> > 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. > > Simple time difference. if we are doing something we don't wish to > do, once we have done it, we have done something we wished we hadn't. > The time-frame is relative and doesn't alter the concept of whether > there was a choice involved. If you do that (things you don't wish to > do) a lot, you may wonder why. The exact details would take volumes > to explain but the simple truth is, you had no choice.
Ahh again I'm going to have to disgaree there. An example I think: Work the majority of us do not really wish to do it, but in order to buy the things we need to live , food ect.. we must work. I worked yesterday, I have no feeling of wishing I had not. I could of course choose not to work, and then I must face the consequences of that choice, but to say that I have no choice in the matter is not correct. I choose to work, yes I choose it because in order to live and provide for my family I must, but really the only thing that ensures I continue to work is myself, my own priorites my childrens needs, I could always neglect these, I could choose to be selfish. > > 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? > > The compulsion might derive on whether I feel one might be less (or > more) offensive to the reader. And that, in turn, requires reflection > and loads of presumptions that would be impossible to trace out. So then what you belive here is not on the basis of evideance but faith. On offense, again why would the choice or your wish not to offend the reader have any bearing on the matter? It is your choice to not cause offence presumably, you could choose it's opposite could you not? > > 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? > > The gist is you can only perform 1 of your choices not some > combination and there is no going back to redo and overwrite history. > There are no loopbacks in the premiss, so there is no chance of any of > them upsetting the arrow of time through space. Okay well I guess that must be taken as is, always. I mean I can not comprehend of any choice, which lets face it simply means do this or do that, that lets you do both. I still don't get the relevance of it in this context though Pat? > > > > >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. > > And to waste time nailing them all down is just that, a waste of > time. Let me save you that time...belive what I'm saying. ;-) Heh a copout if ever I saw one sir! > > > > > 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? > > Yes. However, it may appear to the individual (with little > reflection) that it was a temporary override, thus allowable. We > justify all our acts internally based on what data we have at the > time. New data, later, may make us wish we'd had THAT data before. > But, in those cases, acceptance is the key. In essance then what you are saying here, specificaly about sexual preferance but the logic can of course extend elsewhere, is that ones 'nature' cannot be said to be known at all as you may discover other parts of it latter? Which to my mind brings into doubt the whole concept of Self awarness. Again Pat, I do not like where this may lead. I was pondering while I was at lunch, the concept of religion. Specificly the dogmatic axioms of religoin, more specificly the budhist tenant that life is suffering. It seems that a logical argument can be made to show the validity of this tenant, yet it also occours to me that an equaly logical argument can be made to show that it is not valid at all. Ultimatly then it must reside in the mind of the individual exactly which she believes. All the time realising that she may be objectivly incorrect, and a new understanding may occour anytime, yet what guidence for us is there to show that this new understanding is correct, or that the belife that you have disgarded is not incorrect? No Pat rather than aiding mankind it hinders him and places obsticles of doubt every way he turns. How can you then speak with such certianty if at anytime you may discover new data that shows your current stance to be wrong? How are you right now at this time sure that you are correct even? > > 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. > > Yup! Me too. But I'm not so wrapped up in 'what I'd like to believe' > that I'll forsake the truth to prefer a lie. Morality is a tool for > getting along with others. Yet, there is only One. What Morality > does One need? Yes I can readily agree to that, but only because that is how my subjective belifes tells me it is. Even then I can't help but feel that if I am part of the One, and I think and feel these things, I have these questions, I daily use both faith and logic in my life then that must be according the plan. What morality does the One need? Well I can't answer that but I can say if we humans feel that need then as part of the One that need must be real, yes? > I feel this take on reality is the step that will lead > us into a more socially aware society. You (and many others) forget > that one thing that falls out of this is that all that which exists is > equally vital to the whole. So, by this reckoning, the homeless > person has equal status as 'the leader of the Free World' purely > because he exists. This forces us to acknowledge the right of > existing humans to 'be the best they can be'. And all existing humans > should endeavour to foster one another such that we can all be the > best we can be. Rather than focus on the losses, look at the gains. > I'm not saying don't look at the losses, but weigh them WITH the > gains. Yes yes, I understand this, and as I have said countless times, a major part of my thirst is to understand the differances between us human animals, as it is apperant that there are so many kinds of human mindset. I know deep deep down I just know it, that these differances are so many and can the gap between them can be so vast that we will never speak with one voice, nor think that one thought together, we will not ever have that much in common. So we must enevour to understand instead, it will be the very best we shall manage, and even that I think is impossible, as for every understanding Lee, there are bound to be others that see no merit nor value in such an endevour. Indeed we know that there exist people who do not feel as we do, do not wish to question, see no merit or value in such things, infact have never even asked of themselves questions of merit or value. > Correct. You exists in spacetime. Because space-time contains all of > space and time, you have always existed in your place and time (and > always will!!). This is that time. You, my friend, were inevitable, > and your existence (together with the geometry of space-time) proves > that. Ahh you have gone all spacey on me! As to Geometry though, that has no real bareing on objective truth, I would say that it is relative would you not? Let me explain, a cube is a cube right? Unless you tip it at an angle and view it as a diamond! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
