On 26 Aug, 15:07, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Umm lots to think on here and eventualy reply to Pat. Similar to you
> I am at work and so under certian constriants, not the same as you
> though these are not time constraints, it is a rather slow day today
> it seems.
>
> I will print out this post take it home, digest it and come back to
> you tomorrow.
>
> I Will say though that the latter part of what you say here I have a
> gut feeling towards agreeing with, determinism vs choice though, I'm
> still not sold on that one.
>
> I can agree that some portions of life are dependant on others, but it
> takes a looong leap of logic to aply the same to all aspects of life.
>
> Questions keep appearing. Such as how can two siblings who grew up
> under the same conditions have vastly differing outlooks on the same
> issues?
>
They each have a seemingly separate existence and the spatio-
temporal offset is what makes us all unique anyway, the package is
just a package. Have you EVER known two siblings that were always
treated exactly the same (this includes their names!! Perhaps we
should ask George Foreman)? I didn't think so. ;-)
> On 26 Aug, 14:46, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Aug, 13:43, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > It appears that way, but that is part of the illusion cast by not
> > being able to see what will happen. As far as choosing to be selfish,
> > given only One, we have no choice BUT to be. ;-)
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> > No, it's based on more things than I have time to write here without
> > losing my job. And that's my compulsion.
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> > When it comes time to act, only one act can be performed at any one
> > place at any one time. This is the definition of an event. a spatio-
> > temporal point. And none are missing, therefore, all events are
> > extant in the whole. The future is always just around the temporal
> > corner, but, just because you can't see around the corner, don't
> > assume that there is nothing there.
>
> > > > > > > >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!
>
> > Only for the same reason as above and that to list the entirety is too
> > much for this forum, even, to contain.
>
> > > > > > > > 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?
>
> > Or, rather, over time, we see more of it, just as more of our space-
> > time worm is revealed as the future meets the past in the present.
>
> > > 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?
>
> > More on this below!!
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
