--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > All our experience is subjective, even that of the outside > > objective world about which we construe facts. > > What appear to us to be "facts." > > > I know of no law that says we have to either keep the > > experiences we have private or blab them to the public. > > It happens one way or the other. If some did not blab > > out their experience, we would not have people teaching > > or attempting to teach about enlightenment, we would not > > have skyscrapers, medicine, trains, or Barry's favorite > > beer. > > Of the achievements listed, I must admit to thinking > that the monks who brewed my favorite beer may be > the most praiseworthy in transforming their inner > subjective experience into objective reality. :-) > > > Some have blabbed and made something of the outer world, > > some have blabbed and have not. Some have blabbed and made > > a ruin of the world about them. And some don't say what > > is going on with them. Most on this forum say at least > > something about what is going on with them. This seems > > to be a factor in why people continue to post on this > > platform. > > > > A selfish act seems to imply will. > > The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of > enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will. > > > If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief > > true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no > > sense. And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise > > it, having a subjective experience one did not will to > > describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not > > be a selfish act. > > Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get > off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some > of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-) > > > Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems > > to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. > > He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and > > his flip flops are an expression of that choice. > > If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non- > freewillers think is running things is not really as > consistent as they think he/she/it is. Try to imagine > the consternation of those who don't much like the > things I write but philosophically believe that God > is really writing it all. They must think that God is > a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-)
Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony. I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and "free willish" are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the decision. God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most "no free willers" here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us.. Given your posts, which I enjoy even when I disagree and about which I think Xeno got it just perfectly right, this might mean you have a brain that enjoys trying on a variety of outlooks, enjoys humor and variety, gets a kick out of provoking sometimes, is creative, writes well. But, since it sure feels like you are doing it, take credit for it for as long as you can:-) > > > I do not always agree with what he says, but I have no > > evidence he even agrees with what he says. > > Well said. That's it exactly. > > > He just says it, and in his writing characterises the > > ideas a certain way, with a certain slant, like the way > > a journalist writes. It is that characterisation that > > get people riled up here. It is a deliberate and effective > > technique. > > Bingo. > > > If I do not agree with him, that does not mean what I > > think is true either. > > Bingo again. In a universe without free will, some can > claim that overreacting to the things I write is not their > doing. They are prisoners to their karma or to the laws > of nature or to the will of God in this regard, and have > no choice *but* to overreact. Those on the forum who > have free will are able to read my stuff, take it or leave it, > and move on without overreacting. They are free to read > the things I write without acting out the following famous > scenario. I think that ability alone is grounds for believing > in free will. :-) > > [0] >
