Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Good rap. My only question is, Whose mother exactly was it who slept with a dog, and what breed of dog was it? Genetics are important. From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism I tend not to agree with Barry about free will, but then this is a subject whose resolution seems impossible to determine. One of my early spiritual experiences was about free will and determinism. My interpretation of that experience was that they were equivalent, like the faces on the same coin, differing views of the same process. I had been having experiences like this for about two years. I had also just learned TM a few weeks before, and it did not seem to be the trigger for such experiences, though it may have greased the wheels a bit. Experiences like this come when the mind is fully engaged with the world. One of the first spiritual techniques I encountered were insults. Now normally insults do not result in spiritual awakening or even understanding, but in a proper context they can. I do not think FFL, even though it nominally is about spirituality, is a useful context. Insults in a useful context however can highlight conditioned responses. Whether or not there is such a thing as free will, the human sense of freedom depends on how many output options we have available for a given input. With some people, if you say to them, 'you are a fucking goddamn ass hole, and your mother slept with a dog' your best option is probably to run for your life. So I was sitting with this group, doing guided meditations etc., before I learned Zen meditation, and before other techniques and before I learned TM, and the instructor started hurling insults. Some people got really upset, would stand up and say they felt really insulted and that they deserved some respect. They did not get any. But later on it became evident that this was a technique to highlight one's conditioned responses to verbal input. It was the context of this particular event that made the insults a piece of valuable information and experience, because what followed them provided the insight into what was really happening in our minds. The following historical story highlights a use of the technique: The Prime Minister of the Tang Dynasty was a national hero for his success as both a statesman and military leader. But despite his fame, power, and wealth, he considered himself a humble and devout Buddhist. Often he visited his favourite Zen master to study under him, and they seemed to get along very well. The fact that he was prime minister apparently had no effect on their relationship, which seemed to be simply one of a revered master and respectful student. One day, during his usual visit, the Prime Minister asked the master, Your Reverence, what is egotism according to Buddhism? The master's face turned red, and in a very condescending and insulting tone of voice, he shot back, What kind of stupid question is that!? This unexpected response so shocked the Prime Minister that he became sullen and angry. The Zen master then smiled and said, THIS, Your Excellency, is egotism. Take a thermostat. It has basically one or two outputs to input. The temperature goes down, it closes a circuit and starts a heater; when the temperature rises, it opens the circuit and the heater stops. A slightly more complex system adds cooling: if the room gets too warm, it starts air conditioning as well. Some people do have about this many options to respond to input, even though the neural networks in the brain are far far more complex than a thermostat. Part of spiritual discipline is dealing consciously with one's conditioning that limits responses. Now in TM philosophy, the processes of de-conditioning, and the understanding of conditioning do not seem so overtly expressed as in some other traditions. In Zen, koans deal with various facets of the mind's conditioning by forcing an experience that goes beyond bipolar logic. On FFL, most responses to certain kinds of verbal input, what appears to be an insult, is simply to respond with another insult. Thus you have elevated your consciousness to the status of a simple thermostat. So part of the game of 'becoming free' is to widen options of response to inputs. We have lots of conditioned responses, some of them hard wired (the knee jerk reflex for example), but quite a lot are programmed into us by our parents and culture. Look at any government where there are parliaments with two more or less equal parties with opposing views, and you can predict responses of the two sides fairly accurately. Spiritual practises like meditation help to loosen the mind's grip in this respect, but some form of conscious highlighting the fact we have such conditioned
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
