Stosh

See rene? Like a baby harp seal. Doesnt know what will happen next or why. Doesnt care about anything. Trusts providence , the teat of tao...abandons pragmatism and the material..but theres still corneal reflex.. And if the ice melts, ? Bonked again, this time he's done, neither sea nor ice will hold him up.

I would , but any proper Lz response would have to be useless.

Sure she is , but to me the point of philosophy is to enhance our life, rather than disable us , or remain in the realm of the relatively impossible. To see a human as merely part of the larger process, to me makes them expendable,interchangeable ,, which , we basically are ,, but I dont the we as individuals or members of a larger society are improved by looking at each other that way. I really only broke in because she made that comment which abandoned 'willingness to engage'. You guys like each other and simply running away at the first sign of not being in entire accord is too intolerant. Does she think she cant handle herself all of a sudden? that she would dissolve if you won a round outright? c'mon .

"Being at one with the Tao is eternal. And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away." ? Lao's angle on Rhinos perhaps here alluded to. Decryptifying, Laosmen accept their own bodies death, and you can mow them down in rows while they watch,like baby harp seals, after all , life will go on right? Whereas Zsmen , take precautions to not be around, like snow leopards, accepting that its what they have to do, to preserve their bodies life, thats how it is ,, and life goes on.

Didn't look like you were, say, the folks of the Sundarbands ,,some of them just choose to live knowing the tigers are there, they see it as protecting the forest the same forest they depend upon , they know death on fuzzy feet may grab them, that this may be their fate, which they accept,, others take precautions,, like leave the forest alone, or wear masks.

True. Your situation still divides rights to property use and there are still exclusions going on. So Its not actually a case of no one owning the land. I guess the company wants to maintain the cohesiveness of the community through the collective ownership. In this case , its the inability to sell the property out of the collective which does that.

Thats better. But none of it contradicts what I said. Its presenting a rationale for things being as they are. Always a safe bet, but theres exceptions. If a person inherits a chunk of land, or company or govt kills or swindles for it , do you count this as earning? Lets look at Detroit, did the ownership of those properties protect them? If oil was found on my texas ranch, have I gotten a free lunch? Luck is big factor determining financial winners and losers, can one say the lucky have earned it all more than the unlucky?

You can be dismissive , but the point I was making is that which someone calls their land , doesn't make them supreme authority there. Having exclusive rights to this land is primarily exclusionary, which means that you infringe on other peoples ability to be on this land . There's a place near me which has a huge chunk of property , they got it a long long time ago , and they don't let anyone on it . I wanted to go there and check out some birds, but Im not allowed, and then I looked around and see that the US is all subdivided. There are little channels of public ground called roads you can drive on ,but you just go from one owned place to another , there are some wilder places , but they too are subject to all sorts of restrictions. Ones behavior and ones freedom to just go somewhere uninvited is very limited. You can go to stores , but you cant say there, you can go to parks , but you cant start a campfire except for a few predetermined spots , you cant catch food or make use of resources. The same kinds of limitations also apply to personal property. Ones ownership of anything really just amounts to cooperation about exclusionary rights which one may pay to have and may also be paid to transfer. The thread is about not owning anything anymore, and I am talking about what owning is. That which Nungali is describing is interesting, its a rather different paradigm. There is ownership (company title Ltd. ) , but no private ownership, its restricted from land speculation, so you cant 'build and invest' just by speculating on land value, just build live and enjoy cheaply. It cant be passed on to anything that isnt similar, and can only be run as a non profit enterprise.

Yeah, Icebergs are less of an option. But If you google unclaimed land theres some spots in miserable places like antarctica. Camping in National forests is still subject to all sorts of rules.. as is marbleheads house. He has to pay taxes maintain it , theres things he cant do, people he cant legally exclude, permission needed to build things store things etc etc. Your cottage only remains exempt due to relative secrecy , I assume.

That would be ' what they thought was true, thats the YOUR part of your truth. Thats just you excluding Happens all the time , I don't have to respect your property to covet my own. Rights are a collective idea, you have no guaranteed certainty that no one will claim your stuff. ex eminent domain. That land is unclaimed , there's no one to buy it from , you have to take possession of it. like where?

Killing you would kill your truth. "ownership of land' is basically an agreed upon right of exclusion. If everyone else disagrees, your ownership has no existence.Your anarchy is in conflict with your property. People 'own' thousands of acres , and nobody else is allowed to even walk on it. The places where you can actually go without the nod of some other entity is extremely narrow. Wanna see how narrow? try to find a place where you can just go , without granted permissions, build a little campfire ,shelter , and kill a rabbit.

Yknow , theres places nobody claims ! Where you can start a country. ( if your neighbors let you)

I like that there no land ownership thing. Outback is it?

Thems fightin words , see how preconceptions can color ones perspective? My fathers first name Stanley , nickname Stosh, and my middle name.

Yeah, I did mean forget about it entirely. If youre coming to emotional turning points, reading your dreams is secondary. They arent messages you need to revere. That you remembered a dream.. big deal! Youre stringing dots together while awake now but were making positive change before the dream. Next dream , what about it? Youre going to chase any dream you remember? Dusty needs to buy a pogo stick? Just because a dream can be spun complimentary, or hideously ,doesnt mean you should redirect your life based on IT. Youre just falling for the flattery we are all suceptible to. Keep making positive efforts, give yourself credit, dont rely on the endorsement of crazy ass dream interpretations.

IMO No you should forget all about it, minimize it , ignore it.This dream made you upset and there ain't nothing you can do about death. Dwelling on it as a dream is just putting yourself in a more negative place. Your waking mind has more tools to handle the issue than than you have in the moment to moment craziness of a dream. You should already know this to be true,, that in a dream emotions are blown out of proportion, events may be nonsensical , meanings convoluted , and they're often irrational and unrealistic. Modern investigation suggests that we try novel solutions to old problems ,thereby we edit and improve our considerations and reactions in waking life. BUt not every tested resolution of a dream is one we will settle on , nor does it always contain some deep innate factual revelation we should revere. Your 'hey! thats funky dark' reaction is really the way I think a person should look at sleeping dreams. ( not the martin luther king style 'dreams')

She hasnt said anything since april.

IMO its promoting the bigger picture over artificial subdivision.

Up from La Brea the petroleum goddess appears!

Its holding the flashlight.

Ya gotta admit though, even your own expectations are rather a low bar. And even if they are sentient, whatever that is defined as , 1, they too ,as us, would be or are, living but an illusion that we are alive. 2, there is no force compelling us to act any different towards them,,, even if they found a monkey einstein, we can still opt to eat it. (Most cultures have known instances of cannibalism anyway) 3 , the brilliant emotion filled hyena ..pack, would joyfully consume one of us. So even if fish and carrots do get scared, it just doesnt matter.

I would be more impressed , if they turned out the lights when then left the room, my niece hasn't even mastered that !

Just two, but theyre multipurpose.

Yeah, the thing that stood out to me was the underwater view of a lure just laying on the pavement on the midline road marking.. and thinking, hmmm its not even suspended.

Well, its a toss up, It does look on the face of it to be a sucky dream, on the otherhand ! Theres some common dream symbols... but on the other hand, if its all horrible repressed stuff ,, and yet on the other hand,, it could be a previous life event, evidencing reincarnation.....