Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
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 Grow Bags   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5345046 - 02/27/06 12:09 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
I would love to see which method would bear the most respect for the land.
I only can imagine, that singular ownership is not good for the land, because there is only one single interest for and from the land, which will easily lead to depletion.




This single interest relies on society in order to survive and in order for this single interest's ownership to have any value.

Quote:


Multiple interests seem a better way to force respect for our planet.
But the western cultural system will revert everything into monetary interests leading to the words of 'who may buy, or who may sell'. Leading to egocentric and selfish doom of humanity, as ownership is simply a construct of our ego.




Multiple interests, eh? More greedy people? Respect is not a concept that cannot be forced, only realized.

Ownership is simply a construct of our ego? No more than identity itself is - ownership is an extention of identity.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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, 16 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5345130 - 02/27/06 12:35 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
I would love to see which method would bear the most respect for the land.
I only can imagine, that singular ownership is not good for the land, because there is only one single interest for and from the land, which will easily lead to depletion.




This single interest relies on society in order to survive and in order for this single interest's ownership to have any value.




Not anymore. A businesmann somewhere does not care about inhuman factors in the property he owns far away, as money is delocalized and he strives only for maximum profit. That includes inhuman factors, as it ever was. Also, the owners, for example, of the properties of the amazonas care shit if the jungle, the plants and the animals will survive, what would be of immense value to society itself. Business cares shit about society. In fact they more and more make the rules for society.
Quote:

Quote:


Multiple interests seem a better way to force respect for our planet.
But the western cultural system will revert everything into monetary interests leading to the words of 'who may buy, or who may sell'. Leading to egocentric and selfish doom of humanity, as ownership is simply a construct of our ego.




Multiple interests, eh? More greedy people? Respect is not a concept that cannot be forced, only realized.

Ownership is simply a construct of our ego? No more than identity itself is - ownership is an extention of identity.


You see. The multiple greed herein would prevent the single use depletion, forcing respect.


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

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5345151 - 02/27/06 12:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
Not anymore. A businesmann somewhere does not care about inhuman factors in the property he owns far away, as money is delocalized and he strives only for maximum profit. That includes inhuman factors, as it ever was. Also, the owners, for example, of the properties of the amazonas care shit if the jungle, the plants and the animals will survive, what would be of immense value to society itself. Business cares shit about society. In fact they more and more make the rules for society.




Business operates by services to individuals. The profit that they command from these areas you describe is exchanged through these services and other means. Those who support improvement in these areas you describe thus have a means by which to provoke such improvement, if they choose to do so.

It all reduces down to an individual's choices. The interaction of these individuals as a result of their choices is society. Improper usage of the concept of ownership does not reveal flaws within the concept.

Quote:


The multiple greed herein would prevent the single use depletion.




As in society. Thank you for playing today's game! :lol:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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, 16 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5345190 - 02/27/06 12:51 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Improper usage of the concept of ownership does not reveal flaws within the concept.



Okay, if you come from that, I will give you right. Same with money or arms, but...
is the usage of this property for ones owns single benefit not against the rules, if it would be property to all ?
Or, as paradigm differentiated, is there no difference between man-made property and not-man-influenced natural resource ?
I would say to start there first, for not to mix concepts.


--------------------
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
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5353326 - 03/01/06 12:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I seem to have trouble explaining this to you guys, so here's Mark Twain's explanation:

Quote:

Archimedes
By Mark Twain

"Give me whereon to stand", said Archimedes, "and I will move the earth." The boast was a pretty safe one, for he knew quite well that the standing place was wanting, and always would be wanting. But suppose he had moved the earth, what then? What benefit would it have been to anybody? The job would never have paid working expenses, let alone dividends, and so what was the use of talking about it? From what astronomers tell us, I should reckon that the earth moved quite fast enough already, and if there happened to be a few cranks who were dissatisfied with its rate of progress, as far as I am concerned, they might push it along for themselves; I would not move a finger or subscribe a penny piece to assist in anything of the kind.

