Determinism

Note to nature:

Huh?!!

If I’m compelled to ask you myself.

There was a couple of inside jokes in it. Nothing to be concerned about. I have been thrown into the world just like everyone else.

Yes, but this thread concerns itself more with grappling with who – God? – or what – nature? – threw us into it.

Then the part where once we’re thrown, we grapple further with pinning down whether, among other things, the exchanges on this thread themselves are only ever as they could have been. In the only possible reality given a wholly determined universe as I am either compelled or opt freely to speculate about it myself.

Inside jokes themselves would seem to be no exception.

Then the part where, compelled or not, we go all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb and grapple with all of this ontologically and teleologically.

It’s just that to the chagrin of those like peacegirl, I suggest this must go all the way back to the complete understanding of existence itself.

But this in particular discourages some because it begins to dawn on them just how utterly futile this task actually is. Like me, compelled or not, they pursue it only because they can’t “will”, will or peacegirl’s “will” themselves not to.

And then, I ask myself, how could that frame of mind not be rooted in dasein?

It’s rooted in each person’s heredity and environment.

See what he does? Here or there, he completely avoids addressing the points that I raised above – in or out of dreams – and just goes right on assuming that his own conclusions about victims and God and the universe are the only ones that all the others in his own masters class are obligated to preach in turn.

And, again, the sheer irony embedded in all of this!!

He loves to go on and on about “herd mentality”. And yet he demands that others must think exactly like he does about free will in his very own KT clique/claque. And if they don’t? Well, compelled or not, he sentences them to the dungeon. And, even there, he “disappears” entire threads.

So, how is KT not then itself just another herd?! They become the “one of us” masters and those who are “one of them” become the “desperate degenerate” slaves.

In other words, just another sad, pathetic rendition of the Ayn Randroid Syndrome.

And yet here I am having thought myself into believing that he was never able not to be other than what he could only ever be in the only possible reality.

In other words, as with polishyouth, he’s off the hook too!!!

Note to nature:

Compelled or not, explain yourself!!!

Of course I can partially derive it after some thought but it will have to be a play, of words or even a play within a play kind of like a rarely staged Tiny Alice, rather than a less structured wait, as for godot.

This partiality broadens an impartial characterization?
May be.

Yes, right up to the point where I think how differently my father and son are to me and wonder whether their environment may have had something to do with this and furthermore how relevant this is to my being. We have some unresolved entities here but before I think, I have to be - I also have to occasionally check that I am not falling into the traps that others unintentionally/intentionally lay down for me. Whether others are intentional or not is not the point here because within the next few seconds whatever I have just considered is gone to give way to that which comes next. What is important is what is now.

The question of god or nature…hmm…

What threw me into this?

Then, of course, there is the problem of our language…the biggest roadblock in this discussion…and…there are infinitely different ways to think about things…

Well, it sounds good to me. Right now, at least.

Language is important because clear communication is dependent on the words being used. That’s why defining terms is so important. The truth I’m sharing is an invariable law. There is no other way to think about the fact that 1+1=2.

Language is important. Definitions are useful especially when we consider how often we all fumble with the use of language.
Part of the problem is inherent to how our language is built - how it is structured - in its grammar, however, I will leave this for another discussion in some other thread or instance in my life.

I was referring to what some perceive as Heidegger’s problem with language.

This perception if used the right way(whatever this means) can intelligently show that we are not masters of language.
Of course, this whole idea can also illuminate much more than this(again if used the right way).

How does it concern itself with these two possibilities?

The problem I have with this comes down to first proving that there is anything outside the mind - if there is then how do I access that without some kind of faith?

I am genuinely interested. I personally have some kind of faith but no real way to prove anything without relying on this faith.

This or I am simply dreaming, at times sleeping inside this dream, and in turn, dreaming inside this sleep < hence my reference to Russian dolls.

Well, if a God/the God does in fact exist and He is as most of the faithful believe Him to be, both omniscient and omnipotent, it must be explained how, in turn, the faithful insist that this God can be reconciled with human autonomy.

On the other hand, if He does in fact exist at least that creates a transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to resolve the quandary once and for all.

