be taken away, and disputes in ownership may be settled with violence. Justifying ones actions is optional but humans often justify stealing from each other. Why wouldn't we fuck over the other animals with a semi-clear conscience? :crazy:


--------------------
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." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrumblebum
The Guy Who's Really Bad At Sex


Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18892369 - 09/26/13 01:47 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

crumblebum said:
Yeah, I'm a dickhead some of the time. I was trying to objectively examine OP, which made sense to me, but is an asshole thing to do in public either way. Sorry. Won't (absolutely will) happen again.




:nothingtoadd:

:trollcop:




Keep in mind, me being a dick and getting a yellow flag for it doesn't mean you're right. Just means I'm a dick. To abuse Winston Churchill, when I've had some sleep I won't be a dick anymore, but you'll still be wrong.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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]
    #18895298 - 09/26/13 06:28 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
There isn't really a you to own, you as a thought isn't really you, you as an organism can only use things. Once you say own, you begin describing a human concept dependent on an idea of self, or something independent from nature to own it or to have it. Even you, the thought, is a concept and not natural, let alone the idea of you owning something. SO without the thought of you, there isn't owning, and there is no evidence that an animal has such thoughts without being able to communicate them.




There isn't really anything natural or unnatural; concepts also dependent on an idea of self.

"All phenomena are naturally uncreated.
They neither abide nor cease, neither come nor go.
They are without objective referent, signless, ineffable, and
free from throught.
The time has come for this truth to be realized!"


"Cool, so the tibetan book of the dead would agree that ownership is not a natural phenomena, but more of a created idea or concept. :cool: "

I think the Tibetan book of the dead refers to it as the nature of fluctuating cyclic existence. I haven't seen anything labeled unnatural yet.


--------------------
"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
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18895525 - 09/26/13 07:17 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

no-birth, no-death, no permanence and no impermanence, no dissolution, no coming, and no going, no one and no many, no self and no nonself, no being and no nonbeing

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching
by Thich Nhat Hanh




--------------------
"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 (09/26/13 07:18 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]
    #18897564 - 09/27/13 06:58 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I'm happy with ownership being unnatural, considering there is not evidence to the contrary.




Yes there is. Animal and human behavior.

Quote:


There isn't really a you to own, you as a thought isn't really you, you as an organism can only use things.




Not true. Organisms can also exhibit behavior that surpasses use, for example when another organism attempts to use the same thing. This is territoriality, also known as ownership.

Quote:


Once you say own, you begin describing a human concept dependent on an idea of self, or something independent from nature to own it or to have it.




No you don't. You begin to describe a natural phenomenon that is dependent upon an organism that exhibits behavior. No concept of self required.

Quote:


Even you, the thought, is a concept and not natural, let alone the idea of you owning something.




Nope. An individual human exists as more than a concept, complete with an inherent identity that doesn't require conceptualization in order to exist and be responsible for behavior.

Quote:


SO without the thought of you, there isn't owning, and there is no evidence that an animal has such thoughts without being able to communicate them.




Ownership doesn't require "a thought of you" in order for it to manifest. In case you weren't aware, a significant portion of both human and animal behavior manifests itself from a level that predates and is independent from conceptualization and self-consciousness.


--------------------
: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
Saṃsāra

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: fireworks_god]
    #18898300 - 09/27/13 11:38 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Aren't all concepts in a way dependent on self? Without our self reference(perceptions) what would they be?

From tek's logic, all human created concepts are not natural. It seems like it would mainly apply to the labeling of anything. Something can be viewed as possessing and reiterating possession but to call it possession is unnatural, to call it ownership is unnatural; concepts created by man(doesn't mean it isn't truly happening or doesn't exist but naming is considered unnatural by some, though labeling unnatural and natural would also fall under the category of human concept). All these things require our thought and consideration, which seems to equal self dependence. Everything we perceive and label all seem to require our self reference to conceptualize. They require our perceptions, senses, consciousness. Isn't anything we perceive part of our aggregate of self? Self relative, in relation to our perceptions.

"They are without objective referent, signless, ineffable, and
free from throught."


--------------------
"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 (09/27/13 11:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   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 10,654 162 09/05/03 07:28 AM
by tak
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,866 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Independent Truth- a road to greater empowerment and freedom
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,974 25 09/04/04 06:59 AM
by Simisu

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
25,823 topic views. 1 members, 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.