Why such a fellow as Archimedes should be looked upon as a genius I never could understand; I never heard that he made a pile, or did anything else worth talking about. As for that last contract he took in hand, it was the worst bungle I ever knew; he undertook to keep the Romans out of Syracuse; he tried first one dodge and then another, but they got in after all, and when it came to fair fighting he was out of it altogether, a common soldier in a very business-like sort of way settling all his pretensions.

It is evident that he was an over-rated man. He was in the habit of making a lot of fuss about his screws and levers, but his knowledge of mechanics was in reality of a very limited character. I have never set up for a genius myself, but I know of a mechanical force more powerful than anything the vaunting engineer of Syracuse ever dreamed of. It is the force of land monopoly; it is a screw and lever all in one; it will screw the last penny out of a man's pocket, and bend everything on earth to its own despotic will. Give me the private ownership of all the land, and will I move the earth? No; but I will do more. I will undertake to make slaves of all the human beings on the face of it. Not chattel slaves exactly, but slaves nevertheless. What an idiot I would be to make chattel slaves of them. I would have to find them salts and senna when they were sick, and whip them to work when they were lazy.

No, it is not good enough. Under the system I propose the fools would imagine they were all free. I would get a maximum of results, and have no responsibility whatever. They would cultivate the soil; they would dive into the bowels of the earth for its hidden treasures; they would build cities and construct railways and telegraphs; their ships would navigate the ocean; they would work and work, and invent and contrive; their warehouses would be full, their markets glutted, and

the beauty of the whole concern would be
that everything they made would belong to me.


It would be this way, you see: As I owned all the land, they would of course, have to pay me rent. They could not reasonably expect me to allow them the use of the land for nothing. I am not a hard man, and in fixing the rent I would be very liberal with them. I would allow them, in fact, to fix it themselves. What could be fairer? Here is a piece of land, let us say, it might be a farm, it might be a building site, or it might be something else - if there was only one man who wanted it, of course he would not offer me much, but if the land be really worth anything such a circumstance is not likely to happen. On the contrary, there would be a number who would want it, and they would go on bidding and bidding one against the other, in order to get it. I should accept the highest offer - what could be fairer? Every increase of population, extension of trade, every advance in the arts and sciences would, as we all know, increase the value of land, and the competition that would naturally arise would continue to force rents upward, so much so, that in many cases the tenants would have little or nothing left for themselves.

In this case a number of those who were hard pushed would seek to borrow, and as for those who were not so hard pushed, they would, as a matter of course, get the idea into their heads that if they only had more capital they could extend their operations, and thereby make their business more profitable. Here I am again. The very man they stand in need of; a regular benefactor of my species, and always ready to oblige them. With such an enormous rent-roll I could furnish them with funds up to the full extent of the available security; they would not expect me to do more, and in the matter of interest I would be equally generous.

I would allow them to fix the rate of it themselves in precisely the same manner as they had fixed the rent. I should then have them by the wool, and if they failed in their payments it would be the easiest thing in the world to sell them out. They might bewail their lot, but business is business. They should have worked harder and been more provident. Whatever inconvenience they might suffer, it would be their concern, and not mine. What a glorious time I would have of it! Rent and interest, interest and rent, and no limit to either, excepting the ability of the workers to pay. Rents would go up and up, and they would continue to pledge and mortgage, and as they went bung, bung, one after another, it would be the finest sport ever seen. thus, from the simple leverage of land monopoly, not only the great globe itself, but everything on the face of it would eventually belong to me. I would be king and lord of all, and the rest of mankind would be my most willing slaves.

It hardly needs to be said that it would not be consistent with my dignity to associate with the common rank and file of humanity; it would not be politic to say so, but, as a matter of fact, I not only hate work but I hate those who do work, and I would not have their stinking carcasses near me at any price. High above the contemptible herd I would sit enthroned amid a circle of devoted worshippers. I would choose for myself companions after my own heart. I would deck them with ribbons and gewgaws to tickle their vanity; they would esteem it an honour to kiss my glove, and would pay homage to the very chair that I sat upon; brave men would die for me, parsons would pray for me, and bright-eyed beauty would pander to my pleasures. For the proper management of public affairs I would have a parliament, and for the preservation of law and order there would be soldiers and policemen, all sworn to serve me faithfully; their pay would not be much, but their high sense of duty would be a sufficient guarantee that they would fulfil the terms of the contract.

