Non-possession: Difference between revisions
why, this don't make a lick of sense. why, my 'special' cousin jasper what has parents who are brother and sister makes more sense when he's drunk than this here article. |
KnightLago (talk | contribs) add cite |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{db-nonsense}} |
{{db-nonsense}} |
||
The view that no one or anything possesses anything. |
The view that no one or anything possesses anything.[http://ourpla.net/cgi/pikie?NonPossession] |
||
The concept directly references non-stealing. |
The concept directly references non-stealing. |
||
Revision as of 05:05, 25 April 2008
This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, coherent vandalism and hoaxes (G3), coherent material not written in English, badly translated material, etc. This criterion also does not apply to pages in the user namespace. See CSD G1.
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by KnightLago (contribs | logs) at 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (16 years ago) |
The view that no one or anything possesses anything.[1]
The concept directly references non-stealing.
Stealing is possible under this world view. Not everyone in the world holds the non-possession view, they have the right to define their boundaries. The breach of these defined' boundaries constitutes theft. Logically, the existence of theft would appear to be invalid If there are no rules as to how one can and cannot define boundaries. Without the ability to define a boundary, there is no way to discern where one entity begins and the other ends, therefore, not possible to define possession. Without possession, there can be no theft. Non-possession does not deny the existence of the concept of possession.
If some entity has the ability to lay claim to any object without contest, theft is still possible. One can steal from this entity if one is not part of this entity. Also, that the entity is empowered to lay claim necessitates that there are objects which the entity can lay claim upon, therefore, objects which this entity does not possess. Boundaries may exist between objects before the entity lays claim to them, (that is, if it intends to lay claim upon them.) Breach of these boundaries constitute theft. The entity empowered to lay claim upon any object can also approach a grey area between possession and theft if its possession of an object is not clearly defined, that is, if this entity has doubts as to whether it possesses the object in question.