Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 7:34:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 7:34:54 GMT -5
Well I didn't start out with any question. I was looking for good cartoons dealing with free will. Found a few. One of them referred to page 72, so I made page 72 but wasn't sure what to put in the post box. So I put 'now what?' in there -- a belch from a clever/bewildered perspective, my specialitee. But I like your question; it's very well articulated and interesting. The free will/volition question feels to me like the self question. Once the assumption of it's existence is pondered openly, I don't really have a sense of it anymore. And I have difficulty even remembering having a sense of it. Probably because there was none, it was just assumed. The only time I see sparks fly is when I bring it up in conversation with folks who haven't pondered it openly. But maybe, as Tzu argues, I'm just brainwashing myself because of all of these cool spiritual idols here. You don't seem so sure after all. It's true that one can see thru the question of volition by mere intellectual investigation. But that's just a play with ideas, i.e. without any real consequences. Well doesn't the question of volition just reside in the play of ideas anyway?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 7:36:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 7:36:39 GMT -5
I'm using it the way the cartoon did: You end up doing what you were going to do, no matter what your beliefs are about volition or no-volition. The belief doesn't change the outcome. The point of the joke is that turning to page 72 is not a foregone conclusion. It only happens if there's an opinion involved. I like that spin. Hadn't thought of it. I just thought it was a punchline in the way Quinn had understood. Noting the the opinion aspect is another nuance. Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 8:53:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 10:51:51 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2014 10:51:51 GMT -5
Why would you have to end up on page 72? I'm using it the way the cartoon did: You end up doing what you were going to do, no matter what your beliefs are about volition or no-volition. The belief doesn't change the outcome. Sure it does. Not so much as a conceptual belief, but as a seeing that informs mind, it will change quite a bit. Volition is not true, but predetermination is also not true.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 11:03:00 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2014 11:03:00 GMT -5
You don't seem so sure after all. It's true that one can see thru the question of volition by mere intellectual investigation. But that's just a play with ideas, i.e. without any real consequences. Well doesn't the question of volition just reside in the play of ideas anyway? Yes, but that's the point. Replacing the idea of volition with the idea of non-volition just changes things on a superficial level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 11:16:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 11:16:26 GMT -5
Well doesn't the question of volition just reside in the play of ideas anyway? Yes, but that's the point. Replacing the idea of volition with the idea of non-volition just changes things on a superficial level. Excellent. So what you and reefs and laughter are saying is that I find myself here on page 72 because I haven't fully realized the absence of volition and instead am meandering around in a conceptual purgatory framed by questions of its existence or absence of existence?
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 11:24:30 GMT -5
Post by topology on Jun 27, 2014 11:24:30 GMT -5
Yes, but that's the point. Replacing the idea of volition with the idea of non-volition just changes things on a superficial level. Excellent. So what you and reefs and laughter are saying is that I find myself here on page 72 because I haven't fully realized the absence of volition and instead am meandering around in a conceptual purgatory framed by questions of its existence or absence of existence? That would imply the realization would entail not turning the page, even if you were just curious to see what was there... I think that's an assumption that could be challenged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 11:57:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 11:57:54 GMT -5
Excellent. So what you and reefs and laughter are saying is that I find myself here on page 72 because I haven't fully realized the absence of volition and instead am meandering around in a conceptual purgatory framed by questions of its existence or absence of existence? That would imply the realization would entail not turning the page, even if you were just curious to see what was there... I think that's an assumption that could be challenged. Ah yes, good point. But I created the page. And I posted the cartoon. Was the original impetus purely curiosity or that tainted with profound confusion? Or maybe not profound but unsettled? Who knows? *searching deep in heart*
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 12:04:17 GMT -5
Post by topology on Jun 27, 2014 12:04:17 GMT -5
That would imply the realization would entail not turning the page, even if you were just curious to see what was there... I think that's an assumption that could be challenged. Ah yes, good point. But I created the page. And I posted the cartoon. Was the original impetus purely curiosity or that tainted with profound confusion? Or maybe not profound but unsettled? Who knows?
*searching deep in heart* Certainly these questions, when they are asked genuinely, reflect confusion. Does the answer to them matter?
