Nate writes:
My initial definition of ownership is control. If I use something I don't
necessarily need to control it. In the example of the child playing with a
toy it would depend on his/her reaction when another child wanted to play
with the same toy. I think to a certain extent ownership changes the
relationship between tool and sign. It puts personal ownership into
concepts I have interpreted as primarily cultural.
I think that power and identity are important to understand the dilemma
diane asks about. I would disagree with Nate's statement that control is
not necessary to tool use. If I don't control the hammer well, I hit my
thumb. And I don't think looking at the object(ive) provides a useful
distinction, money can be controlled/used as a means to an end or, as
diane writes, an end unto itself. The question could be turned to the
relinquishing of control (giving up the toy) and what is lost/gained by so
doing.
It seems to me that it would be useful to look at identity construction
and the myth of acquisition. Acquisition of knowledge, money, or power.
These things (as discourses, maybe?) come to define the person's identity,
they are taken up/into the person in the sense that Nate talks about the
sign as "something external that I use to act upon myself" only the
distinction between the actor/subject and the object gets blurred. Maybe?
kathie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Life's backwards,
Life's backwards,
People, turn around.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sinead O'Connor and John Reynolds
Fire on Babylon: Universal Mother^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Katherine_Goff who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu
http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~Katherine_Goff/index.html