iam: you raise interesting points...

One thing I'd add is that I don't mean to imply that my opinions were correct or even complete (I've had to rethink some things). It's interesting the comments you make about Native Amercinas and smaller "earthier" commmunities, since I personally view their outlook on land ownership as closer to my own. I'm just trying to describe what I see in the western idea of "ownership." I'm not sure it's even a healthy concept either.

I admit it takes me a while to digest your ideas because you have a unique way of writing. I'd describe it as very abstract and almost like a stream of consciousness (not that this is bad). One thing that would help me understand some of the points better would be more concrete examples ... factoids as you might call them The reason is that when one writes at such an abstract level, it's hard for me to understand the language in all the points.

A problem I run into is that a sentence might be true at one abstract level (for example: "the number zero is real"), but at an even more abstract level we may assign a 'false' value to it. Without some factoids, it's hard to find one's bearings on context. At least, that's the problem I've begun having with language, the more I think about a problem ...

My main point is just that the western idea of 'ownership' is largely psychological.