Consider:
Either our internal natures, necessarily in sync with external causes in a determined universe, precipatated/compelled my post and your reaction to it above, or we had some measure of autonomy enabling us to sustain a different exchange. Had, for example, we been able to freely choose to think about things longer.
That’s why many choose to convey it as “choices” here instead of [b]choices[/b]
Yet peacegirl then seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word “fated” instead. Yet if fated is defined as “to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way,” why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do “choose” to use it.
The reason not to use fated is because it tends to indicate that you are not part of the causes, that the causes are all external. It is more likely to cause passivity.
I am part of the exchange only in the sense that I am compelled by the laws of matter to “choose” my words here. A necessary bit part in a necessary overall reality.
For nature, where do the external causes stop and our internal natures begin? How is “I” – in a manner we do not yet understand – not but one of nature’s equivalent of dominoes?
She agrees with all of the points that I make but she still “chooses” to back away from our exchange. And this makes sense to me only to the extent that she seems able to convince herself that I am in fact to blame for not agreeing with her. Really to blame because I should have “chosen” to agree with her.
That’s the only possible interpretation?
Can’t one be compelled by unsuccessfuly getting something across, or by it seeming over and over that the other person is not reading carefully - even if they cannot help but do that.
It seems to me you have a go to interpretation. You can’t help that. But now when it is pointed out that there might be other possibilities, perhaps you will not have that same reaction, since information might change your mind. we’ll see.
But: how are our interpretations – any and all interpretations – not in turn inherently/necessarily in sync with the inherent/necessary unfolding of nature’s laws?
This isn’t answering my question. You had an interpretation. Is that the only possible interpretation?
And around and around we go. I am compelled to answer as I do above. You are compelled to point out that my answer evades your question. My point is that there might have been a hundred different interpretations, but I interpreted it as I did because I was never able to interpret it in any other way. I “chose” an interpretion. And my brain matter is able to compel me to think that perhaps I chose this interpretation of my own free will.
Then it’s back this: did I in fact [b]chose[/b] to instead? Yes? No? Maybe?
So, am I compelled to ask this of others here? Are they compelled to answer only as they must?
Same with success and failure. Same with “changing my mind”. I will or I won’t. But, in a determined universe, it won’t be because I freely thought things over again and then freely chose to change my mind.
Agreed. Peacegirl agrees with this.
Which then takes us back to that crucial “choice” again. Understanding it as she is compelled to versus understanding it the way I am compelled to. Nothing is any less compelled but at least we aren’t literally dominoes.
I would think you can imagine a woman, say, who has had bad experiences with men, interpreting all advances in one way. If she had had a real trauma, or come from a very harsh subculture. She could over time learn that not all men will treat her the way she has been treated.
What does this have to do with her experiences [and her reactions to them] being anything other than what they were always going to be? As though her “learning” is not in just another determined “choice”.
It means that at some point perhaps you will get peacegirls point and despite the causes that previously made you not agree, then agree. One can change due to new causes. This can happen.
If I do get it why won’t it be entirely embedded in nature’s way? What part of nature’s causes and nature’s effects do “I” have any capacity to impact other than in “choosing” what I am compelled to? How are her posts any less necessary causes here?
I still construe blame in her arguments. Not all that far removed – semantically – from the sort of blame I get from those who insist I should share their own understanding of God, religion, morality, political values, assessment of nature etc.
Well, either you will see if there are other possible interpretations or you will hold on to this single one you seem to think is possible. I don’t know which will come to pass.
But “I” don’t/can’t/won’t freely pursue the other possible interpretations. What will pass will pass. Period. It could not ever have not passed.
At least insofar as [here and now] I understand the meaning of [and the existential implications of] a wholly determined universe.