the illusion of ownership

[mhc]

(disclaimer: ideas expressed below are intended to be satirical, and only loosely based on reality)

this common delusion is found in all aspects of not only modern society, but past ones as well. the notion that someone for example, can hand over some money to which they also claim owner ship of, and gain ownership of something else, is not only practiced millions of times through out the world daily, but is actually encouraged and forms part of the bases for many a modern society.

rules and laws have also been created as a means of enforcing the delusion, seemingly further establishing the idea of ownership as sound. if the laws or means of enforcement of the delusion were to be abolished, the notion of ownership would be nothing more than words in the air or scribbles on paper.

on a grand scale, the delusion manifests itself on mass, with groups or entire populations even, claiming that certain pieces of land are owned, or belong to this person or that. the creation of imaginary boundaries which serve to provide limits to these fictitious bits of owned things have even been implemented, and also have rules of their own.

if ever there were to be such a thing capable of dividing humanity to its farthest points, then the notion of ownership is it.

[Catoptric]

Ownership gives self-serving perimeters for control.

Take the case for Native Americans:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...-part-1-150362

"The United States has unequivocally agreed…that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy.” U.S. Supreme Court Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh."

It could be argued that people are given the illusion of ownership; more so that you are a tenant that pays dues to occupancy. That such an illusion could be so central to belief in an economic system driven purely from ego, explains much in the driving force of human nature, compelled to motivating self-preservation. The stand your ground absurdity is rather whimsical: So property or suspicions of loss of property, is reason enough to encourage people to kill someone? Does that in turn give someone ownership through their very existence, making life all the more meaningless if quantified worth is valued intrinsic to control of "objects?"

Likewise if someone's occupation is to create something of value, such as a piece of furniture; even in death does someone's creation no longer have any meaning, proximal to the extent that someone lived and died, signifying their very existence through their creation, and merits the modifying or debasing of it's intended purpose; are we not tenants of a society that upholds the standards of value, of all things conceived of in life? Does it then give less meaning to someone that never conceived of a child? Does someone own a child, even if control of upbringing is invested into a system or organization, and could it be argued that legalese exists to justify extant laws governing control? What merits integrity of self-worth and purpose, and do most never attain anything they could deem worthwhile for future generations? What justifies societal worth is the manipulation of said control, manifest in idea; when someone achieves far more for selfless reasons, are they actually worth less than someone given said worth through other means? The illusion is only to express transfer of power, and all die by their standards of forbearance and merited perspective garnering self-worth, but it nevertheless is a system that is intent on motivating a process, encouraging the system of governance and laws in place.

This creates a culture of it's own that isn't entirely without corruption and self-serving bias; imagine someone gaining a fortune and an empire/monopoly, and when they die they don't want what they owned to be gone to waste; the same as the belief that pharaohs had of death, being only a penultimate "life," to endure forever. Part of the subconscious manifestation was an idealized belief that your physical manifestation and objects invested into ownership could extend forever, and that in the event of tomb robbery, a curse would ensure negative consequences would happen to those that robbed you of such immortality. Nevertheless we still have this presence of self-interest paradigm primitive belief systems pervading modern times despite contrary indicators, that the fall of Rome came about through entitled beliefs; discourage the populace from rebelling and keep them distracted, and encourage all your minions are happy and willing to serve you by offering up your share in conquests. Set a system in place that gives servitude, to the reward of power/money, and entrust symbolic representations for said cadre.

etc.

[mhc]

Ownership gives self-serving perimeters for control.

the question would be then, control of what?

Does that in turn give someone ownership through their very existence

if existence is reason enough for ownership of a thing, than by the very definition of ownership itself, ownership would be unattainable, due to the fact that existence occurs in more instances than one at a time - and no two people could logically claim to own the same thing.

if we apply this reasoning to ones existence, than it could be said, no one owns their existence unless no other exists in the same existence.

Likewise if someone's occupation is to create something of value, such as a piece of furniture; even in death does someone's creation no longer have any meaning, proximal to the extent that someone lived and died, signifying their very existence through their creation, and merits the modifying or debasing of it's intended purpose; are we not tenants of a society that upholds the standards of value, of all things conceived of in life?

if life is the precurser to creating something of value, than it could be said that the value resides in the life itself. if this be the case than the following statements

making life all the more meaningless if quantified worth is valued intrinsic to control of "objects?"

Does it then give less meaning to someone that never conceived of a child?

become irrelivant

Does someone own a child, even if control of upbringing is invested into a system or organization, and could it be argued that legalese exists to justify extant laws governing control?

This possibly borders into the realm of responsibilities - perceived or otherwise.

What merits integrity of self-worth and purpose, and do most never attain anything they could deem worthwhile for future generations?

only oneself can truly answer this, even the oneself of future generations

What justifies societal worth is the manipulation of said control, manifest in idea; when someone achieves far more for selfless reasons, are they actually worth less than someone given said worth through other means? The illusion is only to express transfer of power, and all die by their standards of forbearance and merited perspective garnering self-worth, but it nevertheless is a system that is intent on motivating a process, encouraging the system of governance and laws in place.

indeed. and is it better for an existence to be owned by one of its own creations or for the creation to be owned by its existence. put another way, is it better for a human being to be owned by its own ideas, or for the human being to own its ideas? this conundrum manifests itself on occasions when one human creates an idea of ownership of a thing. the human, or another human is than 'controlled' be the idea that thing is owned. bare in mind however, the very same conundrum also exists if the idea of un-ownership or un-own-ablity is created for a certain thing.

so the question which than remains is, how does one than not become owned by an idea? because, as previously concluded, existence itself is no means for ownership. as ownership is an illusion, any ownership is actually granted by any person who agrees with the idea, not by the person who created the idea.

