Determinism

Note to nature:

Settle this, okay?

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Okay, so given his understanding here what are we to make of this:

“Baruch Spinoza, was a Jewish philosopher who, at age 23, was put in cherem (similar to excommunication) by Jewish religious authorities for heresies such as his controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible (which would formed the foundations of modern biblical criticism) and his pantheistic views of the Divine. Prior to that, he had been attacked on the steps of the community synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting “Heretic!”, and later his books were added to the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.”
wiki

Are all of the human interactions that unfolded here historically in turn but “merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.”

Spinoza comes to the conclusions that he did…but only because he was never able not to conclude anything other than that? In the only possible reality? Is this in sync with his conclusions?

Again, the irony. A book entitled Ethics in a universe where the moral and political value judgments of mere mortals are but another manifestation of “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles.”

Or, sure, I am missing something here that makes human ethics somehow qualitatively different from human biology and physics and chemistry.

So, Spinoza went about living his life from day to day convinced that everything he thought, felt, said and did was destined, fated, rendered inevitable in the only possible reality?

Is that what he proposed?

And did he also recognize that his conclusions were really little more than one of nature’s “thought experiment” insofar as he was never able to establish his own assumptions as those that all rational men and women were obligated to embrace.

How, here, was he not in the same boat that all the rest of are in given “the gap” above?

Including this part:

You tell me.

Pantheistic I really not arguable, as it contains equivalance between God and Nature. That is why the problem is offensive and heretical to the clergy.

However the arguability and the demonsgratibility is based on formal neo-Platonism. su h as Augustine was won’t to confesd, but for so my 'mystical reason, was compelled.

It comes down to argument for it’s own sake, sheteas It’s Own Sake could illustrate. the two modes of Dasein. So close to 'design.phonetically, it’s strange.

Note to nature:

Compel me to actually understand this.

Try this:

researchgate.net/publicatio … o_Thinking

im trying to decode this as it relates:

"Up until recently, designers had a hard task ahead of them if they wanted to investigate Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and beyond. My struggle through Being and Time and Being and Nothingness back in 2008 was made considerably easier (if still time-consuming, and likely to risk bias from only one interpretation) thanks to finding the audio recordings of Stanford professor Hubert Dreyfus online. (Sadly the Merleau-Ponty ones have disappeared). Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is is a useful but dense review of embodied interaction and its relationship to phenomenology. There is also well received 2010 film on phenemonology made by former Dreyfus student Tao Rouspoli—though it is hard to get hold of so I haven’t as of yet seen it. The hunger for easy to understand information for designers about phenomenology means that I was surprised to find that a brief article I wrote on the topic for Johnny Holland (and in hindsight has some rather clunky grammar amongst other things) was referenced in two research textbooks!

So, I was ecstatic that there was a talk at the Interaction14 conference on phenomenology for designers. And even more impressed (if a little put out after my own struggles with the key texts) that the presentation on the topic was not only relatively easy to understand and relevant from a designer’s perspective, but also included discussions right up to current understandings of the field.

The latter point is something that as a design researcher I’m often concerned about. Design is generally very good at lifting concepts from other disciplines (Picasso and Jobs would be proud), but without an awareness of what discussion has happened la

Phenomenology, like its more literary friend semiotics, is one of those things that is generally known of than known about. Heck, even spelling it is hard. (My trick: ‘no men’ make phe-no-men-ology.)

In fact, two well known 90s films use it as a shorthand for the impenetreble intelligensia. In You’ve Got Mail, Tom Hank’s editor girlfriend mentions how Meg Ryan’s boyfriend (an original hipster, he was well ahead of the game in proclaiming the virtues of the typewriter) is the type of person who

“…you think he’s going to be so obscure and abstruse. He’s always talking about Heidegger and Foucault. And I have no idea what it’s about, really.”

And Ethan Hawke’s character in Reality Bites is reading Heidegger’s Being and Time. Go figure.

I actually own this exact edition of Being and Time. Which is incredibly weird. Does that make me cosmicly connected to Ethan Hawke?

The initial impenetrability of phenomenology is a concern, as its key concepts are of utmost important to today’s iDevice designers. As technology moves away from the screen and towards the body, we’re having to understand what it means to have a body to interact with it. While psychologists have been testing this from a cognitive perspective, philosophers have been thinking about this from the perspective of how we make sense of this lived-world for almost a century. (And said philosophers would probably recoil at the concept of “natural user interfaces” which became concernedly popular in the last few years.)

