posted November 04, 2007 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

but you are the one here who is within the mainstream of academic thought, which is evidenced by the great number of mainstream thinkers you quote.....
determinism is obviously the status quo........

---

Are you for real?

The thinkers I quote,
who you think are so "manistream"
are not read by nearly enough people,
and are understood by even less.
As you can see,
almost everyone here disagrees with them.

Most of those thinkers were geniuses -
WAY ahead of their time.
They still are.

They are accepted, as I am accepted,
because people think they entertain
and offer food for thought.

Several men of genius have expressed the feeling
that they consider other men of genius as their brothers.
In a world where they feel isolated and misunderstood,
even by the people who claim to revere them,
they call out to one another across the centuries,
and hear their own thoughts echoed through the ages.
Yes, I do identify with them.
I'm so mainstream, lol.
You tickle me.

Determinism is mainstream?
What planet are you living on?
What drugs are you taking?

AT LEAST ninety-nine out of a hundred people I speak to
are believers in free will.
Everywhere you go, popculture is flooded with talk of free will.

The governments of the world take it for granted.

The world as we know it runs on "free will"!!!!

Are you even serious??

Your responses are getting so easy to dismantle,
you are really starting to bore me.

Mainstream, eh?

Sun, Venus, Midheaven conjunct URANUS
(all within 3 degrees) in Scorpio
Moon in Aquarius
Aquarius Intercepted in the 1st house

Which of those placements suggests "mainstream"?

I'm done with you.

No soup for you.

"NEXT!"

posted November 04, 2007 07:17 PM            

Luke 5:30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

quote:

---

"They that are whole need not a physician;
but they that are sick."
~ Luke 5:31

---

Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 07:23 PM              

quote:

---

and what is the ultimate act of free will?

forgiveness

---

quote:

---

Understanding makes forgiveness obsolete.

---

Is one untrue?

Can Forgiveness happen without Understanding?

Can Understanding exist without Forgiveness?

This is the quandry I find in
free will or determinism

Does not the existance of One in its contrast reveal the existance (as well) of the Other?

Could free will exist without the presence of God's will?

And does God's will, simply because it does exist, defy the additional existance of free will?

Why must we divide and select?
As all myriad elements/molecules in the Universe swirl their cosmic dance~ intertwining, repelling...dividing/coming together again. Negative/positive polaritie's reactions to each other cause creation. So, how can we ever create a Unified theory from one directive? The reactions are possibly infinite. The causes maybe as well.

Nothingness cannot BE without Something.

One cannot be One without Both (another).

And so...back to Zero (square One), forever we'll have to ponder on the Source.

Is it neutral/staid/still?

Or is it All/this and that; ever-evolving-expanding?

Or is it Both?

Why not?

Doesn't the denial in itself of multiple possibility or merging possibilities
restrict more expansive thought?

posted November 04, 2007 07:36 PM            

The context only restates what I just said;
that he was calling sinners sick.

The quote you sited was about forgiving sinners.

The quote I sited was about understanding them.

Do you have anything to respond?

posted November 04, 2007 07:49 PM              

quote:

---

thats right 26t
the boundary of a fractal doesnt even exist as any material thing

but we're discussing the objective aspects
of the illusion.....not the fact that its an illusion in the first place.....

---

I'm aware of that, Petron.

Good luck with that one.

posted November 04, 2007 08:09 PM            

To forgive...

The mind needs understanding.

The heart needs time.

Understanding cleans the wound, so it can heal.

But it takes time for the pain to subside.

I dont think true forgiveness is possible without understanding.

"Lay not that flattering unction to your soul...
It will but skin and film the ulcerous place,
whiles rank corruption, mining all within, infects unseen."
~ Hamlet

Or, if it is possible,
it is only possible in the light of love,
and I mean love equal to the task.
But that is even more rare than understanding,
and, if ever it is found,
it may make both understanding
and forgiveness obsolete.
But the best way I know to increase love,
is by the path of understanding.

Yes, forgiveness still exists,
but as a consequence of understanding.

Understanding is the instrument
that seduces the cobra to stand
and dance according to its tune.

Understand, and wait;
forgiveness, like the cobra,
will come of its own accord.

posted November 04, 2007 08:21 PM            

You are confusing meditation with satori.

posted November 04, 2007 08:22 PM            

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Mat 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Sin = sickness yet Jesus said "forgive" the sinner for his sickness,yes? You understand they are sinners/sick and he still says forgive them.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 08:30 PM            

The man asked him about forgiveness,
and he answered about forgiveness.

You will indeed have to forgive your brother 490 times,
if you do not understand him.

posted November 04, 2007 08:30 PM            

Take this statement:

Understanding makes forgiveness obsolete.

***omit obsolete and look what we have

Yes, forgiveness still exists,
but as a consequence of understanding.

Nice!