Set a system in place that gives servitude, to the reward of power/money, and entrust symbolic representations for said cadre.

as just noted that ownership is only granted by people who agree with the idea, servitude also is granted by the people who agree with the idea, not by the people who create the idea


it could also be said that, the things that one claims to own are but ideas in ones own mind - for what is one thing to one, is but another thing to someone else. in this sense, no two things are ever the same. so perhaps in reality, any idea of ownership of a thing, is the misguided ownership of ones own ideas. an example of this can be seen in the following: person A proclaims to own Thing A. Thing A is a creation in the mind of Person A. Person B then proclaims the notion of ownership false, thus confirming Thing A's existence and granting ownership of ideas to Person A. if Person B acknowledges Person A's idea as just an idea, Thing A and its ownership only remain relevant to Person A, placing Person A's own existence into question, as has been established that existence is no method for ownership. this would then mean Person B's existence is sound, with an idea that Person A just had an idea. Person B's ideas would than grant ownership to Person B, instead of Person A

[Catoptric]

as just noted that ownership is only granted by people who agree with the idea, servitude also is granted by the people who agree with the idea, not by the people who create the idea

It still doesn't discount the idea that those whom disagree with being owned by an idea, do not necessitate compliance, within a system that shares compliance for it's own benefit; indifferent to those that conceived of it, within the past or otherwise.

If the one whom conceived of the idea or object created, does not uphold the very existence of the object posthumously unless through the fore-bearers of it's existence, requires that we as humanity must preserve and restore the existence of things considered cherished by their very existence. That no matter the value ascribed by others and ourselves, there will always be those that would be indifferent to extinguishing the existence of something considered sacred.

That a majority appeal to an idea; an iconoclast will have a difficult time disagreeing for their own sake, with any prejudice preferring to disregard the possibility of disagreement.

[mhc]

It still doesn't discount the idea that those whom disagree with being owned by an idea, do not necessitate compliance, within a system that shares compliance for it's own benefit; indifferent to those that conceived of it, within the past or otherwise.

a system can not share any compliance, even for its own benefit as it is only an idea. to say otherwise grants conformation of the idea of the system, as well as ownership of ideas to the one who created the system

also, even by disagreeing with an idea, one confirms the existence of the idea, and grants ownership of ones ideas to the another

[Catoptric]

a system can not share any compliance, even for its own benefit as it is only an idea. to say otherwise grants conformation of the idea of the system, as well as ownership of ideas to the one who created the system

also, even by disagreeing with an idea, one confirms the existence of the idea, and grants ownership of ones ideas to the another

Would that be anathema to saying that someone did not exist; which does not discount the reality of it's existence.

A person would still be subservient to an idea, as it is inherent to a system which encourages that idea.

[mhc]

Would that be anathema to saying that someone did not exist; which does not discount the reality of it's existence.

unless the said person was existing as a single existence, which would then mean that ownership of the ideas is placed in an existence outside of said existence's reality or the person's reality.

A person would still be subservient to an idea, as it is inherent to a system which encourages that idea.

this would then mean the person has become owned by the idea, implying the idea's existence is questionable, or exists as a singular existence, thus placing said person out of the reality of the idea, or that the person's own existence is questionable. however, if person has become owned by the idea, than the idea's existence has become proved, hence said person is outside of the existence of the idea or reality



this could get messy

[Roger Mexico]

The idea of Native American cultures "not believing in land ownership" is a bit of a myth. Perhaps some groups didn't really incorporate the concept into their systems of governance, but more often the issue was that their modes of defining and enforcing it didn't neatly dovetail with the ways that white people and the US legal system were used to thinking about it.

Access to land with valuable resources on it is such a fundamental component of human survival that you'd be hard-pressed to find a culture anywhere that didn't have some system of regulating who was entitled to do what on which parcels of land. In the case of the western Indian Wars in the US, the problem was often that migrants from an agrarian culture which relied on assigning permanent rights of exclusive access on small pieces of real estate to individuals encountered nomadic hunting or foraging cultures whose system was based more on allotting seasonal access rights in large areas to families or entire tribes, and confused communications and/or disingenuous practices by one or both sides led to conflict.

An example I'm familiar with involved Mormon settlers in Utah trying to purchase land from the Shoshone people in the area. It's not an especially lush environment, so the Shoshone had a traditional system of clan groups claiming particular foraging zones each year, and clans having to sometimes negotiate complex business deals involving these claims. Mormon families started showing up and saying "Excuse me, is this your land? Could I purchase some of it for my family to farm on?" and finding the Shoshone owners amenable to this, but then the purchasers became confused and suspected they were being fucked with when the same people who had sold them the land showed up a year later to discuss payment for their continued occupancy of land they thought they already owned.