Up until recently, designers had a hard task ahead of them if they wanted to investigate Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and beyond. My struggle through Being and Time and Being and Nothingness back in 2008 was made considerably easier (if still time-consuming, and likely to risk bias from only one interpretation) thanks to finding the audio recordings of Stanford professor Hubert Dreyfus online. (Sadly the Merleau-Ponty ones have disappeared). Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is is a useful but dense review of embodied interaction and its relationship to phenomenology. There is also well received 2010 film on phenemonology made by former Dreyfus student Tao Rouspoli—though it is hard to get hold of so I haven’t as of yet seen it. The hunger for easy to understand information for designers about phenomenology means that I was surprised to find that a brief article I wrote on the topic for Johnny Holland (and in hindsight has some rather clunky grammar amongst other things) was referenced in two research textbooks!

So, I was ecstatic that there was a talk at the Interaction14 conference on phenomenology for designers. And even more impressed (if a little put out after my own struggles with the key texts) that the presentation on the topic was not only relatively easy to understand and relevant from a designer’s perspective, but also included discussions right up to current understandings of the field.

The latter point is something that as a design researcher I’m often concerned about. Design is generally very good at lifting concepts from other disciplines (Picasso and Jobs would be proud), but without an awareness of what discussion has happened later, we can be missing important developments. It would be like stealing tips from Mad Men without realising that advertising now often uses far more collaborative messages these days.

As it turned out, Thomas Wendt has expanded on this topic into his newly released book Design for Dasein.

The book tackles a number of angles of phenomenology and design, including the expected introduction to phenomenology and its relationship to design, but also how design thinking can be reframed using phenomenology, embodied interaction, designing and problem framing, and post-phenomenology and object studies.

Sadly since I have a Kindle version I can’t get a nice book picture.

The different chapters will appeal to different audiences: as a design researcher I found the chapters on post-phenomenology the most exciting as it tied together theories from people I hadn’t heard of or had but didn’t entirely have a grip on the theories yet.

I was personally really happy to learn about how modern technology is something that according to Don Ihde we “act with” and read into (such as a thermometer), something that can’t be derived from the work of the pre-digital original phenomenologists. A lot of researchers’ ears will probably pick up at the post-phenomenology concept of “multistability”:

“Multistability accounts for the difference between what designers want to occur and what actually occurs… [is because] technology takes shape not according to what it is but rather what it can do… [including] possibilities that were not yet considered”.

I suspect for the newcomer this chapter could be a bit overwhelming and need to be read lightly, or at least without worrying too much over the names.

The chapters more relating to phenomenology will be invaluable for those wanting a primer on the topics as they serve as a ‘greatest hits’ of key theorists (including those I’ve mentioned above) and an easy read and reminder for those that are more familiar with the topics.

Similarly, the design sections are often territory that design school grads should know about, though there are also some nice inclusions such the lesser-known-than-he-should-be Klaus Krippendorf (who I was excited to see talk at the same conference as Wendt yet was surprised that few in the audience had heard of).

While the book does require some attention to read—particularly for those not familiar with a lot of the names mentioned—it is to date the clearest and most widereaching account of philosophy in a way that can seem relevant to designers (even if that last point may vary from chapter to chapter depending on the person). For those that want to think about technology and designing in a meaningful way, this is a must own and potentially a jumping off point for further reading into all aspects of design and research."

Note to others:

You tell me.

You know, if, in the real deal free will world, your life depended on it.

Course when You note to others, You are excluding me from that set
( the others)

And how does anyone know if my life depends on it or not?

Nature to iambiguous:

I compel you not to push him too far. After all, the last thing you need here is another “condition”.

God to Iambigious :

Conditions are effects of conditionals of earthly approximated values , usually generated by appearent contradictions.

Although Nature and God are not synanomous, they are not Necessarily antogonistic.

One can equally argue for God"s Existance or it’s nullity, even it’s contradiction.

Even contradictory powers can be viewed on a higher level as merely circular within variable degrees. They may amount to less then 90 degrees of separation.

The ultra large sphere. of cosmic image of that less then 90 degrees , there separation on any cyclically formed gap may amount to anywhere between zero plusany increment to minus ziillionths of degrees.

