Neale: You said that "ownership" was a human mental construction, and that it was a distorted attempt to express the life principle of Sustainability. I don't understand that, exactly.
Life seeks always to sustain itself. That is a Basic Life Principle. You, as an expression of life, will seek to do the same thing. You have built a mental construct around how to do this that plays itself out as a social convention that you call ownership.
You claim ownership over all those things that you wish to see sustained.
Seeking to express the Life Principle of Sustainability, you claim ownership of your own body, then of the body of your mate, then of your children. You say that your children are "yours," and you say the same thing about your spouse, and you treat these people as if you "own" them.
So, too, with land, and other articles and property. You have it that the very planet on which you live, this sphere that revolves around the Sun and spins in its majesty one complete cycle every 24 hours, is something that you actually "own," at least in parcels.
You have decided that this heavenly body, this celestial element, does not belong to Life Itself, but rather, to individual human beings. Or, in some cases, to their representatives—that is, their governments. And so, you have divvied up the very Earth itself, placing imaginary boundaries on that which has no boundaries, and claiming personal ownership not only of the land itself, but of the ground as far down as it goes and the minerals and resources within it, and of the sky as far up as it goes—which is, of course, forever…leading to intriguing international political questions aboutfly- over rights and "how high is up"?
You take these "ownership rights" so seriously that you start wars over them and kill and die over them—when the truth is, you cannot ever "own" any part of a planet in the solar system, even if it is a planet on which your species evolved.