Outside the charmed circle of my society would be others eagerly pressing forward in the hope of sharing my favours; outside of these would be others again who would be forever seeking to wriggle themselves into the ranks of those in front of them, and so on, outward and downward, until we reach the deep ranks of the workers forever toiling and forever struggling merely to live, and with the hell of poverty forever threatening to engulf them. The hell of poverty, that outer realm of darkness where there is weeping and wading and gnashing of teeth - the social Gehenna, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched - here is a whip more effective by far than the keenest lash of the chattel slave owner, urging them on by day, haunting their dreams by night, draining without stint the life blood from their veins, and pursuing them with relentless constancy to their graves. In the buoyancy of youth many would start full of hope and with high expectations; but, as they journeyed along, disappointment would follow disappointment, hope would gradually give place to despair, the promised cup of joy would be turned to bitterness, and the holiest affection would become a poisoned arrow quivering in the heart!

What a beautiful arrangement - ambition urging in front, want and the fear of want bringing up the rear! In the conflicting interests that would be involved, in the throat-cutting competition that would prevail, in the bitterness that would be engendered between man and man, husband and wife, father and son, I should, of course, have no part. There would be lying and cheating, harsh treatment by masters, dishonesty of servants, strikes and lockouts, assaults and intimidation, family feuds and interminable broils; but they would not concern Me. In the serene atmosphere of my earthly paradise I would be safe from all evil. I would feast on the daintiest of dishes, and sip wines of the choicest vintage; my gardens would have the most magnificent terraces and the finest walks. I would roam mid the umbrageous foliage of the trees, the blooming flowers, the warbling of birds, the jetting of fountains, and the splashing of pellucid waters. My palace would have its walls of alabaster and domes of crystal, there would be furniture of the most exquisite workmanship, carpets and hangings of the richest fabrics and finest textures, carvings and paintings that were miracles of art, vessels of gold and silver, gems of the purest ray glittering in their settings, the voluptuous strains of the sweetest music, the perfume of roses, the softest of couches, a horde of titled lackeys to come and go at my bidding, and a perfect galaxy of beauty to stimulate desire, and administer to my enjoyment. Thus would I pass the happy hours away, while throughout the world it would be a hallmark of respectability to extol my virtues, and anthems would be everywhere sung in praise.

Archimedes never dreamt of anything like that. Yet, with the earth for my fulcrum and its private ownership for my lever, it is all possible. If it should be said that the people would eventually detect the fraud, and with swift vengeance hurl me and all my courtly parasites to perdition, I answer, "Nothing of the kind, the people are as good as gold, and would stand it like bricks, and I appeal to the facts of today to bear me witness."




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: Silversoul]
    #5353608 - 03/01/06 01:29 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

When did people get the idea that this planet we all live on is something that can be conquered and partitioned among the elite?

A very long time ago. I would say that the fallacy originated in most of Europe and some of Asia, and spread about as fast as the conquerors spread.

Why is it that someone can hold a piece of land for randsom when they had no part in creating it? People didn't always think this way. People used to have a concept of stewardship over the Earth, rather than ownership. Earth, our celestial mother, should not be conquered and sold to the highest bidder. It is our common inheritance, and we should treat it as such.

I agree, and I think you need to take a step back, and examine, as I mentioned in my other post, the fallacy that one can own oneself. It does not strike me as logical that one is able to 'own' oneself, as ownership involves a subject who does the owning and an object that is owned. However, a person is simultaneously the subject and the object. There is no little person named 'ego' who sits up in your head and controls you and owns you. The ego is a part of you, just as an apple is a part of an apple tree; but the apple tree does not 'own' the apple, it is merely its nature to produce them.

Unlike the tree however, man's nature involves free will. We can choose whether to delude ourselves into thinking that we somehow 'own' ourselves, and consequently can 'own' something else, or we can choose to have but not possess.

