Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 13:45:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 13:45:49 GMT -5
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. I don't get it. As far as I know, the concept of choice is a label we give to an experience where a decision is made for example. Of course 'decision' is also a label. But the experience being labeled has no influence on 'outcomes.' An outcome is purely conceptual. There aren't different possible outcomes actually. This also does not imply determinism, which is also purely conceptual. Now the concepts 'free will' and 'outcomes' and 'choice' may be useful within the context where apparent decisions are being made. But actually, sh!t's just happening. As with most cartoons, there's not usually a whole lot of depth. They're praying on the silliness inherent in most sh!t that's happening.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 13:57:10 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 27, 2014 13:57:10 GMT -5
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! De nada Senor. Well doesn't the question of volition just reside in the play of ideas anyway? "The absence of volition" is a pointer, and while a pointer is an idea it's not a pointer anymore once it enters the play of ideas. Also, the absence of an opinion on the question isn't the positionless position, even though it might sound like it. While an adamancy with respect to the pointer does involve an opinion, from what I've seen, it's a rejection of the pointer in conversation that is the catalyst for the emergence of those.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 14:01:53 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 27, 2014 14:01:53 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? Well, I didn't write that, or even imply it.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 14:07:10 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 27, 2014 14:07:10 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. No. The absence of volition is not a conceptual framework for a deterministic universe.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 14:14:54 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2014 14:14:54 GMT -5
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. I don't get it. As far as I know, the concept of choice is a label we give to an experience where a decision is made for example. Of course 'decision' is also a label. But the experience being labeled has no influence on 'outcomes.' An outcome is purely conceptual. There aren't different possible outcomes actually. This also does not imply determinism, which is also purely conceptual. Now the concepts 'free will' and 'outcomes' and 'choice' may be useful within the context where apparent decisions are being made. But actually, sh!t's just happening. As with most cartoons, there's not usually a whole lot of depth. They're praying on the silliness inherent in most sh!t that's happening. Yeah, I agree with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 27, 2014 14:18:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 14:18:29 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? Well, I didn't write that, or even imply it. Well I admit to kicking my heels on a giraffe I was riding when I read your note about the opinion thing. That's where it's coming from.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 0:11:53 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2014 0:11:53 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. Well, that was my the point. The misconception stays alive.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 0:18:21 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2014 0:18:21 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? Sure. My point is, that trying to solve it (or getting comfy with it) will keep you inside the realm of idea play. Therefore no real consequences.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 0:26:55 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2014 0:26:55 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. Right. It keeps the separate personal music going.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 0:33:28 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2014 0:33:28 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? No.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 0:40:23 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2014 0:40:23 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. Bashar just doesn't ring true to me. According to wikipedia, Daryl was/is a special effects guy in Hollywood who (surprise!) also worked on Star Trek. Bashar looks like a big show to me.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 0:42:08 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2014 0:42:08 GMT -5
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.Zacklee. That was my point to Quinn.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 4:40:09 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2014 4:40:09 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. Well, that was my the point. The misconception stays alive. I think we're all talking about different things here. Yeah, you're right - the cartoon is basically creating a situation where turning to Page 72 is predetermined, 'proving' that it's true. Which is a misconception (for the sake of a joke). What Max and I got into a discussion about was the point before an action is taken. If I chose rum raisin ice cream, it's because of a conglomeration of thoughts, physiology, etc etc. Whether or not I have worked out for myself the question of volition/no volition, it doesn't matter - I'm still going to choose rum raisin (I'm still going to turn to Page 72). It's just another way of interpreting the cartoon. It's how I read it at first, but on re-read, your and Enigma's interpretation is probably what was meant. And then we have a third interpretation - Laughter's - that says the cartoon means choices are not predetermined unless there's opinion involved (assuming I'm correctly interpreting what he said). Pretty good work for one cartoon!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 9:04:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 9:04:56 GMT -5
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. No. The absence of volition is not a conceptual framework for a deterministic universe. Wouldn't the presence of a deterministic universe negate volition?
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 9:55:50 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2014 9:55:50 GMT -5
Well, that was my the point. The misconception stays alive. I think we're all talking about different things here. Yeah, you're right - the cartoon is basically creating a situation where turning to Page 72 is predetermined, 'proving' that it's true. Which is a misconception (for the sake of a joke). What Max and I got into a discussion about was the point before an action is taken. If I chose rum raisin ice cream, it's because of a conglomeration of thoughts, physiology, etc etc. Whether or not I have worked out for myself the question of volition/no volition, it doesn't matter - I'm still going to choose rum raisin (I'm still going to turn to Page 72). It's just another way of interpreting the cartoon. It's how I read it at first, but on re-read, your and Enigma's interpretation is probably what was meant. And then we have a third interpretation - Laughter's - that says the cartoon means choices are not predetermined unless there's opinion involved (assuming I'm correctly interpreting what he said). Pretty good work for one cartoon! Yes, seeing through the illusion (not working out the question) becomes part of the conditioning. It may not change what page you turn to, but it will influence other perceptions and choices.
|
|