With a No God nature, however, things would seem to become inherently more problematic. Nature “throws” us into existence, but only [to the best of my current knowledge] at the tail end of biological evolution on planet Earth. And how do we go about assessing nature’s capacity here to reconfigure mindless matter into mindful matter? Is there a point, a thing, a place in the universe we can go too as the faithful go to God? Where is the argument backed up with evidence that pins down how this happened? Instead, as with those like Satyr, many will just be obliged to shrug and insist, “Free will? It just happened, that’s why”.

Indeed, how is this possible without an existential leap to one or another conclusion that you or another “thought up” in your head/their head? Unless, of course, someone has in fact solved this vexing quandary going back to the pre-Socratics. And how are they any less than us embedded in that gap between what any particular individual thinks he or she knows about questions this big and the biggest question of them all: how do we explain the existence of existence itself.

The Russian doll , in the version of Tiny Alice is likened to the reductive phenomenology.

I try to connect that to the innermost reductive phenomenological smallness with the near limitlessly small doll, that is covarient to the most general concept-phenomenon, like the phenomenally thinking dog.

That is representative of the certainty we are all waiting for, like Godot is.

Now the other concept of the Einsteinian premise , vis. that combines an evolutionarily natural objective that needs a necessarily coincidental perception to realize it’s self, and You see the necessity of creation arriving from thought as an ideal , integral construction to exostence as a product of that developed consciousness.

That trajectory follows a sequential ontological parrallel, so consciousness can be said to be logically object oriented

That that object has been an anthropological course, shows that the alpha has an ideational, identificational origin toward the omega of a constantly rechanneled interconnective change.

It does not mean that objective can not differently configure and as such transform into smaller , and less identifiable aspects of reality.( existence)

The smaller and consequently denser this configuration, the less appearent freedom for it ‘s (existance) with the conclusion that the atomic and subatomic substrata become necessarily singular entities, motionless, timeless, and in It’ s self being

God is absolutely constrained to choose only that which is motionless, up a level it may very slightly move by vibration, but it is pure Parmenedis, a pure and absolute yet hidden thinking being.

To exist is to perceive,( and to be perceived); to think is to be.

The conscious essence in between are the essential and ceaseless movements, which forever move from the elemental to the most evolved, and back, eternally

This to me is utter certainty.

of 'God’s certainty of Being.

To give You an illustration of what is meant here,
Kerouac alludes to his experience when climbing Desolation Peak , he says, " You can’t fall of the mountain’. Nietzche elludes to this geeling, when he intimates that how would it be when in the next life and the next, You’l l experience the exact reality to a T?

I have also experienced th OS feeling, which agrees with the idea that free will is mostly a cognitive paradox.

Now the way I recreate this state of mind, may not be literally comprehensible, but some things in life, such as these, are ‘proven’ incomprehensible fof lack of credible proof.

There is a lot to be had through adding up every interaction you have ever had and thinking for five seconds what you may have missed without such interactions - but only worth five seconds of your time maybe a couple of times in each of our lives. Networks of people work stuff out at an astonishing rate for so many reasons that we have no time for now. This adds up to constant change with only some cycles appearing persistent. I can not begin such a conversation without traversing some sort of thought spectrum that contains inconsistencies and contradictions - no perceived progress would be made without removing such inconveniences and following a more narrow field/spectrum of thought. This narrow pathway could lead off in the wrong direction. Then again all roads may lead to Rome - but who knows?

I am going to be self-centered about this rather than humane. Comparing God to Nature is not helpful. If there is a god then this should help explain nature. We know more about nature than god so I would be inclined to start with nature and work my way out from there. This is of course following a scientific thinking bias. I follow this line of thought because a lot of god stories appear to be mostly that - stories. This does not mean there is not a god, just that the god people do not explain it well. I am not one for having any appreciation of fancy party tricks of logic, so this won’t do for me either - only useful logic for me and how do we know what logic we need to use to solve such a conundrum. Mathematics also appears to be able to invent things that are not really there either. So if there are things that I am missing it is because my mind and others are not sufficient to be able to piece everything necessary for an adequate explanation. Ego-centric people who would get some self-satisfaction by jumping in and ripping my words to pieces do not have the goods to prove anything either - I know this right this minute because that has been my experience up until now - they are full of more hot air than proof.

