posted November 05, 2007 02:52 AM              

"the All is Mind; the Universe is Mental."
These very words have been coming up again and again in my mind as of late.

posted November 05, 2007 03:30 AM              

And as all things were from One, by the meditation of One, so from this One Thing come all things by adaptation. Its father is the Sun, its mother is the Moon, the wind carried it in its belly, the nurse thereof is the Earth.

It is the father of all perfection and the consummation of the whole world. Its power is integral if it be turned to Earth.

Thou shalt separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the coarse, gently and with much ingenuity. It
ascends from Earth to heaven and descends again to Earth, and receives the power of the superiors and the
inferiors.

Thus thou hast the glory of the whole world; therefore let all obscurity flee before thee. This is the strong fortitude of all fortitude, overcoming every subtle and penetrating every solid thing. Thus the world was created. Hence are all wonderful adaptations, of which this is the manner.

posted November 05, 2007 09:28 AM              

quote:

---

Lia,

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.

---

I did embrace what you meant, Stephen,
I thought it was illuminating, beautiful and profound. Even more so beautiful the way you just worded it.
I've experienced such and I also believe that understanding makes forgiveness obsolete, in the sense that understanding naturally forgives. Forgiveness isn't a concern or thought. With understanding it needn’t be.
And Love is the prime force that compels us to strive for understanding. The greater the love, the greater the hope, the greater we strive.

What I meant to express was how understanding/forgiveness may also merge in a simultaneous way or also the possibility that forgiveness can come before understanding as well. I have forgiven others before I've understood. Even still lost in confusion. Love again. Perhaps you could say there was already understanding on some yet unspoken/unresolved level. Or an openness to other senses rather than the logical or superficial, which would see only what was immediate before one, forsaking the rest of all it has experienced, perceived, or sensed or senses on finer levels. Love forgave instantly. Love makes understanding as obsolete as forgiveness. (As you said).

I don't see how free will and determinism can coexist.

I don't see how they cannot. Everything coexists.

posted November 05, 2007 09:33 AM              

juni, a bit of information anyway ~ http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002295.html

---I came across this thread. I had forgotten it.

"Co-Creation; Free-Will, illogical but maybe intuitive" http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001934.html

I responded then~

We are Islands in Sea.
We are erected; Alone...willful.
Yet, without the Sea surrounding us...we would be seen as the mass of land we are~ connected to a vastness of land far reaching our Vision.

If we may discover we are both; All... while One unto ourselves simultaneously...perhaps we could relax within that and simply BE.
From that we are allowing God to flow through us....as we are Shining the Uniqueness of our Souls as well.
I see no separation.

Over time, Stephen, you've often inspired me to look more indepthly at things I hadn't before considered...concerning determinism...concerning so many things. You have great ability to sense such subtle unseen workings and travel into other realms least trespassed....it's truly a gift. I leave possibility open to consider the things you say always.

What I meant by that was that the Sea pronounces our existence as an Island. For without the Sea around us, we wouldn't appear or be perceived (as well, to ourselves) as an Island. But also, if the Sea did not exist....we would be viewed/perceived as One mass of Land, not an island. The sea makes us appear an island, but really we are not. But yet, we are.
We're both, I feel. I don't believe that any experience is an illusion to us. It's as real as we perceive it. It's real. It's what we know.

We're born alone, we die alone in a sense. But we come from a connection; a womb. Together, round and round we could keep going, but it's a spiraling coil (an open circle) that will always return to reveal both again and again.

The Sea as God...the Island as Us...the Mass with which we are part of -- "All".
We're all as connected as we are separate.
As Lone as we are United.
There's no reason to see ourselves entirely apart or entirely connected. Entirely of our own will, or entirely of God's. Entirely anything.
Everything is occurring simultaneously; in constant movement in myriad ways.

I think simultaneousness is often mistaken as "Oneness" and this restricts a wider breadth of Vision. It refutes the entire concept of infinity, for Oneness alone places a boundary and excludes.