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 08:32 PM            

Peter was a Disciple so it stands to reason he understood sin/sickness? Much more so than we would ever dream of at this stage in our existance ! We can only aspire to Peter`s understanding

*edited for clarity.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 08:34 PM              

determinism is the mainstream in all scientific and cosmological sciences....
behavioural determinism is the mainstream in psychological sciences

unfortunately its a fact, and its what turns people off to science......people are always lumping me in with the 'materialistic "scientists"...the type who you prefer to quote the most....
i suppose many people here hold the same stereotype about scientists....youve made similar remarks yourself......

yet i'm also an aikido sensei....and ive spent many many years cultivating the zen approach of 'mushin noshin'....mind of no mind...existing in the moment...
this is where i take my metaphysical approach from....a balance between gnosis and nous

i dont drink or do drugs, is that your defense here?

perhaps thats your problem, patanjali states that intoxication leads to false thinking

......i see that alot....

posted November 04, 2007 08:48 PM            

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 09:09 PM              

i think if you google it you will see the difference right away....

**hsc isnt even responding to my refutation of his logic...... instead he says i must be on drugs to say that determinism is the mainstream scientific consensus...lol

i think i'm out of here for now....

Petron the Dragon

posted November 04, 2007 09:15 PM            

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 11:53 PM            

This is one of the issues I have with politically conservative people (not to get politcal or anything), it's that they simply don't take into account that people are a confluence of environments and genetics, and the ability to change who they are, what they say, their preferences, etc is pretty weak. Just look at identical twins separated at birth and raised in different households, they often end up in the same profession, and even show up to interviews wearing the same outfit.

posted November 05, 2007 12:01 AM              

when seen in the context of divine laws and all that.

*edit ~ the book actually is labelled as a new interpretation of the Kybalion.

posted November 05, 2007 01:21 AM              

Richards and Bergin (2005), for example, list a number of naturalistic assumptions of mainstream psychology, including determinism, atomism, materialism, hedonism, and positivism, which they view as incompatible with theistic assumptions, such as free will, holism, spirituality, altruism, and theistic realism.
http://brentdslife.com/article/upload/cairo/Cairo%20Presentation%201.doc.

**************

Determinism, Social Science, and Public Administration
Lessons From Isaiah Berlin
Michael W. Spicer

Cleveland State University

This article critically examines the argument that mainstream social science research should play a greater role in public administration inquiry than it has. Drawing in significant part on the ideas of the late Isaiah Berlin, it is argued here that the deterministic view of human action that is offered by such research is not very useful to public administration practice and, if overemphasized, may even pose dangers to our values of human freedom and responsibility.

http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/256

********************

One has to appreciate that the assumptions of genetic determinism, in one form or another, have been the bread and butter of mainstream biology for at least 100 years, rather the way that Newtonian mechanics had been the foundations of physics in the pre-quantum physics era. Within 10 years of the Central Dogma, however, genetics was turned upside-down. All those assumptions, and more, were contradicted by research findings, from the then newly developed recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php

*****************

Scientific materialism has a “plot,” Barr argues, a story of the development of scientific knowledge that makes religious belief increasingly implausible as the evidences of science pile up. Indeed, he claims that by the end of the 19th century, mainstream science postulated and seemed to have proven a steady-state, boundless universe governed by relatively simple laws, with the Earth a meaningless mote in a random corner, and with all physical phenomena—including human nature itself—subject to the iron grip of strictly deterministic causality.

But a funny thing happened on the way through the 20th century: At least five major problems arose within mainstream science that spoiled the materialist plotline. The greater part of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith is an exposition of these twists:
the universe seems to have had a beginning, after all (the rise of the Big Bang theory);
the profound increase in the evidence for design in nature (the astounding beauty and unexpected symmetries of modern mathematical physics);
perhaps the Earth and humans are special, after all (cosmic fine-tuning and anthropic “coincidences”);
the human mind may not be reducible to computational matter, after all (the Gödel-Lucas-Penrose argument against mental reductionism);
and human (and divine) freedom has a real physical basis, after all (quantum indeterminacy breaks classical determinism).
http://www.discovery.org/a/2092

*******************

rethinking determinism in social science
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~rcb1/Robert%20Bishop,%20Oxford%20Philosophy_files/Ret hinking.pdf.

****************

Chaos theory and fuzzy logic challenge the deterministic beliefs and assumptions of mainstream science
http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/6/2/315

********************

From the point of view of this mainstream, and practically positivistic science, James approach in the Varieties seems like a naive imitation :much too loose, too subjective, too unmethodical,and too unmathematical

Induction, pragmatically speaking, is simply deduction without a Gods-eye view. In this way, sciences monism is coupled with a straightforward causual determinism. This determinism is consistent with the other two assumptions that concerned James: (1)that the world is essentially matter and (2) that things are best understood through a reduction to their original cause.

