--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) > speak for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal > view of the universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't > really think very much of them [the no-free-will adherents]').
There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them- selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but if it did, and it created a situation such as the one that the non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much respect for them. They're basically nothing more than actors acting out a script, with no ability to improvise or become co-creators of the play. > Someone pass the crown! I certainly do not know enough to > speak for all of existence. I don't "know" *anything*. I merely speculate, for the fun of it. To me, there is no fun in the idea of the universe as automaton. > The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. I'll explain lower where I think this idea came from. > A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is > found in the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart > of all beings, Arjuna, causes these beings to move, (as if) > being placed on a machine, by virtue of maya.' To me, this vision sounds icky. To others, who would prefer to believe that they have no responsibility for their actions (because "they" don't perform them...someone or something else does), it probably sounds ideal. > In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. Exactly. IMO the whole idea of of "no free will" is an attempt by God-ists to impose the idea of "the will of God" onto a universe that has never had need of a God. > You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, > but I think you may not always be thinking through all your > arguments. I particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured > needs. Enlightenment is a manufactured need. Most people in > this world do not give a thought to the idea because they > either do not know the term, or just don't care. If you "get" this, then you're in good position to under- stand my feeling about where the idea of "there is no free will" comes from. I believe it is a similarly manufactured idea. My guess is that at least 95% of the people on the planet who believe that there is no free will do so because of SOMETHING THEY WERE TOLD. By the spiritual teacher, scrip- tures, or religions they grew up with or adopted later. Wanting to believe that these scriptures or teachings are true, they see the world around them in terms of confirm- ation bias and try to make it agree with what has been told to them. Voila. They were told that there is no free will, and start to look for "signs" that "prove" that there is no free will. With Hindus and wannabee Hindus like TMers, they want to believe in "no free will" because they have been told that that's what the world looks like from the point of view of the manufactured need they've been sold, enlightenment. So they "weight" the idea of "no free will," ranking it "higher" in likelihood because they've been told that it is associated with enlightenment. A very small percentage of people who believe that there is no free will do so on the basis of their subjective experience of a particular brain fart that they have *also* been told by their spiritual teachers, scriptures, and religions is associated with enlightenment, or "higher" states of consciousness. I'm talking about "witnessing," or the "not the doer" sensation. I am NOT saying that this subjective experience does not exist. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. What I'm saying is that although the experience exists, it does not on its own MEAN anything. The "meaning" people associate with witnessing and "not the doer" was, again, TOLD TO THEM. They were *told* that this state is associated with enlightenment, and thus is a "higher" state. I don't buy this. I think that it's Just Another State Of Attention, no "higher" or "better" than any other. It's just another passing POV or brain fart. Thus I have no need to try to imagine that the world "always" looks like this. It doesn't. That's just how the nature of action appears from one tiny isolated state of attention. My feeling is that this "witnessing" state is NOT associated with anything "higher" or "enlightened," it's Just Another State Of Attention. Thus I have no need to build any world views upon it, even though I have experienced it. I have ALSO experienced the subjective feeling of having free will. I have experienced the latter far more often. I'm gonna "go with the numbers" and assume that the POV I have experienced the most often is possibly the most accurate. :-) Besides, I like the idea of being a co-creator of the universe and not just an actor in someone/something else's screenplay. I've seen far too many bad movies to trust in a screenwriter; I want to direct. :-)
