Wonderful topic, Francis, thanks. I too have lost just about everything more than once, and somehow, as I now look around me, "own" way too many things and am spending my time and thought to disposing of them, giving them away to folks who can use them, giving in an act of love.
I don't remember giving much thought to what I actually owned until I divorced. Fear and intimidation was a big part of that process for me until I realized that I had nothing to fear, didn't really care what "things" were assigned to me, and that my children would always be in my life and love me, whatever the courts hammered out. After this pivotal moment for me, I just kept saying "let him have it..." (apart from full custody) left that marriage with my faith that the lord provides and I would have what I need to take care of myself and my children. This, in fact, proved to be true, as job offers, pay increases, and the creature comforts needed to provide a home all came my way, as long as, I noticed, I did not care if I had them or not, and as long as in each moment, I continued to love with all my heart. This is why I so admire the story of St. Francis. To me, his story is just that proof of faith, that the Lord provides. And so, in his own way, he kicked off his sandals and wandered away from his fathers comfortable home into the wilderness where the Lord provided the proof of faith he required for the rest of his days, and for all his other needs also. In these tough economic times it is difficult to remain faithful and calm while I and everyone around me realizes that half or more of what they thought they owned was gone in terms of net worth. Woosh! Vanished. As if it wasn't ever real to begin with. And was it? My husband and I play with the notion of owning each other - like complete owning - knowing every aspect as deeply as true intimacy will allow. This is the flip side of controlling every detail and dominating a partner. There is a freedom in integrated ownership, where you take complete authority and responsibility for providing the space of honesty, appreciation and safety necessary so that ownership between partners in a relationship means freedom and intimacy, where the others desires are yours as well, because they allow the highest potential of the loved one and bring you into your highest potential at the same time. This has nothing, really, to do with things. But somehow I think, that if we can live in relationship like this, to live, to our partner, to all others, the things manifest that provide our comfort. Sometimes, it seems, in excess. There is one thing to own, your self and how you relate. The rest follows. On Jul 28, 1:02 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > In the course of the recent discussion here concerning the reposting > of Minds Eye contributions in other internet fora, the question of > copyright arose. It got me to thinking about the idea of intellectual > ownership and the idea of possession in general. > > We have all seen the Westerns in which the Native Americans sold away > title to land for nothing, or pittances because the white man's > concept of "owning" land was incomprehensible to them. Throughout > history, many of those whom we regard as great thinkers have been very > critical of the benefits of possessions and owning things. Indeed, a > controversy centred on the absolute poverty of Christ raged throughout > the medieval Christian Church and completely split the Franciscan > movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Franciscans#Renewed_controversy_on_the_question_of_poverty). In this > context, it is perhaps interesting to note that one of the all-time > heroes here on Minds Eye, William of Occam, was a proponent of the > principle of absolute poverty and lost his job as English Franciscan > provincial and was excommunicated as a result. > > Personally I spent almost a decade as a Dominican friar, during which > time I took a "vow of poverty." I don't want to go into a discussion > on the extent to which Catholic monks actually live according to this > vow here, personally, I always found it to be the expression of an > attitude of freedom from a dictatorship of "things." It may also have > left an indelible mark on me in that in almost a quarter of a century > since leaving the order I have been pretty bad at earning, > accumulating and retaining material wealth and possessions. During my > life I have gone through a number of pretty radical changes, which > have often involved leaving nearly everything behind and starting > again. Such processes have been, inevitably, traumatic, although not > necessarily negative. One of the things that has helped is the fact > that I have never felt particularly attached to "things". But maybe my > sense of "ownership" is just underdeveloped, or damaged! > > There's a German saying which states that "he who has possessions has > worries." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the founders (!) of modern > anarchism went farther with his statement that "property is theft." > What does it mean to "own" something anyway? > > To use Molly's words: What do you think? > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