Perhaps there is a Oneness/Love/Energy/God from which all flows. I believe that, but I don’t believe in it (at this time) exclusively. The thoughts I have cannot yet settle around this concept as a one and only final conclusion, because in of itself it is finite. It appeals to us, for we our consoled with the comfort of a single nurturing birth. The human mind easily finds comfort in the rationality of measurable distinctions. I will probably be misunderstood as saying there is not Oneness for this inclination to hone, select single focus and create distinction. That’s not what I’m saying.

posted November 05, 2007 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

Everything can coexist.

---

Can a man with only one eyeball have two eyeballs?

posted November 05, 2007 09:55 AM            

For understanding and focusing on
what is really the most important part,
and the only thing I wish to make clear.

posted November 05, 2007 09:56 AM            

quote:

---

are 'emergent' properties of complex systems.....
and can never be determined entirely by genetics and environment....

---

And "emergent properties of complex systems"
is exactly what I am talking about.
Your definition of environment is too narrow.

quote:

---

i can only imagine what church would be like if jesus had taught determinism....
"dearly beloved.....we are gathered here today for no reason....
just a chain of atomic interactions over which even God has no control or purpose...."

---

Try to imagine what it would be like if he taught hatred.
"Unbelievers deserve to burn in hell" lol
Oh, wait, he didnt teach hatred, and they still say that.
Well, he didnt teach free will either.
And I will tell you exactly what church would be like,
if his teaching were understood:

"A tree is known by its fruit.
Every tree brings forth fruit after its own kind.
If you would judge the fruit, you must judge the tree as well.
Man is the fruit and God is the tree.
Judge man and you judge God.

"I can do nothing of myself, but what the Father bids me do.
By His grace, I am what I am, and not by any will of my own.
Lord, not my will, but thine be done.

"He created the wicked and the just.
He made the dove and formed the crooked serpent.
But how little is known of His power.

"As we see, so shall we speak.
We speak that which we have seen,
and ye receive not our witness.

"Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Their will is not free, but curbed by ignorance."

(Just some things to think about.)

quote:

---

determinism is obviously the status quo........

---

posted November 05, 2007 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinists speak of "causes and effects"
for the sake of convenience;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

how convenient....
since this is the entirety of your whole argument,
that everything is caused by a prior reason.....
which makes these statements quite illogical....

---

You are misunderstanding the entirety of my argument.
My answer to your next question will try to explain that somewhat.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see God as the First Cause. That is all.
I cannot say that there was a first domino -
it seems likely they've been falling for eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

huh!!??

---

When I speak of causes,
and even as God as First Cause,
I speak in the abstract.
If there is no begining, there can be no Cause, yes.
But God is transcendant, always an abstraction.
As I've said, the act of Creation is not a point in time,
or at the "beginning of time", lol,
but, rather, it is an ongoing process of Being.
Is this not "complete and inconsistent"?
When there is a reason for something,
it is only a provisional reason,
unless there is also a reason for everything.
But if there is no reason for everything,
what do we call that?
"Transcendant?" "God?"
God is the reason without reason,
because God is a pure abstraction.
It is just a name we give to the Nothingness
that underlies and sustains all Being, and is all Being.
"All characteristics are no characteristics."
- The Diamond Sutra

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever does or does not break down at point zero,
has no bearing on eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

time breaking down at point zero has no bearing on eternity?
and no bearing on the physical laws of particle interactions
on which your entire mechanistic theory rests?

---

Eternity is outside of time, so how can time come to bear?
The mechanistic part of my theory makes sense within time.
The abstract part of my theory transcends time.
Whether speaking of time, and particulars,
or eternity, and absolutes, the constant is Reason.

posted November 05, 2007 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although the All cannot be subject
to anything above and beyond itself,
it is nevertheless constrained by an internal logic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is illogical for the ALL to be constrained by internal logic....
or it will be incomplete or inconsistent, either of which will be fatal to your theory......
if it is incomplete, it is not the ALL
if it is inconsistent, it is not determined...

