golden rule synchronicity!
On Aug 26, 9:46 am, 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. 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?
>
> Exactly! Now, what IS that morality? I was just out at lunch
> thinking about THAT! ;-)
>
> Previous moral codes have been nothing more than varying sets of rules
> of societal engagement. NONE of them, though, to my knowledge, has
> ever been derived after a scientific recognition of every individual's
> necessity to exist. The key to a morality based on my understanding
> of the universe would require each of us to acknowledge the necessity
> for each of us to exist. From that, we can derive that all are, in
> the eyes of the whole, equally required to do that which we will do.
> If we would like to have the 'right', for example, "to life, liberty
> and the pursuit of happiness", then we need to grant that right to
> everyone else. Everyone. This is a great leveller to any power-based
> system and brings us all back to the same playing field. Thus some,
> who would lose power, would (and will) reject this. Until now, we've
> been competing like animals with a 'might makes right' attitude. If
> my pepole kill your people, we win, as if we have a greater right
> proven by my win. But, the flaw in that is displayed when I realise
> that the existence of your people alone justifies that your people
> have JUST AS MUCH right as mine. Well, the world changes...and not
> for the worse. In those days, once this morality is driven through to
> all our hearts, there will be no more wars, or famine, or homeless and
> we will all care for one another BECAUSE we, to assure our own right
> to be the best we can be in everyone else's eyes, ought to. We will
> do unto others as we would have them do unto us because we have a
> greater understanding of the universe and our place in it.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, but they, too, must accept the right of others, if they wish
> to be regarded their right. And by 'right', I mean an agreed-by-
> mankind thing. The Divine Right to exist is granted only so long as
> the rules of physics allow our 'living' to continue. I.e., murder is
> morally wrong (in conflict with man's understanding of societal
> benefits) but does not conflict with the laws of physics.
>
> > > 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?
>
> Geometry is incredibly powerful. The shape of things determines
> how they interact. Thus, the fact that the rectal cavity doesn't end
> in a uterus shape (that has fallopian tubes and ovaries) means that
> your sexual intercourse is buggery (bad news), but also means that
> there won't be any unwanted children (good news). A clearer example
> may be in how biochemicals react. Membranes have slots of different
> shapes and different chemicals fit into the different slots to turn on
> or off various processes.
>
> > Let me explain, a cube is a cube right? Unless you tip it at an angle
> > and view it as a diamond!
>
> Rather that's a square and a diamond. A cube is 3-D and a diamond is
> 2-D. This DOES show the power of language, though, in describing
> rotational symmetry insofar as we have a different word for a square
> that is rotated by 45 degrees.>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
