--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The same applies to the laws of nature. Sometimes > > > we observe apparently random, chaotic behavior, but > > > I don't think many scientists believe this is because > > > the laws of nature are "volitional," rather that there > > > is an underlying order that we simply haven't been > > > able to figure out yet. > > > > > And adding to the thought perhaps, not contradicting it, seeing > > apparently random, chaotic behavior, but not believing that this is > > because the laws of nature are "volitional," does not imply > > determnism either (in the sense that there is a set timeline and set > > events in the universe that are simply unfolding -- often according > to > > some divine plan). > > > > IMO, there is a grand space between volition and determinism. A > space > > of great freedom where molecules, cells, and more interestingly > minds > > and intellects all act within the wide bounds of their "natures" -- > > in often complex, and "undetermined" ways. But I suggest that as a > > carbon-based molecule can interact with itself and other molecules > in > > a spectacularly vast set of ways, it is not volitional. It acts > > according to its nature. > > > > And, controverally, I suggest the human mind, intellect, memory etc, > > in modern and or "vedic" sense of manas, buddhi and chit, all act > > within thier domains, interacting with themselves, senses, each > other > > adn the world, in a vast myriad of ways, but according to their > > natures. They are not volitional -- but may appear to be so when the > > complexity of their meachanisms and "output" become extensive. Thus > > the ego may falsely claim volition, but that is a mirage -- or lack > of > > deep understanding of its mechanics and that of its neighbors (mind, > > intellect, etc). > > > > And jyotish is not deterministic. It is a map of effects from past > > causes. Such effects may shape the nature of the mind (the grahas > > "grab you"), intellect and cause certain memories and desires to > ripen > > in "chit". But then, each component acts and reacts, repeatedly, > > according to its nature in a fractal variety of new ways. Nothing, > no > > outcomes are "determined". But the input factors can be influenced > and > > shaped (by grahas) -- as well as many other factors (sleep, food, > > herbs, etc.) > > This is all well put. We need a new term for what is > neither volitional nor laid out in advance. Free will/ > determinism is a false dichotomy.
Yes. The dichotomy creates a strawman. Some use that strawman in FFL discussions in past. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