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 12:08:19 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2014 12:08:19 GMT -5
Yes, but that's the point. Replacing the idea of volition with the idea of non-volition just changes things on a superficial level. Excellent. So what you and reefs and laughter are saying is that I find myself here on page 72 because I haven't fully realized the absence of volition and instead am meandering around in a conceptual purgatory framed by questions of its existence or absence of existence? You find yourself on page 72 because you're following somebody's idiotic instructions that say 'If you agree, do this. If you disagree, do the same.' Outcomes are not the same regardless of choices. Your choice changes outcomes, unless you're offered a choiceless choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 12:37:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 12:37:41 GMT -5
Ah yes, good point. But I created the page. And I posted the cartoon. Was the original impetus purely curiosity or that tainted with profound confusion? Or maybe not profound but unsettled? Who knows?
*searching deep in heart* Certainly these questions, when they are asked genuinely, reflect confusion. Does the answer to them matter? No they're not genuine questions. Just drilling into different aspects of a punchline I hadn't considered before.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 12:40:04 GMT -5
Post by topology on Jun 27, 2014 12:40:04 GMT -5
Certainly these questions, when they are asked genuinely, reflect confusion. Does the answer to them matter? No they're not genuine questions. Just drilling into different aspects of a punchline I hadn't considered before. Are you trying to reverse engineer the comic creator's intent? Or just trying to milk the cow's udder far past it having gone dry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 12:54:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 12:54:08 GMT -5
Excellent. So what you and reefs and laughter are saying is that I find myself here on page 72 because I haven't fully realized the absence of volition and instead am meandering around in a conceptual purgatory framed by questions of its existence or absence of existence? You find yourself on page 72 because you're following somebody's idiotic instructions that say 'If you agree, do this. If you disagree, do the same.' Outcomes are not the same regardless of choices. Your choice changes outcomes, unless you're offered a choiceless choice. Rick Archer interviewed Darryl Anka recently, the channeler for Bashar, the target of many snarks by yours truly directed at Andrew. Anyway, I liked him. So I listened to a bit of Bashar this morning. I still don't like the alien -- he reminds me of my woodshop instructor from Junior High School, only jacked on Mt. Dew or something. Anyhoo, one of the main themes he constantly reiterated is following your "highest joy" ("bliss" for the Joseph Campbell crowd) -- I like that message, BTW FWIW. He also gave a number of predictions. But of course he qualified the predictions by saying that the mere mention of a prediction can alter the outcomes so that the prediction will never take place. Got that base covered! And with the follow your highest joy thing, if we all do that, it spreads like wildfire and outcomes change yada yada. Bashar is a big free willer. By admitting that there is a choice at all -- that outcomes are dependent on choice and that one choice can be made and not another despite conditioning -- isn't this an admittance of some sort of factor that is outside of the deterministic universe? Maybe it's not volition/free will, maybe it's something else, but there is some sort of factor that enters in on whether choice A or choice B is settled on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 12:56:25 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 12:56:25 GMT -5
No they're not genuine questions. Just drilling into different aspects of a punchline I hadn't considered before. Are you trying to reverse engineer the comic creator's intent? Or just trying to milk the cow's udder far past it having gone dry? No I think I'm just admitting that I originally missed the full intent of the cartoonist's message/punchline. Even if it wasn't the cartoonist's intent, the different aspects in the punchline can be found, like art.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 13:30:20 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2014 13:30:20 GMT -5
You find yourself on page 72 because you're following somebody's idiotic instructions that say 'If you agree, do this. If you disagree, do the same.' Outcomes are not the same regardless of choices. Your choice changes outcomes, unless you're offered a choiceless choice. Rick Archer interviewed Darryl Anka recently, the channeler for Bashar, the target of many snarks by yours truly directed at Andrew. Anyway, I liked him. So I listened to a bit of Bashar this morning. I still don't like the alien -- he reminds me of my woodshop instructor from Junior High School, only jacked on Mt. Dew or something. Anyhoo, one of the main themes he constantly reiterated is following your "highest joy" ("bliss" for the Joseph Campbell crowd) -- I like that message, BTW FWIW. He also gave a number of predictions. But of course he qualified the predictions by saying that the mere mention of a prediction can alter the outcomes so that the prediction will never take place. Got that base covered! And with the follow your highest joy thing, if we all do that, it spreads like wildfire and outcomes change yada yada. Bashar is a big free willer. By admitting that there is a choice at all -- that outcomes are dependent on choice and that one choice can be made and not another despite conditioning -- isn't this an admittance of some sort of factor that is outside of the deterministic universe? Maybe it's not volition/free will, maybe it's something else, but there is some sort of factor that enters in on whether choice A or choice B is settled on. I didn't mean to imply one choice could be made and not another despite conditioning. I'm just saying the choice you make changes the outcome. I'm disagreeing with the implication of the cartoon that the outcome is the same regardless of choice. That situation was contrived to prove something that isn't true.
|
|