As a more serious reply, the effect of language on people is (obviously) a continuing interest of mine as well. It's fascinating to see how the use of a simple Anglo-Saxon word can completely turn off higher brain functions in the person it is spoken or written to, and reduce them to an angry, reactive, unthinking, out-of-control revenge machine. I keep hoping that some of them will catch themselves, as the Prime Minister in your Zen story presumably did, and actually learn something from their own reactivity and how it renders them puppets to anyone who can suss out their trigger words, but they never do. From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism I tend not to agree with Barry about free will, but then this is a subject whose resolution seems impossible to determine. One of my early spiritual experiences was about free will and determinism. My interpretation of that experience was that they were equivalent, like the faces on the same coin, differing views of the same process. I had been having experiences like this for about two years. I had also just learned TM a few weeks before, and it did not seem to be the trigger for such experiences, though it may have greased the wheels a bit. Experiences like this come when the mind is fully engaged with the world. One of the first spiritual techniques I encountered were insults. Now normally insults do not result in spiritual awakening or even understanding, but in a proper context they can. I do not think FFL, even though it nominally is about spirituality, is a useful context. Insults in a useful context however can highlight conditioned responses. Whether or not there is such a thing as free will, the human sense of freedom depends on how many output options we have available for a given input. With some people, if you say to them, 'you are a fucking goddamn ass hole, and your mother slept with a dog' your best option is probably to run for your life. So I was sitting with this group, doing guided meditations etc., before I learned Zen meditation, and before other techniques and before I learned TM, and the instructor started hurling insults. Some people got really upset, would stand up and say they felt really insulted and that they deserved some respect. They did not get any. But later on it became evident that this was a technique to highlight one's conditioned responses to verbal input. It was the context of this particular event that made the insults a piece of valuable information and experience, because what followed them provided the insight into what was really happening in our minds. The following historical story highlights a use of the technique: The Prime Minister of the Tang Dynasty was a national hero for his success as both a statesman and military leader. But despite his fame, power, and wealth, he considered himself a humble and devout Buddhist. Often he visited his favourite Zen master to study under him, and they seemed to get along very well. The fact that he was prime minister apparently had no effect on their relationship, which seemed to be simply one of a revered master and respectful student. One day, during his usual visit, the Prime Minister asked the master, Your Reverence, what is egotism according to Buddhism? The master's face turned red, and in a very condescending and insulting tone of voice, he shot back, What kind of stupid question is that!? This unexpected response so shocked the Prime Minister that he became sullen and angry. The Zen master then smiled and said, THIS, Your Excellency, is egotism. Take a thermostat. It has basically one or two outputs to input. The temperature goes down, it closes a circuit and starts a heater; when the temperature rises, it opens the circuit and the heater stops. A slightly more complex system adds cooling: if the room gets too warm, it starts air conditioning as well. Some people do have about this many options to respond to input, even though the neural networks in the brain are far far more complex than a thermostat. Part of spiritual discipline is dealing consciously with one's conditioning that limits responses. Now in TM philosophy, the processes of de-conditioning, and the understanding of conditioning do not seem so overtly expressed as in some other traditions. In Zen, koans deal with various facets of the mind's conditioning by forcing an experience that goes beyond bipolar logic. On FFL, most responses to certain kinds of verbal input, what appears to be an insult, is simply to respond with another insult. Thus you have elevated your consciousness to the status of a simple thermostat. So part of the game of 'becoming free' is to widen options of response to inputs. We have lots
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Ha - good story --reminded me of the way Barry reacted, when jr posted that atheists cannot transcend. Seeing his over the top response, at the time, my first thought was that Barry has weak experiences, during meditation. Not a big deal to me, though this self-proclaimed, 'cult sociologist', has almost no significant personal experience, in the realm in which he claims to be an expert. His frustration, vs. his insights, are what drive his personality. I wonder if he ever cheats on himself, and does TM?? lol - A TM adulterer... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I tend not to agree with Barry about free will, but then this is a subject whose resolution seems impossible to determine. One of my early spiritual experiences was about free will and determinism. My interpretation of that experience was that they were equivalent, like the faces on the same coin, differing views of the same process. I had been having experiences like this for about two years. I had also just learned TM a few weeks before, and it did not seem to be the trigger for such experiences, though it may have greased the wheels a bit. Experiences like this come when the mind is fully engaged with the world. One of the first spiritual techniques I encountered were insults. Now normally insults do not result in spiritual awakening or even understanding, but in a proper context they can. I do not think FFL, even though it nominally is about spirituality, is a useful context. Insults in a useful context however can highlight conditioned responses. Whether or not there is such a thing as free will, the human sense of freedom depends on how many