Quote:

When he tries to extend his power over objects, those objects gain control of him. He who is controlled by objects loses his inner self.
-Chuang Tzu




Man's final end is unitive knowledge of Godhead/Tao. The Way to achieving this is by not coveting, not desiring, and not being attached to what you have.

Our society is in such a way that it will probably be hundreds or thousands of generations before this is recognized.

You can argue that society wouldn't be able to function without the concept of possessions and attachment to them, which would lead to social segregation; but consider if you will, such a society without possessions. People would still make pots, chop wood, carry water, harvest, and farm. People would still eat, drink, and sleep. There wouldn't really be much crime, because without possessions there would be no impetus to steal, and even if there were a few antisocial members who found it enjoyable to steal, the 'victims' would be provided for still. There wouldn't be greed or any need to have the biggest or best, so there would be much more distribution of resources. However, in order for this to work, there would have to be a just leader, perhaps a Platonic philosopher king or something to that extent, otherwise the state would probably become corrupted from power, as have been all attempts at creating Communism. There would also need to be different compensation levels for varying amounts of work performed. This would be a prime motivator for work. In fact, a caste system would probably work out very well, SO LONG AS the highest goal aspired to was a spiritual one, not one based on money and power as it is organized today. These latter aspects may only be needed during a transitional period, as if such a state were truly implemented, and man's highest goal was recognized as a spiritual one, then there would be no need to possess. Man would naturally share and make sure everyone was provided for.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


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

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: dblaney]
    #5356707 - 03/02/06 08:54 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

dblaney said:
When did people get the idea that this planet we all live on is something that can be conquered and partitioned among the elite?

A very long time ago. I would say that the fallacy originated in most of Europe and some of Asia, and spread about as fast as the conquerors spread.




"This fallacy"? It is a false notion that humans can conquer land from others and partition a sense of ownership of that land amongst themselves?

Reality demonstrates that the notion is accurate, as it is exactly what has happened.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5356833 - 03/02/06 09:40 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I call it a fallacy because although man thinks he has done it, ownership is a fairly nonsensical concept. I could claim that I own every star in the Alpha Centauri system, and even start fights with anyone who says otherwise, but none of that somehow would give me ownership of it.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


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

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: dblaney]
    #5356888 - 03/02/06 10:02 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

dblaney said:
I call it a fallacy because although man thinks he has done it, ownership is a fairly nonsensical concept.




It seems to be a rather practical concept, regardless of the fact that it exists as an abstraction that we ourselves have proclaimed.

Quote:


I could claim that I own every star in the Alpha Centauri system, and even start fights with anyone who says otherwise, but none of that somehow would give me ownership of it.




Why, of course.

Yet the fact remains that we have established a system that entitles individuals and interests to hold ownership of land and upholds that ownership with laws. That is what gives one ownership of land. Is it an abstract sense only respected by ourselves as a result of our system that governs it? Certainly. Is there some objective, ultimate perspective from which it is bound that the land in question is undoubtedly yours? Of course not.

The owning of land is nonsense insomuch as meaning itself is.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5357179 - 03/02/06 11:55 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
The owning of land is nonsense insomuch as meaning itself is.



Ok, I'll concede that it is just as much an abstraction by man as any other meaning, but after reading the Mark Twain essay I posted, do you see the injustice of it?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5357317 - 03/02/06 12:40 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Yet the fact remains that we have established a system that entitles individuals and interests to hold ownership of land and upholds that ownership with laws.

And for the most part I would say that the system is unethical. Strictly theoretically, it could work. However, that doesn't take into account the propensity for corruption and vice that seems to be innate in any philosophical system that doesn't have spirituality as its highest goal. Especially our society, in which the dominant philosophy is written by marketers whose goal is to create feelings of greed, emptiness, and suffering which can only be remedied by purchasing whatever product they are selling. In such a society as we have set up, greed for land is a foundational desire upon which practically all others depend. You can't have a nice house, nice car, nice spouse, nice furniture, nice art, nice this and that until you first have land to put it all on.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsyka
Praetorian
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: dblaney]
    #5357648 - 03/02/06 02:04 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

How do you force people not to be greedy and corrupt?


