Ok again. I am still conflicted as to wanting to erase the above, since I thought of some thing, that may change the idea of which narrative would be more appropriate. So if I decide, to opt for a more simple and better understood version. HOPING THIS ONE, THEN THIS ONE SHOULD BE THE VERSION THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE RIGHT ONE.
The will to choose is never a factor, even if, the many choices seem to suggest otherwise, and the final choice us the only measure of the veracity of its determination.
I think this is the preferred one , and it sits more comfortably.
But: no one knows what has been predetermined, until its determination becomes manifest.
Its the final battle, not in the sense of good against evil, but in the sense of man against himself… His intention, toward the good, the light, is ore formed and performed at every moment, and in that performance lies his destiny, and the moment it is done, it changes all prior determinations.
It is the will, through power, !
( Preferrably for the good, though they are never known until their effects become manifest)
This post was meant for either Karpel Tunnel or Phyllo but…
But I would say that that depends on the individual. So much depends on the individual and how he sees and responds to the world.
I may be wrong in how I see what you are saying above. I can imagine that the more self-conscious (not ego), self-aware, caring human being might, after coming to realize/discover that will, his will, is not so free and self-determined as he thought, might then be very careful with his decisions, strive to hone his sense of response ability and “to do no harm” to a greater degree.
But what of the other kind of individual? The psychopath, the sociopath, the rapist, the pedophile, et cetera?
Your “truth” might give them “just cause” within their own minds to do what they wanted - after all, they cannot be held responsible for their actions. This is what I meant before by a “slippery slope”. Even the more balanced individual might begin to feel that way afterwards - we often come to convince ourselves of something which is more alluring and likable to us. Remember, one size does not fit all.
Feel free to take your time with the other post if you get swamped and do not forget to smell the flowers.
Personally speaking, I just do not see it - that we have been pre-determined, like we have been written in the stars, fated or destined for this life or that life. the chosen one. I think it is ego and fatalism.
Even when something supposedly becomes manifest, does that necessarily spell the end of its journey?
Your words reminded me of this little poignant story. We never, never know, do we?
Who Knows? The Farmer’s Son:
Fortune or Misfortune?
I’m not sure what that means. I have a will and my will wants to choose, so how is the will not a factor?
Right.
I never read Nietzsche, is that what you’re referring to? The concept of the will to power is interesting, but what I am sharing is how to remove the hurt that exists in human relation. It’s not good against evil, as if there’s the good guys against the bad guys. But there is hurt in this world, and that’s what this knowledge has the power to prevent.
[/quote]
You’re right, we can’t know until the effects are manifest which takes place at every moment.
His observations were correct. He didn’t use the scientific method starting with a hypothesis and then finding data to support it. That’s not how he came to these findings. Each person can see for himself by using themselves as the subject matter to see if these principles work as they think about how they would react when all blame is removed from the environment. It will be empirically proven that under these conditions no one will be able not only not to desire hurting a living soul but not to desire gaining at anyone’s expense, just as the bridge will be built. It’s just a matter of time.
This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.
What does the fact that will is not free have to do with being objective? It doesn’t make sense. We still have a brain, we still can think, we still can do all the things that a person with free will could do, if there was such a thing. Maybe it’s back to the same mistaken definition that’s confusing you.
What does subconscious imagery about a future event negate the FACT that man’s will is not free? We can imagine all sorts of things. Sometimes I think we’re talking a different language. No one is listening to the other.
Yes, we often have multiple options to choose from. Every decision we make is a movement toward a more satisfactory position than where are now standing. If there are no good options, we are compelled to choose the lesser of two evils, or the least unfavorable choice.
You could have chosen the strawberry when comparing it to chocolate, if you had desired it, but you chose the chocolate, even if the choices were equally desired which is equivalent to choosing A and A. Not a meaningful difference. Looking back, you could NOT have chosen the strawberry. Later on, you may decide to eat the the strawberry rather than the chocolate, if that is your preference. We live in the present and each moment offers us a new set of possibilities. But that is different than saying you could have chosen otherwise, which is impossible.
You are right. That is a faulty definition of determinism. Each moment is new and continuous, and we get to choose “freely” (without external constraint), but we don’t have free will, as I explained, because we cannot move backward (in the direction of what would give us less satisfaction) when life itself pushes us always in the direction away from dissatisfaction.
