ownership of bodies

If you construct ownership the way you do in order to use it as one typically does, then it follows that our bodies are not wholly our own. One could say that here the notion of ownership breaks down, because our body both is and is not our own; but one could also say that the language is allowed that assertion, both those assertions, because they are not disjoint and if they are treated as such it is to elucidate some further meaning - perhaps the boundaries, structural or functional, along which one must carve up the notion of a 'body' in order for both those statement stems to have precise disjoint objects to attach themselves upon. But more fundamentally, the language of common parlance, I suppose you could call it English since to do otherwise makes assumptions I'm not comfortable making about human communication in general, does not have included within its common assumptions that what is the case cannot not be the case. That is logic, layered on top of syntax and semantics that run on a deeper game, which I tentatively contend concerns itself with nothing more than the behaviour of the other players, which I wish to be able to map to my utterances as closely as possible. And in this case, is it useful to ignore logic? Is it useful to treat a statement as not possessing of a truth value, even a contingent or potential one, and yet not nonsensical? Well, yes, if the other fellow is of a mind to take my meaning as I mean it. Once the notion of ownership is held constant, and the nature of the paradox is held to appear in its truest form elsewhere, the problem becomes quite apparent. It is that every definition is only ever a partial specification, and every statement about a phenomenon must create its being as much as it is deducing it. There is no definition tht gives you all the information. Every single word ever defined contains the potential for a paradox of similar calibre, and so does every further definition. They are around every corner; to call them an irretreivable breakdown of the language is to render the language useless. The inexactitude is part of the power; every statement must be taken as the stem of some greater truth. There are so many potential semantic operators through which one may interpret a given utterance, that to declare one meaningless is a far graver contention than would at first seem to be the case. They are all partial, contextual, contingent, incomplete, potentially nonsensical. Meaning is to do with use; or if one wishes to dispense with use (as some queasier of my acquaintances often desire to do, positing that excessive exercise of any concept renders it useless for conversation, with which I suppose I agree in principle), with consequence; most hygienically of all, with the interface between what is considered the game of communication and everything else. Let the pedantry begin at this point, once it has been acknowledged that there is nothing at all, or at least that there is nothing we know, that can be said, that is meaningless. Impatient arguers will now be forced to state their purposes, narrow their notion of meaning and declare which languages they mean to be speaking, and can then often carry on as before. It is entirely possible, but perhaps unlikely, that I am alone in indulging in a bit of undetected language-switching to win an argument; and therefore in allowing myself argument-moves that tie me in knots any time an assertion about the nature of a language is made. (What language am I critiquing in? That would be the useful question in such cases, and completes the bridge which before was an aborted walkway over a very threatening chasm.) I want to abase this, I want to state it simply without all the frill, but at the same time I enjoy the flouishes. I enjoy letting myself think in phrases and phrase-stems, in completing my arguments as I write them, in identifying the rhythms of my discourse before I have clarified their content. I'll trust that I made sense, for all the fuss and frippery around it, and leave it at that for now.