.
I think it your use of self-prescribed metaphors, that lead to your incoherent replies.
You said:
To what expense are you referring? Is it something the innocent take on (āeatā) willingly or unwillingly? From my perspective it has to be willingly.
.
Well done on achieving some clarity.
_
Just like with your ILP buddy, I have no intention to debate you eitherā¦
Thatās what I thought you said.
Yeah and he already does. God is love, ok sure, then he makes countless humans and other animals suffer inconceivable pain torture and death, with no logic or redemption at the end. Sure, ok. I guess you could call that āloveā, if either 1) God is into Sadomasochism or 2) You take your own nice happy loving personal experiences for āthe worldā and ignore all the insane suffering pain rape torture starvation murder and death that is occurring every second of every day on this planet.
God is, at best, indifferent. OR he might have some āhigher planā we cannot know. Iāve already outlined some possibilities here. But the thing is, we cannot knowā¦ hence verification problem.
And how we emotionally and rationally deal with this problem, says a lot more about us than it does about any God that may be out there.
The opportunity to treat the other as self is all heās got, man.
As the great Dr. Seuss passed down to us in āGreen Eggs and Hamāā¦ Donāt knock it ātil you try it.
I think people tend to both start at pragmatism, and end there in cases that lie outside the bounds of their knowlege or experience. In the absence of truth, people want answers that fascilitate their place on the world. Some choose the less intuitive path, and actually believe their place in the world involves exposing or perpetuating conspiracy theories.
In short, I think you are correct that our responses to such questions are often emotive. However, I donāt think what/how they feel about an issue is necessarily a matter of whim, so much as it is pragmatism with regard to their private interests.
I donāt think statistictech, that the matter is a matter of choice, (necessarily), sometimes the whole gamut of existence and resistance built up by familiesā resembling accession into living in a certain time and place, may be pushed into a situation where they have to accept a made deal , an offer they simply canāt refuse, not being in a position to stop the machine that must produce simulations to compensate for the lost originals.
The will has been subjected to so many twists and turns, that reformed under the guise of vanity, that undo power has undermined itās accession rather then turned into gradual successively adaptable forms that anyone can form an opinion regarding his āfreedomā to chose. Rather, they will power up model, a facsimile that can ignite their imaginations. But some unafraid thus unconcerned with the jump that can clear a singular hindrance under standing, will let things work through their own , perhaps untimely manner.
Untimely and ultimately indifferent, but that is what we must contend with. People are desperate for answers because we are driven primarily by fear and continually looking for refuge. When the refuge is threatened, we tend to either hunker down and insist it will hold, or abandon it for another. Either way, the concern seems pragmatic to me.
Your observation about how the will has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and warped to fit various ends is valid. Even to the extent that itās difficult to know if we are even talking about the same thing.
As a wise man (Faust) once taught me, abstractions remain abstractions regardless of how real the objects/forces invoved may be. I cannot point to the will, but I can acknowldge and refer to it in thought or action. The will is a relation.