output options we have available for a given input. With some people, if you say to them, 'you are a fucking goddamn ass hole, and your mother slept with a dog' your best option is probably to run for your life. So I was sitting with this group, doing guided meditations etc., before I learned Zen meditation, and before other techniques and before I learned TM, and the instructor started hurling insults. Some people got really upset, would stand up and say they felt really insulted and that they deserved some respect. They did not get any. But later on it became evident that this was a technique to highlight one's conditioned responses to verbal input. It was the context of this particular event that made the insults a piece of valuable information and experience, because what followed them provided the insight into what was really happening in our minds. The following historical story highlights a use of the technique: The Prime Minister of the Tang Dynasty was a national hero for his success as both a statesman and military leader. But despite his fame, power, and wealth, he considered himself a humble and devout Buddhist. Often he visited his favourite Zen master to study under him, and they seemed to get along very well. The fact that he was prime minister apparently had no effect on their relationship, which seemed to be simply one of a revered master and respectful student. One day, during his usual visit, the Prime Minister asked the master, Your Reverence, what is egotism according to Buddhism? The master's face turned red, and in a very condescending and insulting tone of voice, he shot back, What kind of stupid question is that!? This unexpected response so shocked the Prime Minister that he became sullen and angry. The Zen master then smiled and said, THIS, Your Excellency, is egotism. Take a thermostat. It has basically one or two outputs to input. The temperature goes down, it closes a circuit and starts a heater; when the temperature rises, it opens the circuit and the heater stops. A slightly more complex system adds cooling: if the room gets too warm, it starts air conditioning as well. Some people do have about this many options to respond to input, even though the neural networks in the brain are far far more complex than a thermostat. Part of spiritual discipline is dealing consciously with one's conditioning that limits responses. Now in TM philosophy, the processes of de-conditioning, and the understanding of conditioning do not seem so overtly expressed as in some other traditions. In Zen, koans deal with various facets of the mind's conditioning by forcing an experience that goes beyond bipolar logic. On FFL, most responses to certain kinds of verbal input, what appears to be an insult, is simply to respond with another insult. Thus you have elevated your consciousness to the status of a simple thermostat. So part of the game of 'becoming free' is to widen options of response to inputs. We have lots of conditioned responses, some of them hard wired (the knee jerk reflex for example), but quite a lot are programmed into us by our parents and culture. Look at any government
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Question is, why would you want to suss out someone's trigger words? Why would you want to make a person your puppet? What kind of sick ego/power trip is that? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a more serious reply, the effect of language on people is (obviously) a continuing interest of mine as well. It's fascinating to see how the use of a simple Anglo-Saxon word can completely turn off higher brain functions in the person it is spoken or written to, and reduce them to an angry, reactive, unthinking, out-of-control revenge machine. I keep hoping that some of them will catch themselves, as the Prime Minister in your Zen story presumably did, and actually learn something from their own reactivity and how it renders them puppets to anyone who can suss out their trigger words, but they never do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Question is, why would you want to suss out someone's trigger words? Why would you want to make a person your puppet? What kind of sick ego/power trip is that? Among the many things Bawee fails to suss out is that it is not the fact that insults are flung or make-believe labels placed on all sorts of people here by His Majesty the puppet master, but that some people just don't want to take it from Bawee, of all people. You can call me whatever you want, you can stand there and accuse me of any number of things that aren't true and it makes no difference to me. But when it's coming from numbnuts then the source is what makes all the difference, not the content. As for motivation on numbnut's part? Well, those who seek to push people around by using whatever means they can, irrespective of the truth or relevancy of it, indicates someone who has sadistic tendencies and pretty much lives to see others effected by what he does. This would further point in the relative direction of someone who feels impotent or has been badly abused himself and while I'm sorry for that it does feel like one is in the nuthouse around here at times having to witness this acting out day after day. I mean, when can we all get a break? In the normal world this guy would have been given a good spanking and sent to his room by now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a more serious reply, the effect of language on people is (obviously) a continuing interest of mine as well. It's fascinating to see how the use of a simple Anglo-Saxon word can completely turn off higher brain functions in the person it is spoken or written to, and reduce them to an angry, reactive, unthinking, out-of-control revenge machine. I keep hoping that some of them will catch themselves, as the Prime Minister in your Zen story presumably did, and actually learn something from their own reactivity and how it renders them puppets to anyone who can suss out their trigger words, but they never do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