---

You will have to do a better job of explaining Godel's theory to me.
And I do not see how it is either incomplete, or inconsistent,
to say that there is a fundamental LOGIC
to which The All must and does adhere.
Pure, undirected illogic is impossible,
and has its corrollary in Nothingness.
It is a pure abstraction, as God is a pure abstraction.
To the extent that God exists as a "thing", illogic may also exist,
but God does not really exist - at least, not in that way.
You may say The All is a thing, and, so, is reasonable.
But God, who is both The All and The Transcendant, is not.
This is not to say that God is illogical.
He merely transcends logic and resides in a realm of abstraction.
His All is still constrained,
and He, as the All, is constrained.
Beyond the All, He is not constrained,
but, neither is He a thing.
So, being without logic,
is not being with illogic.
It is just Being(/Nothingness).
And anything else you try to say about it,
and its nature, as it "exists" apart from the All,
will sound equally absurd,
and be equally true; equally untrue.
So, God is really a useless concept.
Read Lao Tzu to grasp the place of uselessness.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the cog is a microcosm....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God is the macrocosm.
Thank you for making my point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that has never been your point,
your analogy is a cog in a machine...

---

Yes. And the machine is infinite.
It is a cog in a cog in a cog, so to speak.
Just as the cog is not an island to itself,
and its nature depends on the part it plays in the whole,
the cog partakes of the infinite nature of the machine.
The cog is infinite and self-contained in that sense,
as God is finite, a part,
in the sense that He partakes of the nature of the cog.
But neither God, nor the cog, exist as such.
We merely speak of them as isolated "things" for convenience.
The cog is also the machine.
"All for one and one for all."

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a matter of taste,
and I am inclined to agree with you.
But the analogy is essentially the same.
The fractal is not free,
but it is fun to look at.
Really, its just a shinier cog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a microcosm is a reflection of the whole on a lesser level....
its nothing like a cog in a machine...
the fractal is free if the whole is free.....
you said this in a previous post

---

I did? Could you quote me, in context, please?
And if, as you have it written, I used the word "if",
I think that would be the operative word here.
If the whole is not free, neither is the fractal.
The whole is free only in the sense that
it is not in conflict with itself.
When we realize our infinite nature,
we partake of this "wholeness".
In the meantime, and in time,
we are identified with ourselves, not God.
In this sense, the analogy breaks down. Just like at the zero point.
"Analogous but not identical."
We are God as Son, not as Father.

posted November 05, 2007 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First things first. My first point is that man is not the cause.
Man is a finite entity, and therefore,
cannot be the transcendant reason for his own nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a microcosm is infinite, if the macrocosm is infinite
a fractal is infinite, in every one of its lower reflections
as mannu pointed out
there is a smaller infinity and a larger infinity

---

Of course.
You can go in all directions, infinitely.
And, yes, man, as part, partakes of eternity.
We can reduce him to a single celled organism,
or enlarge upon him to see The Galaxy.
We can reduce him to The Big Bang,
or enlarge upon him to see The Rapture (or whatever you want to call it).
If we stop there, it is only on account of our shortsightedness.
He is more than man, more than where he stands in space/time.
As a single cell, he is a child. As the Universe, he is elder.
Man as microcosm relates to The All as macrocosm,
and to God, in the sense that God is the All.
But, as I have tried to show, to the best of my ability
(and, indeed, such things are not easily conveyed by words),
God is beyond even the All.
God as pure Idea is not a macrocosm of anything.
"He" is the zero point, outside of time/space.
When you reach the level in your spiritual evolution
where you can percieve this aspectless aspect of God,
there will no longer be "microcosm" or "macrocosm".
Nor will there be "part" or "whole", "man" or "God".
Then, and only then, will you know a kind of freedom.
But it will not be the freedom to do anything,
it will only be the freedom to do as you please.
"The only freedom I care about is the freedom to do right;
the freedom to do wrong I am ready to part with
on the cheapest terms to anyone who will take it." - Thomas Huxley
You will not be in conflict,
but that is not because you are in a position to change anything at all.
It will be because you have come into harmony with the way things are.
In other words, you will not have the freedom to mow the lawn, -
only the freedom to find beauty in the unmowed lawn;
you will not have the freedom to defend against an attack, -
only the freedom to welcome the attack;
you will not have the freedom to end world hunger, -
only the freedom to not be disturbed by it.
As God is undisturbed.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, as you agreed,
there are no gaps between causes and effects,
how can there be gaps between man and his environment?
This should be your "ah ha" moment.
Carrying this a bit further,
how can there be gaps between Creation and Creator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is the point i was trying to cut thru to
from my very first question.....
because nothing can pre-determine the ALL
except itself.....
nothing.....
if you accept that man is a microcosm
then this should be your ah ha!! moment

---

posted November 05, 2007 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you want to master a thing, teach that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

theres a difference between a teacher and a preacher....