We don’t have to IF WE DON’T WANT TO. Determinism is not prescriptive although once a choice is made we can say correctly that this choice could not have been otherwise because it is the only choice that could have been made per the laws of our nature. I said so many times that the conventional definition of determinism is faulty, not determinism itself. If you would hear me out, you would see that we are in agreement.
Responsibility is increased with this knowledge, but this judgment as to what a person should have chosen (CHCO) is part of the problem.
In the new world people will not desire to hurt anyone when there is no justification to do so. Right now, people have justification. As long as they feel justified conscience WILL permit the act. The word “immoral” is not applicable because it’s a judgment of good and bad. In actuality, no one is good or bad, just doing what they do in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is incredible because the change in environment causes a change in human conduct, rendering hurting others the least preferable choice among meaningful options. That’s the only thing that changes. People will be freer than ever to do whatever they find preferable with no one telling them what to do or what is best for them. Big government will be a thing of the past.
So you think it would be better if we had this choice as well just so that it could be demonstrated we really had free will ?
But what actual purpose would that have given that we would still want to choose the most satisfactory choice available ?
What if nothing gives us lasting satisfaction except that which we do out of true freedom?
I seem to experience this as being the case. I can’t be truly satisfied truly if I just “fulfill my carnal desires” or something like that. It satisfies a lack but it doesn’t satisfy justification of Being.
This is why I am such a good cook, among other things. I always make it a little better than it should technically be able to be.
So what Im saying is, your absolute, peacegirl, is not an exactitude. So you can’t use it as the crux of an argument.
Satisfaction could just mean the lowering of tensions. But that doesn’t give any qualia of the tension, it doesn’t give substance, it doesn’t predict.
Because satisfaction is a term that doesn’t differentiate into qualities.
Maybe thats too technical but Im just saying.
There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.
“Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don’t move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”
If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.
I have already shown that satisfaction is illusory, temporary. Always followed by fear/pain of loss or comfort and loss of new experience. Both are bad and against an evolutionary path for an individual.
Satisfaction don’t last, pretty sure even The Rolling Stones knew this and made a song “Can’t get no satisfaction”
There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.
“Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don’t move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”
If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.
So the author can make a claim without following the greater satisfaction or pleasure movement in that direction, but we can’t? Horse shit, not every movement is dictated by greater satisfaction. Some take no satisfaction, death isn’t satisfactory if one had to sacrifice life for someone else, it may be necessary to them, not satisfactory.
I never said that Artimas! I said that we don’t always move toward something pleasurable but we do move in the direction of greater satisfaction. For example, I may choose to give up my life for my child if only one of us had a chance of surviving. This would have given me greater satisfaction, but certainly not pleasure.
I would like to know what happens when this idea finally takes root in human consciousness and starts being accepted ?
Is it then inevitable that it will become accepted by absolutely everyone and will this be the end of suffering for ever ?
I am sceptical as no idea or belief in human history has ever had such acceptance so why should this be any different ?
We aren’t talking about what gives an individual satisfaction; it could be many things that drive an individual to choosing one thing over another. Regardless of what a person chooses, we are driven by our nature to move in this direction every moment of life.
I understand the skepticism, but this discovery really can rid the world of most of the evil (hurt) plaguing mankind. It’s inevitable because we cannot move against what is better for ourselves, and this world (which is absolutely possible) is the better choice. The sad part is that this discovery hasn’t been carefully investigated. The author died before he had a chance to prove his claims. I just hope this knowledge doesn’t get thrown into a slush pile along with of a lot of bad claims that are out there. The knowledge is here, it’s just a matter of getting it brought to light. Mankind has been developing and could not have reached this turning point until now. The author said this knowledge is part of the real world, not something he invented, so someone else could make the same discovery but it may take another thousand years and by that time we may destroy ourselves.
You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?
Will there be any laws in this brave new world ? Presumably not if people are free to do as they please and accountable to no one but has this ever been tried ?
Maybe in small isolated tribes that are entirely self governing but not the entire world ? And without any historical precedence you cannot say what will happen
You can certainly wish for a better future but wishing and predicting are not the same and you have no more idea what the future holds than anyone else does
Knowledge claims about the future cannot be accepted even if they turn out to be true and in that respect yours are no different to anyone elses
You have no more idea what the future will be like in a thousand years time no more than your ancestors of a thousand years ago had about today