On 5/13/2014 10:03 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Uh-oh, Barry's having another ego-crisis. 600-plus words' worth. So, I wonder what */caused/* Barry to think of that line a 660-word essay? LoL! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. Others here -- like Rick, Curtis, Anartaxius, Salyavin, and many others -- clearly live in more of a free will world. They can hear (or read) something that presents a phenomena or a belief in a different way (sometimes even a funny or mocking way) and NOT go ballistic and react. They can just trip on the new way of seeing things and either join in the discussion or let it go. Ann and Judy CAN'T let things go. The concept of determinism really DOES seem to apply to them and the way they live their online lives. I've made it clear many times that I don't consider *anything* they say worth spitting on, much less replying to or debating with them, but THEY CAN'T STOP TRYING. Every week they seem to have to react to almost everything I post, restarting their stalking campaign and trying to push MY buttons. And it doesn't work, because I have free will. I can write them off as the not-terribly-bright determinobitches they are and ignore them. They, from their side, seem to react even more strongly to THAT, and get more pissed off and more stalker-like the more I ignore them. So every so often I throw them a bone and rap about how I really see them, so they'll feel as if they've finally gotten the attention they're so desperate for. This is that rap. Now, back to ignoring them as the deterministic stalkbots they are. :-) :-) :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
The two perspectives converge if you go far enough back in time and leave out quantum mechanics. In fact, the billiard ball playing deity is a very common perspective for the Natural Philosophers where God created the universe, set up initial conditions, and stepped aside. Free Will is just a philosophical out that people created to allow for Faith and Sin. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Yes, I do know, but actually, I was responding to Bhairitu, not Barry. Really just a point of possible general interest for anyone following these discussions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
It's all just multi-personal, pantheistic solipsism, you know. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. Others here -- like Rick, Curtis, Anartaxius, Salyavin, and many others -- clearly live in more of a free will world. They can hear (or read) something that presents a phenomena or a belief in a different way (sometimes even a funny or mocking way) and NOT go ballistic and react. They can just trip on the new way of seeing things and either join in the discussion or let it go. Ann and Judy CAN'T let things go. The concept of determinism really DOES seem to apply to them and the way they live their online lives. I've made it clear many times that I don't consider *anything* they say worth spitting on, much less replying to or debating with them, but THEY CAN'T STOP TRYING. Every week they seem to have to react to almost everything I post, restarting their stalking campaign and trying to push MY buttons. And it doesn't work, because I have free will. I can write them off as the not-terribly-bright determinobitches they are and ignore them. They, from their side, seem to react even more strongly to THAT, and get more pissed off and more stalker-like the more I ignore them. So every so often I throw them a bone and rap about how I really see them, so they'll feel as if they've finally gotten the attention they're so desperate for. This is that rap. Now, back to ignoring them as the deterministic stalkbots they are. :-) :-) :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
If I may summarize: You feel that your ability to enrage and insult others, and for them to respond in kind, is a hallmark of your ultimate freedom as a human being, your ability to exert your Free Will, to demonstrate your 'control'. Actually, it is a fantasy -- All you are, in the eyes of others, is an unpleasant, and needlessly provocative soul, and if that is what gets you off, you have truly reached the bottom of your barrel. You attempt to make a distinction, between those who fall for your crap, and those who don't, while being well aware, Barry, that you cherry-pick who to insult, and how much, on here. You have never had anything but roses waiting for Curtis, and a few others. I doubt very much if you referred to your good and close friend, Curtis, with some of the language you fling at others, he would not tolerate you for long. We watch you spin your hamster wheel, ecstatic over your 'free will', and your meanness - your ability to both take out your spiritual frustrations on others, and your inability to recognize such a deep flaw within yourself. As Bhairatu said, enjoy your pattern - the rest of us remain incredulous at your emotional blindness, and on-line stupidity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. Others here -- like Rick, Curtis, Anartaxius, Salyavin, and many others -- clearly live in more of a free will world. They can hear (or read) something that presents a phenomena or a belief in a different way (sometimes even a funny or mocking way) and NOT go ballistic and react. They can just trip on the new way of seeing things and either join in the discussion or let it go. Ann and Judy CAN'T let things go. The concept of determinism really DOES seem to apply to them and the way they live their online lives. I've made it clear many times that I don't consider *anything* they say worth spitting on, much less replying to or debating with them, but THEY CAN'T STOP TRYING. Every week they seem to have to react to almost everything I post, restarting their stalking campaign and trying to push MY buttons. And it doesn't work, because I have free will. I can write them off as the not-terribly-bright determinobitches they are and ignore them. They, from their side, seem to react even more strongly to THAT, and get more pissed off and more stalker-like the more I ignore them. So every so often I throw them a bone and rap about how I really see them, so they'll feel as if they've finally gotten the attention they're so desperate for. This is that rap. Now, back to ignoring them as the deterministic stalkbots they are. :-) :-) :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
On 5/13/2014 7:20 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Actually, it is a fantasy -- All you are, in the eyes of others, is an unpleasant, and needlessly provocative soul This, if accurate, is quite a fall from grace. At one time Barry and Curtis had aspirations to be spiritual teachers. They must have believed all that TM stuff, the meditation and the flying, but they did a 180 at some point in their lives, AFTER spending what, twenty years in the service of the movement. What happened? According to Curtis, he changes his mind almost every day, so he may have changed it back 180 again today. But, Barry is another case - he did his 180 as well, but then he came up against THE CORRECTOR on the internet - that's when he went bat-shit crazy posting to FFL. It's not complicated. Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, I guess. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : If I may summarize: You feel that your ability to enrage and insult others, and for them to respond in kind, is a hallmark of your ultimate freedom as a human being, your ability to exert your Free Will, to demonstrate your 'control'. Actually, it is a fantasy -- All you are, in the eyes of others, is an unpleasant, and needlessly provocative soul, and if that is what gets you off, you have truly reached the bottom of your barrel. You attempt to make a distinction, between those who fall for your crap, and those who don't, while being well aware, Barry, that you cherry-pick who to insult, and how much, on here. You have never had anything but roses waiting for Curtis, and a few others. I doubt very much if you referred to your good and close friend, Curtis, with some of the language you fling at others, he would not tolerate you for long. We watch you spin your hamster wheel, ecstatic over your 'free will', and your meanness - your ability to both take out your spiritual frustrations on others, and your inability to recognize such a deep flaw within yourself. As Bhairatu said, enjoy your pattern - the rest of us remain incredulous at your emotional blindness, and on-line stupidity. If this is an example of enlightened insight, I'll salute it. Biggest of Macs, Fleetest of thought it is good to have you back with your no-shit wisdom and down-to-earth common sense. Plus, you really have Bawee's number (even if it is a big 0). More comments below just because, like Judy said, fish in a barrel: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) The only cue you provide is for others to whip out the air freshener after you've left the room. That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Apparently Judy was responding to the other Barry, not Baw so you can scratch that theory off the list. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) Bawee, there is no we here. You and you alone here exist in a universe of your own making complete with fun house mirrors that make the ugly guy look more beautiful than he is (in his own eyes). IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. Trip away, stumble around all you want. This is nothing new. In fact, not one hackneyed sentence you have written above reveals anything fresh or interesting about you or anything else. What you consistently fail to realize is that you challenge no one with your articles or your thoughts. What you do, however, is remind me of someone I will try my damnedest to never emulate. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. I have no buttons Bawee. They don't exist. What exists is an innate dislike of ignorance and gratuitous mean-spirited people. You are both of those things. And until you finally fail to consistently exhibit these traits and as long as I happen to read something you regurgitate here that highlights those traits I will
