Teach Your Children Well

[Age]

People do not have children. To 'have' implies to 'own'.

Only if that's what you come to see. (RIP, Kinky Friedman)

“Have,” is not limited to a single, simple definition. "Have," is like a fine wine, with complex notes. "Have," is not the rotgut of language that means only an owner/slave relationship, although in the case of owners and slaves, it would be.

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

If yes, then great.

But, if no, then why not?

[Walker]

Only if I have to.

(Only if I have, two, implies ownership.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Critics will see this as forcing religion upon the little children, however, the rationale for displaying Ten Commandments is morality, not religion. Not all morality is equal. For instance, a different morality displayed in an educational setting might list reasons why the children should be little terrorists.

Certainly one could say it has to do with morality but examined carefully it has to do with a great deal more. Simply put, many people, common people, and people in regions perhaps outside of mass urbanization, have cone to feel that their values and their religious and political-social heritage have been pissed and trampled on.

In the Postwar, America has been subject to a massive social engineering project of a top-down nature. Progressive elites, radical academics and Marxism-influenced radicals have been able to inculcate their values and preferences far and wide. It hinges in education but also in the •texts• of mass society: literature, art, film and television.

My impression about what has happened and what is happening is that this has provoked substantial civic and cultural reaction. Naturally, the first thing people will do in a situation of assault is to turn back to their cultural and heritage traditions — and in the US this deeply involves Christianity.

The reaction to, say, the toppling of southern monuments by frenzied mobs became a motivation among many to examine their own traditional commitments — and to choose to confront and oppose progressive radicalism.

So yes, it has to do with the teaching of morality, but in a wider sense it is part of cultural, social and moral renewal in direct opposition to the social engineering commissars and ideologues.

[Iwannaplato]

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

I have a couple of close friends.
I have a rash.
My classes have three missing students today.
They have a meeting at 7 tonight.
They have a great time playing golf.
We have a duty to treat animals well.
I have a good relationship with my dog.
Chairs generally have four legs.
Electrons have a negative charge.
Unicorns have horns.
My stores have an undersupply of parts right now.

If we change have in those sentences to own it will change the meaning, make an absurd suggestion, be a tropic use of 'own'(!!!) and/or simply be confusing.

[Age]

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

I have a couple of close friends.
I have a rash.
My classes have three missing students today.
They have a meeting at 7 tonight.
They have a great time playing golf.
We have a duty to treat animals well.
I have a good relationship with my dog.
Chairs generally have four legs.
Electrons have a negative charge.
Unicorns have horns.
My stores have an undersupply of parts right now.

Thank you for clarifying the clarifying question I asked here.

Maybe I 'have' just learned another way to get these people here to start answering and clarifying my quest>ns here

If we change have in those sentences to own it will change the meaning, make an absurd suggestion, be a tropic use of 'own'(!!!) and/or simply be confusing.

[Fairy]

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

I have a couple of close friends.
I have a rash.
My classes have three missing students today.
They have a meeting at 7 tonight.
They have a great time playing golf.
We have a duty to treat animals well.
I have a good relationship with my dog.
Chairs generally have four legs.
Electrons have a negative charge.
Unicorns have horns.
My stores have an undersupply of parts right now.

If we change have in those sentences to own it will change the meaning, make an absurd suggestion, be a tropic use of 'own'(!!!) and/or simply be confusing.

Change yes, but what changes? Nothing changes, appearances change. Like the imageless stillness of space in which images move. Like the tv screen, the screen is motionless, while the images upon the screen are moving, and yet going nowhere.

In reality, nothing ever moved, nothing ever happened.

No one owns the universe. No one owns the earth. No one owns the totality that is infinity.

To 'have and to hold', or to 'own' (hold onto forever) are conceptual meanings within the illusory dream of separation (secondary)

CON-text is limited, it is an unreality. Knowledge can only point to the illusory dream nature of reality, even though, the dream is a very convincing real show in the same context that is meaning and no meaning.

What is 'meant' by meaning?
Infinite ''means'' there is no finite. If there is finite, even such as one atom, then by definition there isn't infinite. That would be 'two finites'.
Everything with a mass is an arrangement of atoms, as they are the building blocks of matter. The number of atoms in the observable universe is finite, so the atoms keep changing their arrangement to form new things.

On behalf of an illusory perspective of there being an individual, a finite knower or understander perhaps, infinite… per the illusory subject, ''means'' ''everything'' or ''all the things''.

Means is in quotations as there isn't meaning, or, meaning would be the second, or finite thing. Either there is meaning and there isn't infinite, or, there is infinite and no meaning.
If meaning is in actuality appearance, there is no individual, such as a knower or understander, and infinite is what's already actual.

No one is raising children, children are being lived by life alone, and life alone is this immediate knowing, one without a second.

[Fairy]

'' Be like an alone peak high in the sky.''
'' Why should you hanker to belong? ''
'' You are not a thing! Things belong! ''

''Life repeats itself mindlessly – unless you become mindful, it will go on repeating like a wheel.''

[Iwannaplato]

Change yes, but what changes? Nothing changes, appearances change.

Then there's no need to worry about anyone using 'have' or 'raise' about their children. Words are flowers too, supported by everything.

[Fairy]

Change yes, but what changes? Nothing changes, appearances change.

Then there's no need to worry about anyone using 'have' or 'raise' about their children. Words are flowers too, supported by everything.

No one is worried. Or, everyone is worried.

[Iwannaplato]

Change yes, but what changes? Nothing changes, appearances change.

Then there's no need to worry about anyone using 'have' or 'raise' about their children. Words are flowers too, supported by everything.

No one is worried. Or, everyone is worried.

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

[Fairy]

Then there's no need to worry about anyone using 'have' or 'raise' about their children. Words are flowers too, supported by everything.

No one is worried. Or, everyone is worried.

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

There is no such thing as nondualism or nondualist, or nonduality, because nonduality is not a thing.

[Atla]

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

I tried asking these fake nondualists to donate their savings to me, after all there's no one there who needs the money. Wonder why they turned me down.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no such thing as nondualism or nondualist, or nonduality, because nonduality is not a thing.

Sure. There are no children, there are no words, there is no people. There's no illusion...none of the words below are real.

People do not have children. To 'have' implies to 'own'. People do not own children. People guide children as extensions of their own self, since the child appeared from out of the self that birthed it, the child is essentially inseparable from the life giver. Only the illusion of 'space' separates the child from it's parent.

[Iwannaplato]

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

I tried asking these fake nondualists to donate their savings to me, after all there's no one there who needs the money. Wonder why they turned me down.

For example.
To come at it another way.

There's a pattern in the posts that get corrected and those that don't - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There are words that aren't right and others that get a pass - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There's someone who doesn't get it - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.

You can see the mechanism the dualist motor, even if it's not stated, though it often is.

And this isn't me knocking either dualism or nondualism or what could get those names.

It's kinda like, hey don't tell me what you don't really believe yourself yet. And that they don't believe yet...that's really hard to demonstrate. And even bringing it up will lead to something like....
there is no belief and no believer. easy to say when you can't live it.

Fine, I can dance that dance...

[Fairy]

There is no such thing as nondualism or nondualist, or nonduality, because nonduality is not a thing.

Sure. There are no children, there are no words, there is no people. There's no illusion...none of the words below are real.

People do not have children. To 'have' implies to 'own'. People do not own children. People guide children as extensions of their own self, since the child appeared from out of the self that birthed it, the child is essentially inseparable from the life giver. Only the illusion of 'space' separates the child from it's parent.

Yes, there’s only what appears to be, and and there’s no thing making what appears to be, and no thing unmaking what appears to be.