here’s something fun to do that might be derridaian in spirit… kinda like reverse differance. what we can demonstrate is that trains-of-thought carry their own internal aporia-avoidance mechanisms which can be cancelled if the writer is forced to reconfigure any particular instance of text without the support of the entire body of writing. when writer becomes reader, he exits the train-of-thought and might arrive at a particular point in the text at which he would go an entirely different direction. in other words, if the writer doesn’t remember what he was thinking before he arrived at point y, he can’t be sure he’ll end up at the same point z if he is forced to begin at point y without having point x to refer to. let’s see if it works.
these excerpts are from the posted link. complete the following sentences without referring back to the text:
A relationship (in collective-images represented by rulers and serfs) that seems inevitable, since the strong and the weak forces are________.
considering the legions of technologists who, under the guidance of science, invent myriads of apparatuses and instruments to optimise its walls, which are guarded by________.
Power implies capability – and the performance of existence requires a capability that is associated with pride, which in turn connotes nobility manifesting in dignity and generosity – characteristics that have enabled Homo to create splendorous cultures and at the same time to appreciate the capabilities of his fellow-creatures.
As a matter of fact, many cultures praised them – as well as wind, water, volcanoes, trees, planets and other aspects of existence – in temples, myths and works of art, as manifestations of Consciousness.
No way, dude. Atari didn’t come out with Pole Position until 1982, so there’s no way Osiris could have had it… unless he used the stargate to travel into the future… but stargate didn’t come out until 1994, so he couldn’t have used it, either.
How can that be seen as free will? Rain has no other recourse but to roll down the mountainslope or at any rate to go down it. It is observing the laws of nature.
Now real free will would be if it could go rolling up the mountainslope, going against the grain so to speak.
Is free will or any will really being exercised by your definition?
Now I know I may be wrong in this but somehow I see it differently.
Am I making too big a thing of what encompasses “free will”?
Going into combat against the elements is a question kind of like, “can manmade arts surpass the artistry of nature?” There are things that are naturally occurring in accordance with the laws of nature, but if we come into contact with God (who is just part of nature), we may receive ideas that go beyond the initial beauty of nature all around us in a harmonious anchor, grounding its treasures into our forefront. There are natural cycles, but there’s also whirling vortices that we can tame.