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : If I may summarize: You feel that your ability to enrage and insult others, and for them to respond in kind, is a hallmark of your ultimate freedom as a human being, your ability to exert your Free Will, to demonstrate your 'control'. Actually, it is a fantasy -- All you are, in the eyes of others, is an unpleasant, and needlessly provocative soul, and if that is what gets you off, you have truly reached the bottom of your barrel. You attempt to make a distinction, between those who fall for your crap, and those who don't, while being well aware, Barry, that you cherry-pick who to insult, and how much, on here. You have never had anything but roses waiting for Curtis, and a few others. I doubt very much if you referred to your good and close friend, Curtis, with some of the language you fling at others, he would not tolerate you for long. We watch you spin your hamster wheel, ecstatic over your 'free will', and your meanness - your ability to both take out your spiritual frustrations on others, and your inability to recognize such a deep flaw within yourself. As Bhairatu said, enjoy your pattern - the rest of us remain incredulous at your emotional blindness, and on-line stupidity. If this is an example of enlightened insight, I'll salute it. Biggest of Macs, Fleetest of thought it is good to have you back with your no-shit wisdom and down-to-earth common sense. Plus, you really have Bawee's number (even if it is a big 0). More comments below just because, like Judy said, fish in a barrel: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) The only cue you provide is for others to whip out the air freshener after you've left the room. That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Apparently Judy was responding to the other Barry, not Baw so you can scratch that theory off the list. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) Bawee, there is no we here. You and you alone here exist in a universe of your own making complete with fun house mirrors that make the ugly guy look more beautiful than he is (in his own eyes). IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. Trip away, stumble around all you want. This is nothing new. In fact, not one hackneyed sentence you have written above reveals anything fresh or interesting about you or anything else. What you consistently fail to realize is that you challenge no one with your articles or your thoughts. What you do, however, is remind me of someone I will try my damnedest to never emulate. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. I have no buttons Bawee. They don't exist. What exists is an innate dislike of ignorance and gratuitous mean-spirited people. You are both of those things. And until you finally fail to consistently exhibit these traits and as long as I happen to read something you regurgitate here that highlights those traits I will
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
On 5/12/2014 3:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-) Asking the important questions. Apparently there are no informants on this list that believe in determinism as you have defined it. You are either free or you are bound. If you are bound, there's no need for yoga; if bound, by what means can we free ourselves? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Uh-oh, Barry's having another ego-crisis. 600-plus words' worth. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. Others here -- like Rick, Curtis, Anartaxius, Salyavin, and many others -- clearly live in more of a free will world. They can hear (or read) something that presents a phenomena or a belief in a different way (sometimes even a funny or mocking way) and NOT go ballistic and react. They can just trip on the new way of seeing things and either join in the discussion or let it go. Ann and Judy CAN'T let things go. The concept of determinism really DOES seem to apply to them and the way they live their online lives. I've made it clear many times that I don't consider *anything* they say worth spitting on, much less replying to or debating with them, but THEY CAN'T STOP TRYING. Every week they seem to have to react to almost everything I post, restarting their stalking campaign and trying to push MY buttons. And it doesn't work, because I have free will. I can write them off as the not-terribly-bright determinobitches they are and ignore them. They, from their side, seem to react even more strongly to THAT, and get more pissed off and more stalker-like the more I ignore them. So every so often I throw them a bone and rap about how I really see them, so they'll feel as if they've finally gotten the attention they're so desperate for. This is that rap. Now, back to ignoring them as the deterministic stalkbots they are. :-) :-) :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Couple comments below... That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Apparently Judy was responding to the other Barry, not Baw so you can scratch that theory off the list. I think he's referring here to an earlier post of mine responding to his one-liner, in which all I did was repeat exactly what he said but changed determinist to free will. Amazing that he didn't anticipate how easily that lame remark could be turned against him. (Not to mention that my version is more appropriate, given that determinists do imagine the world they see around them in a different way from the free will they actually experience, but free will advocates can't imagine anything but what they experience.) (more snip) I think what's really got him going (aside from the humiliation of his extraordinarily stupid comments about Nabby's and my Bible discussion) is that I didn't comment at all on the two articles he posted, except for asking about lucid dreaming being mystical or spiritual, which I'd never heard before. He was expecting a big reaction from me but didn't get one, and that always makes him furious. You no more ignore Judy and I than we ignore you. I don't take you seriously and I certainly don't respect you but I don't ignore you. Obviously I don't seek your response when I make comments about the drivel you write here. You don't engage in conversations you simply sermonize. You talk at people not to them and you run from real engagement by simply hurling insults the moment anyone actually tries to converse with you. In this way, and in many others, you are a fuck up and a failure and you run scared. Dittoes. Also amazing that he thinks folks still believe this crap, if they ever did. (snip) Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