--------------------
As the life of a candle,
my wick will burn out.
But, the fire of my mind
shall beam into infinite.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinethelorax121
Stranger

Registered: 10/12/05
Posts: 184
Last seen: 1 month, 27 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: psyka]
    #5358293 - 03/02/06 04:47 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

There are positive and negatives to all inventions of man. Take time for instance. While it DOES provide a way for our society to function in a somewhat cohesive manner, it also prevents many people from living in the eternal present. However, I do agree that this ownership of the land needs to be done in a better way. Are we really that much better with our condos and beach houses that we are willing to saacrifice the beauty of mother/father Earth?


--------------------
Greens for all, and to all a good greens!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: psyka]
    #5358788 - 03/02/06 06:35 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

How do you force people to be moral? Well you can take the approach of using force, though time has proven that method to have unspeakable fruits of death and destruction and competition, and it's arguably created more immorality than morality. The alternative would be the approach of letting man unfold by himself. However, so long as the spiritual element of life is denied, man will roam through the appetitive level of life, creating suffering and disharmony. This is why spirituality is essentially essential.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5360686 - 03/03/06 05:23 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Certainly. Is there some objective, ultimate perspective from which it is bound that the land in question is undoubtedly yours? Of course not.
Of course there is ! If someone is starving in a land, because someone else uses it for their own profit (only one example).

The owning of land is nonsense insomuch as meaning itself is.
Meaning even exists without any conscious or intelligent observer.


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

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5360926 - 03/03/06 08:37 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
Of course there is ! If someone is starving in a land, because someone else uses it for their own profit (only one example).




I'm trying to work through the ambiguity in this statement. Are you asserting that, if someone is in Wal*Mart and they are absolutely starving, then they are permitted to consume food straight off of the shelves, because some ultimate, objective perspective entitles them as owning the land upon which Wal*Mart stands? :confused: :wtf:

The point is that there is no perspective existing beyond our own by which a sense of ownership is held. There is merely that of our own, collective, human system. God does not bestow property upon us.

Quote:


Meaning even exists without any conscious or intelligent observer.




Bzzzzzt. Incorrect. Meaning is a phenomenon that results from a conscious observer who perceives reality and is capable of creating representations of reality. Regardless of what the meaning is or what aspect of reality it reflects, meaning is entirely within the boundaries of a subsystem, such as ourselves, that creates it.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: dblaney]
    #5360943 - 03/03/06 08:50 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

dblaney said:
And for the most part I would say that the system is unethical.




Ethics, as in, a set of human-defined principles that judge our actions and determine if they are "right", which is an identity that we also designate, correct? :wink:

Thus, one must elaborate exactly what it is that makes it unethical. Feel free! :thumbup:

Quote:


However, that doesn't take into account the propensity for corruption and vice that seems to be innate in any philosophical system that doesn't have spirituality as its highest goal.




Share with us any human-based thought system that has no possibility of allowing corruption, misapplication, or misinterpretation of it to occur?

Quote:


Especially our society, in which the dominant philosophy is written by marketers whose goal is to create feelings of greed, emptiness, and suffering which can only be remedied by purchasing whatever product they are selling.




A good business practice is observing the nature of your market and targeting one's goods and products towards them in order to maximize sales.  It is interesting that the apparent tendency nowadays is such that individuals also seek something from owning a product beyond the product itself, such as a sense of identity. It tends to be more effective to create supplies for demands, as opposed to creating demand for supplies. :grin:

Quote:


In such a society as we have set up, greed for land is a foundational desire upon which practically all others depend. You can't have a nice house, nice car, nice spouse, nice furniture, nice art, nice this and that until you first have land to put it all on.