---

Here we go again.
Another one of these new age cliches.
Its haters like you who give preaching a bad name,
not preachers like me.
Dont be a preacher hater,
be a preacher congratulator.
In any case, I am more than preacher.
I may be more committed to dialogue than anyone here.
Am I not painstakingly and thoroughly
answering all of your questions,
round after round after round?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "nothing more" part is yours, not mine.
As is the word "deplorable".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you used the word deplorable in this thread

---

Are you going to quote me?
Please do so, in context.
And deplorable does indeed have another meaning
when the words "nothing more" are appended.
God, who is all things,
can indeed be deplorable and admirable,
contemptable and loveable, petty and magnificent, etc.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But pure waiting is meditation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if youre waiting for something youre not meditating.....

---

You may be quoting me:
"Patience isnt waiting for something."
But, then, who said anything about
waiting for something?
I said "pure waiting".
Waiting for God is not waiting for something.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, we all know what ambivalence feels like,
Imagine a scale.
On one side is your desire to smoke,
on the other, your desire not to smoke.
At some point,
you made the choice to quit smoking.
Tell me,
what led to that decision?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is ambivalence, as you say, you know what it feels like
there is no scale
during the very act of smoking, i didnt want to do it....
if only all our actions were based on a logical reasons....

---

Reasons are logical. Period.
Emotional reasons are logical in that they are reasons.
In fact, no reason has power to tip the scale
unless it is motivated by emotion.
If our actions are based on emotions,
that is itself a valid impetus.
The fact that you could not pinpoint a "logical reason",
by your own standards,
only suggests to me that your standards require revision.

quote:

---

i quit because one night i only had 1 cigarette left
so i told myself i would wait til morning to smoke it
3 minutes later it was in my mouth lit,
and i had absolutely no memory
of taking it from the pack
taking out the lighter, lighting it,
and puffing several times......
the idea that i had no memory of doing that
just minutes before
no matter how hard i searched my mind
horrified me......

---

There you have it. Vwalla! A reason "WHY".
By some concatenation of circumstances beyond your control,
it came about that you were "horrified";
a very palpable feeling, a very logical reason,
capable of tipping the scale the other way.
Were you free to be horrified before this?
Were you free to quit before being horrified?
If so, why didnt you?
You will find there is an answer to this question as well.
Always, a reason why.
For every thing but everything.

posted November 05, 2007 11:09 AM              

quote:

---

Can a man with only one eyeball have two eyeballs?

---

You're pulling universal concepts back down to literal, restrictive, earthly perceptions. I'm out there, I'm in here. Seeking beyond what is directly before us.

I was inspired to share thoughts.
I had felt
sincere desire and a welcome feeling to break through to higher truths, exploring together. I've found the discussions fascinating. I realize I traveled a bit off topic. I was just inspired to go there in that moment.

I've never found anyone who shares my thoughts. That's ok. It doesn't quench my innocent eagerness to exchange.

Anyway...thanks everyone.

posted November 05, 2007 11:41 AM            

quote:

---

True BR which is what I was saying in my post as well. Free Will is restricted by certain factors in our lives.

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

---

I agree with you completely, and I also agree that both petron and HSC are right to a point. To me, it is clear that both free will and determinism exist, depending on the context. Fear is the greatest restriciton, but it is also the most primal emotion, meant to keep us safe and from danger. Humans do have the ability to overcome and move past fear, and to me this implies free will. Whenever a human being overcomes an animalistic instinct, I believe this implies free will.

Lia:

I tend to agree with you that we are all connected, this is something you often hear spiritual minded people say, but its something you really have to feel for yourself. I do not believe we are separate, my contention, more and more, is that there is no separation at all, it is merely an illusion generated by our mammalian brain. Even physically, the particles and energy that form our body form a direct web connection to everything around us. There truly is no separation. It's a free floating stew of particles.

