On 19 Aug, 13:04, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> This brings to mind one of my favorite bits from the series Red
> Dwarf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZqjLa2X3L8
>
> That cat knew what's what.
>
> I think that in unity, connection with all others or objects, is
> "being" one with experience. In the end, we do take it all with us,
> or at least, as much of it as is real, and it is etched in our soul
> for all eternity...and that is every one of our moments in this life.
>
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Unfortunately, I can't view YouTube
at work (and I still don't have a connection at home). What was the
clip?
> On Aug 19, 7:52 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 July, 18:02, 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
>
> > Ownership is an illusion derived from the close spatio-temporal
> > relationship formed by a human (although I feel that other species
> > also have a similar concept {thus the problem encountered when trying
> > to take a bone or toy from a dog who's enjoying it}) towards an
> > object. That is, we tend to think of those things that spend a lot of
> > their existence near us as 'ours'. Of course, nothing could be
> > farther from the truth. Things exist. Things exist nearer or farther
> > from us. We tend to bond more closely, due to familiarity, to those
> > things that are nearer us. Those things that you can take with you
> > into the 'next world' are those things which are truly yours.
> > Everything else is just stuff that happens to be near you during your
> > period of physical existence. Theft, is just moving a thing from one
> > place to another. If there was no bond between humans and 'things',
> > theft could not occur. All things, including humans, simply exist and
> > are a part (perhaps even better, an expression) of the One. There is
> > only that One and any division we make is, in truth, illusory and, in
> > the case of ourselves, simple vanity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