I tend not to agree with Barry about free will, but then this is a subject whose resolution seems impossible to determine. One of my early spiritual experiences was about free will and determinism. My interpretation of that experience was that they were equivalent, like the faces on the same coin, differing views of the same process. I had been having experiences like this for about two years. I had also just learned TM a few weeks before, and it did not seem to be the trigger for such experiences, though it may have greased the wheels a bit. Experiences like this come when the mind is fully engaged with the world. One of the first spiritual techniques I encountered were insults. Now normally insults do not result in spiritual awakening or even understanding, but in a proper context they can. I do not think FFL, even though it nominally is about spirituality, is a useful context. Insults in a useful context however can highlight conditioned responses. Whether or not there is such a thing as free will, the human sense of freedom depends on how many output options we have available for a given input. With some people, if you say to them, 'you are a fucking goddamn ass hole, and your mother slept with a dog' your best option is probably to run for your life. So I was sitting with this group, doing guided meditations etc., before I learned Zen meditation, and before other techniques and before I learned TM, and the instructor started hurling insults. Some people got really upset, would stand up and say they felt really insulted and that they deserved some respect. They did not get any. But later on it became evident that this was a technique to highlight one's conditioned responses to verbal input. It was the context of this particular event that made the insults a piece of valuable information and experience, because what followed them provided the insight into what was really happening in our minds. The following historical story highlights a use of the technique: The Prime Minister of the Tang Dynasty was a national hero for his success as both a statesman and military leader. But despite his fame, power, and wealth, he considered himself a humble and devout Buddhist. Often he visited his favourite Zen master to study under him, and they seemed to get along very well. The fact that he was prime minister apparently had no effect on their relationship, which seemed to be simply one of a revered master and respectful student. One day, during his usual visit, the Prime Minister asked the master, Your Reverence, what is egotism according to Buddhism? The master's face turned red, and in a very condescending and insulting tone of voice, he shot back, What kind of stupid question is that!? This unexpected response so shocked the Prime Minister that he became sullen and angry. The Zen master then smiled and said, THIS, Your Excellency, is egotism. Take a thermostat. It has basically one or two outputs to input. The temperature goes down, it closes a circuit and starts a heater; when the temperature rises, it opens the circuit and the heater stops. A slightly more complex system adds cooling: if the room gets too warm, it starts air conditioning as well. Some people do have about this many options to respond to input, even though the neural networks in the brain are far far more complex than a thermostat. Part of spiritual discipline is dealing consciously with one's conditioning that limits responses. Now in TM philosophy, the processes of de-conditioning, and the understanding of conditioning do not seem so overtly expressed as in some other traditions. In Zen, koans deal with various facets of the mind's conditioning by forcing an experience that goes beyond bipolar logic. On FFL, most responses to certain kinds of verbal input, what appears to be an insult, is simply to respond with another insult. Thus you have elevated your consciousness to the status of a simple thermostat. So part of the game of 'becoming free' is to widen options of response to inputs. We have lots of conditioned responses, some of them hard wired (the knee jerk reflex for example), but quite a lot are programmed into us by our parents and culture. Look at any government where there are parliaments with two more or less equal parties with opposing views, and you can predict responses of the two sides fairly accurately. Spiritual practises like meditation help to loosen the mind's grip in this respect, but some form of conscious highlighting the fact we have such conditioned responses really needs to be in operation. It is difficult to be really aware of how mechanical we are until 'Brahman consciousness' begins to settle in. It is only then that the mind becomes aware of how much its interpretation of the world of experience (that is, all of it) is simply a
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Yes, I do know, but actually, I was responding to Bhairitu, not Barry. Really just a point of possible general interest for anyone following these discussions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