I find the idea of separation to be very lonely, and although I do feel this way at times, I find it more comforting to think of everything as connected.

Something I'm starting to realize, and reading Mirandee's posts has helped me with this, is that doubt and logic are not always helpful. Sometimes it is more logical to be illogical. Why? Because belief can make us happy and give our life meaning, whereas doubt and logic and questioning can lead to great despair.

The idea of determinism is wholly depressing to me. If my entire life is predetermined by by past events, I might as well go lay down in the street and die, because there's really no point to continue to exist. So my logic for denying determinism, which seems oh so logical, is that determinism is a step on the road to nihilism, and that's not a happy place. I believe one can logically deny an idea because it is destructive to the self, and that this is a higher form of logic than raw logic itself. As HSC said in a post just a few above,

quote:

---

Emotional reasons are logical in that they are reasons.

---

posted November 05, 2007 12:52 PM            

My only problem with Determinism is that accidents can still happen, which have nothing to do with our nature.

Your nature could dictate that you arrive at a meeting on time. You leave for the meeting only to find you're in inescapably slow traffic due to an accident. The slow traffic makes you late for your meeting, but as it turns out that was a good thing because some psycho just shot up everyone at your destination point. By the time you arrive the police have already taped everything off keeping you safe from harm.

You thank God or some higher power for your good misfortune turned good, and you think/believe that there must be a reason why you were saved, yet if it were up to you you'd not have survived, or if you did perhaps you would have been the hero and saved everyone. Is it fate or is it chance? You could say it was the nature of the person that caused the accident that saved you, except the accident was caused by road conditions, or weather, or a stray sun reflection that temporarily blinded a driver.

posted November 05, 2007 01:57 PM            

Thats not Determinism.
Determinism takes all that stuff
into account;
the surface of the road, etc.

Your nature only determines your reaction
to the event.

posted November 05, 2007 02:00 PM              

But what can you prove?

posted November 05, 2007 02:04 PM            

Free will is not a universal concept.
It's not anything. Just a figment,
an optical illusion of subjectivity.
It falls apart the second you try to define it.
It is, all by itself,
an attempt to say that
a man with only one eye has two.
Saying that it may coexist with determinism
is like saying,
"A one eye-man can have two eyes
AND only have one eye."

I'm glad you decided to share.
I'm sorry if my answers dissatisfy you.

posted November 05, 2007 02:11 PM            

You are going on and on too.
You just have less to say;
less to support your view.
In fact you offer no argument at all.
You just keep stating your opinion,
like something is going to change.

posted November 05, 2007 02:21 PM              

Lia, I agree. Forgiveness can come about long before understanding. Normally it happens that it is through forgiveness we come to understand. Mainly because understanding comes from our own perceptions of things and therefore what we think we undersand may not in fact be the reality of it at all.

Forgiveness just comes from the heart. It is not really dependent on anything other than love.

I think that all who post here should be acknowledged on this thread. At the beginning of this thread over a year ago it got derailed and people gave up posting here due to a testosterone enduced battle of wits between HSC and AG. Sorry guys but that is how many of us ladies see it.

HSC IS acknowledging other posters here and responding to them. Would be nice if everyone followed his lead and did the same thing so the thread doesn't get derailed once again due to frustration in other posters resulting from not appearing to be heard or having their thoughts acknowledged in any way.

The topic and what we are discussing is Free Will vs Determinism. So maybe we can discuss what we find good and bad in both concepts? Where do each of these concepts have limitations? Where might there be any kind of compatibility between the two concepts?

I don't really know how science applies or applied in the past, determinism and as Petron pointed out the things of the past are changing rapidly as those who spend their lives studying and searching the universe have come to entirely new findings and new ways of seeing the universe. I do understand to a limited degree, not as a professional, how determinism is applied in the field of psychology.

posted November 05, 2007 02:30 PM              

quote:

---

LTT

You are going on and on too.
You just have less to say;
less to support your view.
In fact you offer no argument at all.
You just keep stating your opinion,
like something is going to change.

---