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.
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.
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.
I have wanted to help you two to three times peacegirl - help you get what you want - help you with your purpose.
How do you help someone that only wants to help?
Why any of this is difficult is actually what I am interested in. I have read the preface. Is it honestly this simple?
I hope you don’t mind me commenting on the following:
I gave the author some time. I opened a page. I have not actually concluded anything because right now my interest is not just with the book.
You see, I am trying to help you see why not one person actually has the desire you are pointing to. People are still reading/studying books and drawing their own conclusions.
The OP already says something about the audience as you see them but why not add something else about the target audience.
Encode: I gave the author some time. I opened a page. I have not actually concluded anything because right now my interest is not just with the book.
Peacegirl: That’s fine, but you’re right. You cannot conclude anything.
Encode: You see, I am trying to help you see why not one person actually has the desire you are pointing to. People are still reading/studying books and drawing their own conclusions.
Peacegirl: That’s fine too. I’m not depending on anyone.
Encode: The OP already says something about the audience as you see them but why not add something else about the target audience.
Peacegirl: There is no specific target audience: only people who may be interested in a discovery that can impact the way we live in a beneficial way.
Not many definitions that are not part of an intellectual contraption in turn though, right? Here though my interest is still in the distinction you make between 1] someone who “defines” determinism given but the psychological illusion of freely defining it 2] someone who does in fact opt to define it of their own volition given an ontological understanding of how the human brain came to acquire this capacity given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth and 3] your own free will/no free will frame of mind that somehow combines both given the manner in which [in my view here and now] nature has compelled you to understand, among other things, “greater satisfaction”.
And, again, we are back to the author being able or not able to demonstrate the “for all practical purposes” workings of free will and evil in the manner in which a scientist can demonstrate the workings of a light bulb.
First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?
Besides, you still don’t get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still…
But still what? Damned if I know.
It’s just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given “the gap” above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.
Look, as I’ve pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I’ve been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.
Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you’ve got the TOE to prove it!
Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.
Just like I used to be.
Twice.
Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.
Then back to “the gap” above.
From quora:
[b]“This is a quote by Arthur Schopenhauer “A man can do what he will, but not will as he will” . What is the meaning of this quotation?”
Terry Li
"Schopenhauer is commenting on the illusory nature of free will.
As human beings capable of rational thought and self-reflection, we imagine ourselves to have “free will,” which makes us distinct from inanimate objects and animals. We believe we are masters of our own destinies, because we can choose to conform our actions to our desires (we can “do what we want”).
However, if our choices are determined by our desires, then the freedom of our choices really depends on whether our desires are “free” in the first place, doesn’t it? If we follow the origin of our desires to its base level, we inevitably end up at a source of action that is external to our conscious self, i.e. something we do not choose. For example, I choose to eat this sandwich because I’m hungry. But why am I hungry? Because a lack of nutrients in my body has sent a chemical signal to my brain, triggering it to want to eat. Is my choice to eat this sandwich a free one, if it is ultimately caused by biochemical events outside of my control?
A similar analysis could be applied to any chain of action and desire a person could have. Man is not truly free because he is slave to desires he has no control over; he cannot will what he wills, and thus is no more special or different from any other object in the universe."[/b]
On the other hand, going back to “the gap” above that peacegirl simply shrugs off as irrelevant to the author’s conclusions regarding free will and evil, what scientist or philosopher has finally pinned down the explanation that all rational men are obligated to accept as the whole truth here?
I’m not argung that there isn’t one, only that if this argument does exist, it hasn’t come to my own attention. On the other hand, there are any number of members here at ILP alone who will insist that their own TOE nails it. They can’t all be right, of course, but I suspect that to a man or woman they will insist that they are.
And that’s just regarding more or less intelligent life on this planet!
Or:
Peacegirl can want to post this but she cannot want to want to post it.
Then, as someone was compelled to point out, it’s turtles all the way down.
Iambiguous: First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?
Peacegirl: There is no comparison trying to get a full understanding just by these posts. We are talking about a major discovery and it’s too hard for you to read three chapters?
Iambiguous: Besides, you still don’t get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still…
But still what? Damned if I know.
It’s just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given “the gap” above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.
Look, as I’ve pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I’ve been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.
Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you’ve got the TOE to prove it!
Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.
Just like I used to be.
Twice.
Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.
Then back to “the gap” above.
Peacegirl: This is not about the “right” thing to do; it is only what gives you greater satisfaction doing. To repeat: There is nothing in this book that dictates what is right or wrong to do. If anyone is interested here are the chapters again.
Fair enough. I guess I will just go back to what I was doing before I visited your thread then…and be none the wiser.