*******************

But of course Machan is championing what most people, wedded to the supernatural soul and its power, want to hear, namely that we are exceptions to determinism. So it’s likely that in the short run he’ll find considerable support for taking the contrarian line against mainstream science. But that doesn’t make him right.
http://www.naturalism.org/machan.htm

*******************

John Dupre
Human Nature and the Limits of Science

Evolutionary psychology (hereafter EP), like sociobiology before it, attempts to explain a range of topics across the human condition. EP is now mainstream science that has convinced psychologists of the need to provide functional explanations of human mental capacities and explain functional design by natural selection for reproductive success.

An effort to explain all human phenomena through natural selection acting directly on heritable phenotypic variation would involve biological determinism, reductionism, and adaptationism in some senses. http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1138

******************

"Evolution Through the Lens of Science and Spirit"

I believe in a combination of complexity theory and Sheldrake's neo-vitalism. Everything makes sense, in a way, when seen from these perspectives. But this approach will have a hard time getting acceptance from mainstream science, because it depends on a view of the universe as alive and intelligent. Current mainstream science insists that the universe, and nature, are not intelligent.

posted November 05, 2007 01:50 AM              

Outside of things that are beyond our control most often what restricts our free will within ourselves is fear.

There are some people who will live in the most horrible, abusive and unhappy conditons we can imagine because the fear of change is so strong in them. It's far easier and less risky to maintain the status quo. That's the main reason why people don't change. It isn't that they can't change. It's because they are afraid to take the risks that are required to change. They are afraid of trying something new. Human beings are comfortable with the familiar. It doesn't matter how bad the familiar may be. It is more preferable to many people then taking the chances and risks required to change the circumstances of their lives. To change themselves.

I feel that both Petron and HSC are right. Petron is right when he says that determinism is the popular notion in the fields of science and pyschology. HSC is right that regarding the world population Free Will is probably about 90% the consensus of belief. The reason for that is that all spirituality is based on the concept of free will. To my knowledge there is no religion that teaches anything but free will. There is no spiritual thought that does not have free will as its basis. Otherwise why talk about spirituality if there is nothing we can do inwardly to change in order to act more from the soul instead of the ego?

I don't agree with HSC's statement that governments operate on free will. In fact most governments would like to do away with free will all together. They don't like it when people think and reason for themselves. It works against the need of governments to control the lives and thoughts of its citizens. Many totalitarian governments in the world do not allow their citizens to exercise their free will by making choices in their lives. Those governments control the lives of their peoples. Even in our U.S. government and other so-called democratic governments free will of the citizens is restricted in many, many ways.

All humanity has it's God given gift of Free Will restricted in some way. Either by outside influences such as governments, or inward influences such as our own weaknesses, fears, and psyche. Those are the demons we fight in order to be totally free.

posted November 05, 2007 02:09 AM              

the seven sacred principles of the hermetic Kybalion, the first of which is "the All is Mind; the Universe is Mental."

"this principle explains that the entire universe, (including yourself and your life) is composed of an all-encompassing Divine Mind, its thoughts and thought forms.

The Kybalion refers to the Creator as "The All". "The All" is mind, which means infinite and unerring intelligence, wisdom and creativity. since "The All" is everywhere, Mind is everywhere. you live in this omnipresent mind of The All."

the second sacred principle is that of correspondences, summarized by Hermes's phrase, "As above, so below; as below, so above."

the sixth sacred principle is called "Cause and Effect." The Kybalion says: "every Cause has its Effect, every Effect has its Cause. everything happens according to Law. Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law.

"This is a perfectly ordered Universe,and nothing happens by chance or accident. there's always a cause behind every effect."
________________________________________________________

posted November 05, 2007 02:12 AM              

i think i'll call it 'Petrons drug crazed Theorem of Gods irrationality'

this makes perfect sense, as all sacred universal constants are also irrational....

square roots of 2,3,5, etc...irrational
pi....irrational
phi...irrational
e...irrational

etc. etc.

**********

Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, perhaps the single most celebrated result in mathematical logic, states that:

For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.1 That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

quote:

---

any 'theory of everything' will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory--Stanley Jaki

The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them."—Freeman Dyson

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."—Stephen Hawking, Gödel and the end of physics, July 20, 2002

---

in·con·sis·tent
adj.
1. Displaying or marked by a lack of consistency, especially:
a. Not regular or predictable; erratic: inconsistent behavior.
b. Lacking in correct logical relation; contradictory: inconsistent statements.
c. Not in agreement or harmony; incompatible: an intersection inconsistent with the road map.
2. Mathematics Not solvable for the unknowns by the same set of values. Used of two or more equations or inequalities.

***************

therefore....the ALL, cannot be complete and consistent
meaning its either not the ALL, or its not determined.....

case closed

Petron the Dragon