Non-Possessionism.

This is one of my thought experiments. I have been toying with this idea for the past couple of years.

This universe and everything within it, are yours to protect, yours to care for, to have feelings for, yours to love. But, each and every sentient entity in this world is NOT yours to own or yours to take. And, when one talks of the non-sentient, the concept of ownership is an ill-defined one. One can "own" a sentient being, if that being gives one that permission, that authority, that right. And that right is that sentient being's to take away from one.

Just because one loves another, it does not give one the right to expect much less even demand love in return. Similarly, when one gives one's all to another, firstly one cannot expect the other to accept the gift of one's all and secondly, one has no right to expect or demand the other's all. In other words, one cannot impose a quid pro quo.

This thought experiment follows from the philosophies of Khalil Gibran, from his book "The Prophet". He says about children:

"Your children are not your children... They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself... Thought they are with you they do not belong to you..."

One soul cannot "own" another. This is not a very well defined concept because we have barely skimmed the surface of the concept of "being". During my explorations of the concepts associated with Embodied Cognitive Science, I came across a particular problem known as the Frame of Reference problem. Basically the problem stems from the fact that it is not possible for a person (the designer/programmer) to understand and see the world as a robot would see it. In other words, it is not possible for a person to comprehend or even imagine the perspective of a robot that s/he created.

This concept can be extended out of Embodied Cognitive Science and into Sociology or whatever the study of people in general can be called. It is not entirely possible for one person to see the world exactly as another person would see it. Ergo, when one cannot see the world in the exact way that another does, how can one hope to control another in such a way as to facilitate the other's meaningful operation in the world? Ergo, one cannot own the other, no matter what relation exists between them, no matter how long they have been related.

In your care, your love, your feelings, the only degree of control one has over the other is that one can decide whether or not to care for, feel for or love the other, and whether or not and how much of one's all to give to the other.

Wanting control over or ownership of another being is a natural thing. It is a natural tendency of the human psyche to want to be in control of situations and others. Fantasies are harmless as long as they remain fantasies. Fantasies of control over and ownership of other beings is a natural craving. But it is not fundamentally acceptable to act those fantasies out.

I have titled this Non-Possessionism and not Anti-Possessionism because in order to oppose something you have to first acknowledge its existence.