|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 10:33:43 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2014 10:33:43 GMT -5
No. The absence of volition is not a conceptual framework for a deterministic universe. Wouldn't the presence of a deterministic universe negate volition? Yes, it would.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 10:38:40 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jun 28, 2014 10:38:40 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. 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. Bashar for president!
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 10:48:04 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2014 10:48:04 GMT -5
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. Bashar for president!
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 11:49:37 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2014 11:49:37 GMT -5
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. Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 28, 2014 12:54:25 GMT -5
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. Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question?
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 13:36:31 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2014 13:36:31 GMT -5
Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question? Well, I don't think there's no difference. Like I said earlier, there is an impact on the blame game. Among others. How would you know the impact until the question is looked at and resolved (or disappears, if you prefer)?
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 15:24:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 28, 2014 15:24:08 GMT -5
I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question? Well, I don't think there's no difference. Like I said earlier, there is an impact on the blame game. Among others. How would you know the impact until the question is looked at and resolved (or disappears, if you prefer)? Decisions were being made prior to entertaining the question. If deciding the question impacts how you relate to people, then I would put forward that your relationship is mitigated through a philosophic disposition. If through entertaining the question you took the time to look closer at what is actually going on, great! But entertaining the question isn't the only motivation to look closer. If you are engaged and looking at a situation directly, does the question even arise? Is someone who believes in volition going to tell a gay person that they are gay through choice? Is someone who believes in determinism going to deny that choosing happens and that there is some tension and unpredictability in deciding between two evenly desired (or not desired) options? The question of "blame" to me is a whole separate issue and deals with whether or not you believe rehabilitation is possible or worth the time and energy. It also deals with the question of ethical/moral responsibility. Regardless of volition or no volition, the person who lies, cheats, steals, murders is going to get a negative response from society because it is accepted in both cases that the person is responsible for their actions, even when they can't help themselves. Whether that result in purely punitive measures or primarily rehabilitative measures stems from a different issue than volition. But in the present moment, I don't see how deciding the question has any impact on how decisions are actually made.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 16:54:43 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jun 28, 2014 16:54:43 GMT -5
There are experiences where volition determines the outcome, and there are experiences where the outcome is not affected by volition.. one of the more humorous situations where volition determines the outcome is in choosing to believe that there is no volition..
Volition is observable with a still mind's awareness, and the absence of volition is based on thought processes and beliefs.. from Wikipedia:
Whatever labels one chooses to describe this process, the process is observable/experienceable.. the contradictory choice to believe that there is no volition involves a structure of if/then conditions where the 'if' is not consistent with what is actually happening, such as: 'there is no separate self'..
Top's observation:
The question loses validity because people exercise their volition to attach to their beliefs, rather than look with openness and genuine curiosity at what is actually happening.. the attachment to belief in the absence of volition, seems like rationalization for people's attachments, blaming a system in which they have no influence, it's a very cerebral detached perspective, dependent on an active mind's beliefs and attachments..
The assertion that there is an absence of volition, or the question 'is volition true', must first understand what volition 'is'..