Nature may mirror god or disperse it, without destroying it, and vicars versa.
Nature is mirrored by God, it may also be called Cosmic Counsciousness.
Without it, there is no life . It is Atman.

Don’t worry, he is excluded from this set too. But not completely for either of you.

:wink:

This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!

Is your purpose to get others to read the book and discuss only what is in the book? Not allowing others to bring their own thoughts from all their experience in their existence…when presenting their opposition or agreement to the contents of the book…Or otherwise? The first conversation would probably still reflect the current mood in the current conversation as with the second conversation(of otherwise).

For anyone to prove or disprove scientifically what is in the book they can not just use the contents of the book.

The OP:

Picking your purpose out of this is actually kind of difficult.

iambiguous to nature:

A “condition” it is then.

Note to nature:

Just to let you know, I’m flcking the switch “here and now” to the real deal free will world.

Pick one:

1] the thread was never able not to have gone off the rails because the rails themselves are but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality

2] peacegirl “created” both the thread and the rail in such a way that, in combining free will and no free will, it remains a mind-boggling “intellectual contraption” that [up to now] makes sense only to her

In other words, not unlike my own. Only I acknowledge right from the start that given “the gap” above, no one seems able to actually grasp the whole truth here.

It’s just that with nature, in configuring lifeless matter into the biological evolution of the stuff here on planet Earth, the result was minds needing merely to believe that something is true in order to make it true.

At the same time let’s give Peace girl and her father a huge amount of credit for wanting to introduce a unique way of dealing with the evil which exists in the world.I

It would be unfair to avoid that complement. Any which way that tends to travel toward the light. rather then away from it is commendable.

Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that. And you don’t have to download.

declineandfallofallevil.com/ … APTERS.pdf

Of course simpler still [perhaps] is in just assuming that, if you do “read” it, it was only because you were never able to not read it.

More comforting still [perhaps] is in assuming that, however you react to it, it was the only way that you were ever able to react to it.

Thus [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds: we’re all off the hook!!

Note to nature:

Just to let you know, I’m flcking the switch “here and now” to the real deal free will world.

Pick one:

1] the thread was never able not to have gone off the rails because the rails themselves are but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality

2] peacegirl “created” both the thread and the rail in such a way that, in combining free will and no free will, it remains a mind-boggling “intellectual contraption” that [up to now] makes sense only to her

Peacegirl: It is not an intellectual contraption to correctly define determinism which has heretofore confused the entire issue and prevented a reconciliation between the inability to do otherwise and making choices of one’s own accord.

Iambiguous: In other words, not unlike my own. Only I acknowledge right from the start that given “the gap” above, no one seems able to actually grasp the whole truth here.

Peacegirl: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.

Iambiguous: It’s just that with nature, in configuring lifeless matter into the biological evolution of the stuff here on planet Earth, the result was minds needing merely to believe that something is true in order to make it true.

Peacegirl: You keep accusing me of this unfairly. This has nothing to do with “merely believing something is true in order to make it true.” Unfortunately not one person has actually desired to read these chapters. I’m surprised because most books are studied thoroughly before any conclusions (one way or the other) can be made. This tells me more about the audience than the author.

This is not about being off the hook. You never have to read the book if you don’t want to. This is not about you Iambiguous. This is about knowledge that can change our world for the better. You may influence people to lose interest by your faulty analysis (of knowledge you know nothing about) if they count on you for your opinion. But if this discovery is legitimate (which it is), nothing will stop it from eventually being brought to light. When this will occur is anyone’s guess.

What you and iambiguous don’t understand is that consent is the self. Even in the dream world.

You have displeasures.

So. The goal of existence is to eradicate displeasures.

To be more precise:

We all live our desired experiences at nobodies expense.

Our desires and hurting them are proof of our self and freedom.

Since everyone is having their consent violated in one form or another, it’s easy to conclude that existence is one massive consent violation for all beings.

The task set before us is to fix that problem forever.

Let’s understand something though…

This life we’re all currently living is meaningless.

Take no pride in it:

You and iambiguous think you have the perfect plan to world peace through determinism.

The very act of abstracting the concept ‘determinism’, means that there’s something greater going on.

What are you going to do with your freedom?

It better be really good, otherwise you’ll lose your reputation.