Jada jada jada, the nature of physical existance and the fact that we have spatial dimensions implies that we need to have space within which to exist. :lol:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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, 16 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5361311 - 03/03/06 11:56 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

As long as I regard the planet a property of all humans and the person is not starving just for fun or ripping off oither people, yes, I would like to see the person who stops a starving human eating from the shelves of any supermarket. I think you hint at welfare and that is why it exists (to stop starving people looting supermarkets).
Ownership was always a case of 'the strongest'. Be it with pure strength, amount of people, weapons or money. The 'natural' birth-right is not considered right. Perhaps this is why biogenetic companies try so hard to clone and breed humans, to make them their property and for them to loose any birth right. Same with genetic 'engineered' food.

meaning, for example (here we go again): you propose a bird living in a tree does not have any inherent meaning to the bird or the tree ? Bzzzzt, wrong !


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

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5361363 - 03/03/06 12:17 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
As long as I regard the planet a property of all humans and the person is not starving just for fun or ripping off oither people, yes, I would like to see the person who stops a starving human eating from the shelves of any supermarket.




And exactly what aspect of your point of view designates your point of view as being an objective viewpoint, inherent within reality itself? :shocked:

Quote:


I think you hint at welfare and that is why it exists (to stop starving people looting supermarkets).




Nei, you are the one who hinted at it. You implied that the fact that the man is starving equates into his ownership of the land upon which the store is established. :confused:

Quote:


Ownership was always a case of 'the strongest'. Be it with pure strength, amount of people, weapons or money.




Or by systems of thought used to govern a society and the land that they inhabit.

The assertion that a distinct resource is property of oneself is the advanced form of fending off other predators from one's recent kill with the weapons that nature has granted you and one's aggressive display. It is the extension of one's illusory sense of self, resultant from the mind's definition of who one is.

Your point being? Is that inherently a negative, wrong thing?

Quote:


The 'natural' birth-right is not considered right.




The "'natural'" birth-right? What aspect of the behavior that nature exhibits guarantees any form of right to something simply because of the fact that one has been born? Nature directly, violently conflicts your brazen assertion that there exists a birth-right as guaranteed by some natural law every time a grand lioness snaps the neck of a three month old wildebeest and feasts off of its body, which used to conduct a phenomenon known as life. :mushroom2:

Nature is what it is. Its actually a very simple, peacefully silent, spiritually contemplative realization. :thumbup:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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, 13 days
Re: Owning the earth, and other blasphemies against nature [Re: Silversoul]
    #5361460 - 03/03/06 12:52 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Ok, I'll concede that it is just as much an abstraction by man as any other meaning, but after reading the Mark Twain essay I posted, do you see the injustice of it?




I agree completely with the ideas he presented, as I understood them. :wink:

However, I acknowledge that the phenomenon he describes, the enslavement of want, is not unjust, but simply nature. Not to state that it is the only possibillity, or that it is the better one, but simply to state that it is nature and has resulted from our nature.

It is emphasized because it is necessary to survive. If one continues to survive, one then has the possibillity that it is entirely plausible and, in fact, more effective to maintain one's survival without being enslaved to want. :grin:

I interpreted that Twain was stating that, in a sense, it is those who strive to survive, out of an urgent want, to perform actions that make our society operate, that transform the surface of our Earth, that are enslaved to him in that they provide for him and his experience a dynamic, complex world for him to exist within without him having a need to expend effort to develop that world himself (although he certainly has, this quotation demonstrates such :wink:).

There are many levels through which to contemplate his text. :grin:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Grow Bags   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Ownership/Theft Paradox Anonymous 1,718 14 06/23/03 02:45 PM
by Sclorch
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,707 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja
* owning earth
( 1 2 all )
kaiowas 2,265 30 01/27/04 06:02 PM
by silversoul7
* The true nature of man
( 1 2 3 all )
chemkid 4,470 47 09/21/02 09:23 AM
by Albino_Jesus
* What is your view of human nature? z@z.com 4,632 19 04/02/03 09:53 PM
by Zero7a1
* Blasphemy fireworks_godS 1,413 15 08/06/06 10:52 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Why does DMT exist in nature? skaMariaPastora 2,729 3 01/30/02 09:01 PM
by Swami
* mundane world through ownership? kaiowas 1,153 17 11/14/03 05:31 PM
by kaiowas

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,733 topic views. 0 members, 8 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 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.