> Really? That seems to stand as evidence of MY argument. Where does > your presumed 'free will' go when you do something you wished you > hadn't?
Heh wrong end of the stick I'm afraid old bean. I said that we all do things that we do not wish to do. Not that we have all done things that we wished we had not. > Or you are discovering that different conditions compel different > reactions. That's hardly surprising and doesn't support 'choice' in > any way. Sorry sir that also is not what I mean. When you inveriably reply to this post you will no doubt careful choose the words you wish to make. Each and every word you use you will think about prior to typeing it, this is you choosing. What compels you say, perhaps 'It is not so' rather than 'No, things are not like that'? Both mean the same, so where is the compusion? > > I have often used the sandwhich experiment to show free will, and I > > still stick by that principle. Make two sandwhiches, one you love one > > you do not like, and then choose to eat one, or both or none. Choice > > is there and yes I suppose an agrument for determinism could be > > posited, I would say that unless one can show each and every action > > that leads to a specific outcome then such an argument is based on > > faith rather than empircal knowledge. > > False premiss! The crux comes at the point of action. You can > either perform "A" or "B", you cannot perform "A or B" (and the "A and > B" choice is really either "A then B" or "B then A"). There can only > ever be one event at any given time and place. Your 'hypothetical' > sandwiches will be eaten in one of three ways but at no time, can you > erase one action and replace it with another. All you do is part of > the continuous series of actions/reactions that drive the universe > forward. Ahh Pat I'm afraid my grasp on that sort of logic is pretty bad, you may have to find another way to explain it, that loks too much like maths to me, and my brain does funny things when ever I see that kind or formula written. Which is anothe way of saying that I have yet to discover a coping mechinism in order for my eyes to see and my brain to translate exaclty what that means. I wil say this though, and I have probably got your meaning entirly wrong but here goes. Choice A, eat the bacon sandwhich, choice B eat the banana sandwhich. What of choice C eat both, or D eat none, or choices E and F which are about the order of eating both of them? > > If this nature cannot be said to be fixed, then perhaps as I suspect > > it is in a state of flux and we can make very real changes to it as > > Alaster Crowley would have it, in accordance with our will. > > Ahh, but Crowley was insistent that one could not 'Do what thou wilt' > until one had achieved knowledge and conversation with one's Holy > Guardian Angel, which is a way of saying that one needs to determine > what one's TRUE WILL (we've been calling it one's 'nature') is. And, > of course, that dictum came with the caveat that "Love is the Law, > Love under Will." That is, Love needs to be the basis (thus the > 'under') for one's true will. Yes indeed he did say that, but that has no relation that I can see to my point. Going back to the bullying and in this context. I saw that my bullying was unethical, I choose in accordance with my will to not be a bully, I found ways to live as a non bully. Have I then changed my nature in accordance with my will? Damn you man scratch that paragraph, I have just seen that it does indeed back up what you say, and was in fact relevant. I'll leave it in for sake of transparencey and intelectual honesty though. > > >Not necessarily. There could be a gun to your head each time and > > > you are buggering, as it were, for your life and it has nothing to do > > > with one's sexuality. > > > Yet if there was not? > > You could have some other reason. We could go on endlessly with > hypotheticals. Are there any real examples we could discuss? Well thats the point Pat, there could be many reasons, and I say unless we can nail every single one of them down then we can't claim for sure that it is due to determinism rather than choice, to do so is claim based upon faith. > > > Unless there's a gun to your head or some other stimulus that > > > temporarily overrides your sexuality nature by the drive to survive > > > (or protect loved ones, etc.). We don't read the lines until they've > > > been drawn. > > > So we can therefore make temporary changes to our nature? > > No, you discover that another aspect of your nature kicks-in and > overrides the other part. No change but, perhaps, a new, internal > revelation OF one's nature. Yet you used the phrase 'temporarily overrides your sexuality nature' you did not mean this then? You meant instead undiscoverd part of your nature? > > This is interesting Pat although does it not suggest that once this > > knowledge is gained then stagnation is bound to occour, if as you say > > that ones perception of oneself leads to certian actions, then certian > > knowledge of this kind must lead to certian actions being performed. > > > Umm I'm not sure I like where this philosophy may lead. > > Nope. But this is what spiritual maturity is all about. There WILL > BE growing pains. But to ignore facts simply because we don't like > them is worse than ignorance. Sorry Pat you missunderstood my point there. In essance this philosophy denies choice, then there really is no morality, we are not culpable for any of our actions. This is not a denial of truth, it is a dislike for the inevitiblity of where such a philosophy leads. > > > We can pit those results against our set of > > > 'preferred/desired outcomes' and formulate the causes for what action > > > we will take. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to discover > > > one's true nature if one had no memory of previous actions. > > > Now that is just confussing, bearing in mind all that you have said > > prior. It seems to suggest that action does indeed define nature? > > Well, there's an aspect of that, in that your parents' actions led to > your nature coming into existence. Actions that they had no choice in performing? > > > Then note > > > that there are some people who lose memory and are in just that kind > > > of situation. One thing's for sure, though, no one ELSE is required > > > when determining one's own true nature, as it represents our > > > relationship to God/the One and not our more tenuous relationships > > > with 'others'. > > > Heh I almost agreed with that, until I rememberd Iknokar. God is > > prevalant throughout the creation, dualism is an illusion there is no > > seperate you and I, only the One. Yet it is indeed a handy illusion > > to have huh. > > There are uses for it, yes, but one should understand that God is > One without unity. That is, unity implies a uniting of things into > one, but this One is completely one and is not a unity. How that One > manifests itself completely upto IT. We are just as illusory as is > dualism. Thus Jesus' line of "I and the Father are one." He > understood the relationship and many of his sayings make FAR more > sense given a space-time continuum and its philosophical implications. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