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 17:58:02 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2014 17:58:02 GMT -5
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. Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I don't know that looking openly in a process involving mind means realizing the truth of non-volition. If it does, then we're talking about the same thing. To me, the focus of attention is done with mind, but not the actual seeing. If you don't see the distinction, then we're not talking about the same thing. As Reefs said, it's possible to mentally understand non-volition, and just as easily mind may conclude the opposite since they're both just conceptual stories. One timeless moment of clear seeing, without thought, ends both the stories.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:00:51 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2014 18:00:51 GMT -5
Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question? It DOES make a difference.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:11:36 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2014 18:11:36 GMT -5
Well, I don't think there's no difference. Like I said earlier, there is an impact on the blame game. Among others. How would you know the impact until the question is looked at and resolved (or disappears, if you prefer)? Decisions were being made prior to entertaining the question. If deciding the question impacts how you relate to people, then I would put forward that your relationship is mitigated through a philosophic disposition. If through entertaining the question you took the time to look closer at what is actually going on, great! But entertaining the question isn't the only motivation to look closer. If you are engaged and looking at a situation directly, does the question even arise? Is someone who believes in volition going to tell a gay person that they are gay through choice? Is someone who believes in determinism going to deny that choosing happens and that there is some tension and unpredictability in deciding between two evenly desired (or not desired) options? The question of "blame" to me is a whole separate issue and deals with whether or not you believe rehabilitation is possible or worth the time and energy. It also deals with the question of ethical/moral responsibility. Regardless of volition or no volition, the person who lies, cheats, steals, murders is going to get a negative response from society because it is accepted in both cases that the person is responsible for their actions, even when they can't help themselves. Whether that result in purely punitive measures or primarily rehabilitative measures stems from a different issue than volition. But in the present moment, I don't see how deciding the question has any impact on how decisions are actually made. Deciding the question won't really change anything, but realizing the truth of it will.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:21:57 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2014 18:21:57 GMT -5
Well, I don't think there's no difference. Like I said earlier, there is an impact on the blame game. Among others. How would you know the impact until the question is looked at and resolved (or disappears, if you prefer)? Decisions were being made prior to entertaining the question. If deciding the question impacts how you relate to people, then I would put forward that your relationship is mitigated through a philosophic disposition. If volition or determinism, either, is decided on then, yes, the relationship happens through the veil of that belief. That's the point, really. Until it's looked into, that veil/distortion is there. Exactly the process! No comprendo this sentence.No. I think they'd be more likely to than someone who sees volition as purely an overlay concept Hell, I don't know. I don't think I know anyone who believes completely in determinism Yeah, I don't think anyone in their right mind argues for saying, "Oh well, you couldn't help it, no problem." If you don't think the decision of punitive measures vs rehabilitation is founded on a belief in volition, what do you think it's founded on? Seems to me, the main argument for rehab is that the criminal action is a consequence of what could be called twisted thinking and not based on some kind of conscious willful choice. Well, that was my original point and I used the ice cream choice example. In that sense, I agree - no impact. But if the question is resolved (Reef/Enigma terminology - 'seen through'), then we're operating from a clearer picture of this moment. Minus the conceptual overlay.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:37:09 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2014 18:37:09 GMT -5
Decisions were being made prior to entertaining the question. If deciding the question impacts how you relate to people, then I would put forward that your relationship is mitigated through a philosophic disposition. If volition or determinism, either, is decided on then, yes, the relationship happens through the veil of that belief. That's the point, really. Until it's looked into, that veil/distortion is there. Exactly the process! No comprendo this sentence.No. I think they'd be more likely to than someone who sees volition as purely an overlay concept Hell, I don't know. I don't think I know anyone who believes completely in determinism Yeah, I don't think anyone in their right mind argues for saying, "Oh well, you couldn't help it, no problem." If you don't think the decision of punitive measures vs rehabilitation is founded on a belief in volition, what do you think it's founded on? Seems to me, the main argument for rehab is that the criminal action is a consequence of what could be called twisted thinking and not based on some kind of conscious willful choice. Well, that was my original point and I used the ice cream choice example. In that sense, I agree - no impact. But if the question is resolved (Reef/Enigma terminology - 'seen through'), then we're operating from a clearer picture of this moment. Minus the conceptual overlay.Yup yup
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:38:48 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jun 28, 2014 18:38:48 GMT -5
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. Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? The distinction is often necessary to make it crystal clear that what's being talked about is not thought thinking about thought. No progression of working through it. No logical analysis. In this case it's more like a burning question that sits openly with no resolution. The moment it's seen to be irrelevant, it's done. There's nothing left to say. The whole thing evaporates. The interest in the question evaporates. Innocent confusion, period.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:39:54 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2014 18:39:54 GMT -5
Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I don't know that looking openly in a process involving mind means realizing the truth of non-volition. If it does, then we're talking about the same thing. To me, the focus of attention is done with mind, but not the actual seeing. If you don't see the distinction, then we're not talking about the same thing. As Reefs said, it's possible to mentally understand non-volition, and just as easily mind may conclude the opposite since they're both just conceptual stories. One timeless moment of clear seeing, without thought, ends both the stories. Ok. I see the distinction you're making, but I don't know if I'd describe it the same way. Here, I'll give you a little rundown of how I see it: Mind wonders whether volition is something that actually happens. Mind turns attention to volition. Mind says, no, not this - no, not that (repeat, repeat....) (... until eventually) *HEAD-SLAP* Ferchrissake, it's not there! Mind says, "I think I'll have some ice cream. Maybe rum raisin."
|
|