ON OWNERSHIP
________________

Writing the article on 'Cat and Dogs' led me to the notion of ownership.

What does it mean?

As far as I can possibly imagine, animals other than human ones, have no notion of 'ownership'. Therefore, it must be a human animal construct.

It's implications are far reaching. So what does it mean?

Basically, there are two kinds of objects, the animate and the inanimate. Inanimate objects stay as they are more or less as we can be aware. A rock is a rock for common purposes.

Animate objects move. However they do this, they still move. A Wallflower does not move (only with something that moves it, e.g. the wind, its own growth and so forth). A Triffid (if it existed) moves.

Ownership, is a human notion. It is a belief. It has no actuality in reality (the personal perception of what is encountered in the universe).

There are two notions of ownership.

1.    The ownership of inanimate objects and
2.    The ownership of animate objects.

One can account for the first as in someway acquiring an inanimate object, although I might even question that on purely philosophical grounds, as you might.

I cannot account for the ownership of an animate object.

There are basically two types of animate objects, the tangible and the intangible. Tangible objects we can sense with whatever sense we have, such as a person. Intangible objects, such as ideas are those objects which can only be personally verified by our senses and are internalised. They may become tangible at a later time.

Given that an animate object moves (even ideas, of course), it moves for some purpose (survival). It therefore has an existence beyond the inanimate (a rock does not have to move to survive).

 Because an object moves, it cannot be controlled at will by another animate object. One must follow, or chase the other. At least in some way it must react with the other moving object.

All animate objects (whatever they are) have an existence of their own and are, of course entitled to it by the very nature of their being animate objects. Perhaps the same can be said for inanimate objects as is the belief of certain humans but my point is not with those at this present time.

I therefore believe that we cannot 'own' animate objects. Do you own the spider that crawls down from your ceiling on its quest for whatever it wants?

Ownership of inanimate objects, in human terms at least, requires some sort of payment. I buy, therefore, I own. This is often the case when those human animals that deem to control other human animals treat those others as inanimate objects.

Ownership also comes in the guise of having been born in a certain place at a certain time under a certain regime who pretends to own you.

This is the stuff of a 'society'. A society is a group of individuals (note bene) who usually have a common purpose. Mostly it is just survival but often for destruction of a predator or a dissenter.

If I was born in so-called Britain (which I was), am I to be construed 'British'? It's a good question, I think. As an individual (which I am), I do not want to be 'British'. I don't like it; I don't want to be associated with it. I am merely a person who lives in a place, at a certain time, under certain circumstances who happens to live in this place.

I owe nothing to this place of my birth because I have not been 'bought' by the notion that this country owns me. If I allow myself to be called 'British', then I have given up my individuality to something I have no wish for.

Most religions believe that they 'own' you as well, from birth. Their 'faith' is your faith and you have no choice in the matter until you are mature enough (if ever) to decide for yourself. Thus you may be mutilated without your consent (physically or spiritually) soon after birth to 'join their club'. Give me strength; it's revolting beyond comprehension.

I cannot imagine any sane person of a mature age demanding to be physically (or spiritually) mutilated to join a club of any kind.

You NEVER own any other kind of animal no matter what your protestations are to the contrary. Why should you want to own a human animals? It beggars belief that there are people who claim ownership of others, human or not. It is, in all words, insanity.

That is why I entertain the notion of two species of human animals, the humans (natural inhabitants of the earth) and humanoids (unnatural inhabitants of the world). 'Earth' and 'World' are NOT interchangeable.

If you believe that other people own you, then they do. If you believe that other people don't own you, then they don't. The notion that there is a god even if you don't think so, is a very spurious argument. It is no argument at all; it is a weakness of the believer, not the non-believer.

The earth is polar only in respect of its electrical properties, bu the there is a linking thread that is neither one nor the other but some continuum between.

A 'this' or 'them' world has been created by the humanoid, not the human. The humanoid cannot and will not accept change. The human accepts change and that is his survival unless he falters for a moment and lets the humanoid take over.

Take time to watch a spider make its web, it is a revelation to the soul that will make all else inescapably insignificant but will ensure you place in the universe-as-a-whole.

The universe is not linear or static, it works as an on-going process. How it begins or ends is an interesting notion. It is a philosophical exercise wrapped up in what we call 'science'. Science is observation, theory, experiment, extrapolation, change, re-investigate and so on and so on. Real science is just that. It is not static, it is dynamic. To make it static is to forget science and stay in the realms of fantasy. Fantasy is not  plowing the fields or gathering a harvest for survival. Being static is a fantasy born of fear of change. The humanoids have this down to a tee.




Return to CONTENTS page