Thinking bias is problematic and a lot of it can be removed but still not enough right now to make any satisfactory progress - neither you nor I would be happy with today’s outcome even if bias is removed. Currently, there is not enough information or not enough acceptance for what information there is. It is easier to uncover flaws in thinking than it is to prove any of this God and Nature, or, God or Nature business. Perhaps our methods and languages have been flawed enough throughout our history to ever help us solve certain questions - not excluding mathematics. So close yet so far perhaps. We should not give up necessarily but we may have to accept certain things within our lifetimes. I am an expert with some things and otherwise comfort myself with childish notions for other things - then there is all the stuff in between. Right now, some things are still out of reach.

Leap of faith? Jumping out of the mind to look around seems like it will always be problematic to me. Plenty of things are going on according to my mind and I don’t dismiss that everything I have come to “believe” is just some weird dream. The dream may only be analogous to what is actually happening - perhaps I am in some simulation - in which case my silly brain is all too ready to contemplate the reality of whoever is running that simulation and it may not even be a whoever. All this before I even get to determinism - determinism itself is reliant on some conditions that may, or may not, have been met. Sorry if you read this and think, what on earth is he talking about - but this, according to my mind(if there is such a thing).

People of the immemorial past who talked as You do were living symbols of the sceptic tradition.

Every day, some have to get up from their slumbers and reorganize themself to find the faith and courage to live.

How does that work, are any of us capable to do that and invent ourselves without the tradition which may look at the positive series of events behind us of countless generations which may certainly have bogged down without some reason to carry on?

Is cosmic love not axiomatic with the primal love for our offspring, for whom we can not sacrafice them for the sake of our passions?

God anthropomorphised man , so he can realize what real passion is, and what it should be if men do not yet know it.

That is what God is, and not the old man upstairs trying to touch man’s finger with his own , as Leonardo so well represented.

Septic? Stay calm man.

This is on a different level to the everyday.

Meaning? What’s the difference and how can You reintegrate apart from slight mistakes of routing along the way?

In fact very slight discrepencies may add up and cause You to land in unfamiliar territory, and I don’t mean the kind of mistaken reading of the written word,

There are levels which are incimprihensible but they neverthe less exist, even if, yet. Unfamiliar

Something about familiarity breeding a loss A con-tempt of something which exists because of proximity and untested relational expectations , which have not been realized as of yet.

It’s interesting how contempt and contemplate are relational topically.

Just saying, not that it may mean any more then an optical illusion.

Here is how one person analized this ‘illusion’;

"Contemplation on Contempt



Or, rather, on its relation to detachment.

After a long while of observations and various experiences, I believe that the most common (and probably the easiest) way to become detached is to induce contempt in oneself.

Did your friend just say something you don’t agree with? — Remember their favorite music genre? Absolutely not your cup of tea, people with these trashy tastes don’t deserve your attention.

Did someone close just hurt you? — Gosh, remember that annoying habit they have, remember how they pick their nose or throw their socks around? How foul.

Do you just need a reason to reject someone because you don’t want to waste your time trying to understand them? — They’re so disorganized, and that is really beneath a civilized human being, such as yourself.

And everything is suddenly so easy on you.

Here, have a gold star, you just totally freed yourself from the shackles of attachment. Oftentimes, it’s as simple as that, especially if this thinking persists over a relatively long period of time.

Arguably, the process of detachment can go much faster if you have a bunch of friends convincing you something in the other person deserves contempt. Which… may or may not have to do with the famous bandwagon effect.

At first, I thought this simple insight deserved a full-scale article, but I quickly realized people have been writing about it in different words for a while now. I’m leaving it here as a bunch of notes.

I personally believe being contemptuous and unaware of it is quite dangerous and truly unkind, even though conscious contempt comes in handy against undesired emotional connections."

Just I thought i’d add it, in case of a re-view.

Skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy for good reason. Very useful when we concern ourselves with knowledge.

If someone comes at me with determinism as the solution to all of our problems they had better be ready to prove it.

Determinism on the other hand is a simple tool for different domains that does have its uses.

Philosophy does not just concern itself with how to live right - it concerns itself with pushing us forward to make the best decisions.

Knowledge is a big part of this.

Meno, perhaps your delusion is fuelled by misplaced optimism in your ability to judge me. You are making the assumption that I never take god into account.

To reiterate:

I have to remove some of the fluff that is less relevant to my position - not totally irrelevant.

I am not an expert on god - I make “real” things work without god - things that I can see and touch - I may be able to make things work better with god but the texts are mostly(emphasis) not useful.

Contempt? There is only so much time in a day Meno.

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today?