Free Will Mix

[SpheresOfBalance]

If it were not possible to have absolute knowledge of "everything", would you agree with the opinion that it is possible to have absolute knowledge of "something"?

It is possible to construct a theoretical scheme in which all parameters are defined; a closed system such as maths in which the idea of an absolute is viable, and upon which all other variables depend.
But knowledge of the world has to relate to other aspects of the world and has to relate to the human subject.
Thus all knowledge is co-dependant on a large range of other ideas which we take for granted.
And when most people say are you absolutely sure - what they mean is are you as sure as possible given the commonly held assumptions we all take for granted but do not always question or challenge.
History tells us that even the most commonly held views have from time to time been overturned.

It's not about constructing anything. There you go again placing mankind (and thus yourself, how convenient) as the pinnacle of the universe. Man is nothing, but a piece of meat, that thinks it's got a clue. Yet the dumb fucking animal is killing it's biosphere off, or at least aiding in it, because it has no clue of the universe and perverts it with it's glittering prize mentality, designed to have more than the next so that it can sit easy in it's chair on the backs of another. The entire construct of mankind's so called civilization is motivated by selfishness. The animal doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be anything more than the dumb animal that it is. Those in control know not of balance, but rather excess so as to cheat the others, so as to remain above them. And largely they weave a web of deceit in order to accomplish this.

The absolute truth is all that exists when you remove the cancer, MAN, along with his worshiping the glittering prize, from the equation. Man is nothing but a liar. Let me take a 'small' piece of land, that is rightfully everyone's to take in the first place, as we are each born of this earth/universe, where I can live life as the universe provides, and to hell with the rest of you selfish battling crazy fucks. Sure when all you selfish crazies kill off the planet I'll die too, but at least in the meantime I can live a truthful life, devoid of your day to day rat racing to nowhere insanity.

Excuse me but, "I'll follow the sun!"

Irrelevant rant.
No, but if you think so, then it was above your head, or you're a liar, take your pick.

I rarely read your posts, but sometimes I just need to refresh my memory as to why I don't tend to bother.

It's humans like you that think they have the handle on absolute knowledge
Putting words in my mouth, suits you as always. Obviously liar fits at this point, no surprise there..

that are destroying the biosphere, not humans like me who think they can be wrong about their knowledge.

Your words are empty, meaningless!

[chaz wyman]

It's not about constructing anything. There you go again placing mankind (and thus yourself, how convenient) as the pinnacle of the universe. Man is nothing, but a piece of meat, that thinks it's got a clue. Yet the dumb fucking animal is killing it's biosphere off, or at least aiding in it, because it has no clue of the universe and perverts it with it's glittering prize mentality, designed to have more than the next so that it can sit easy in it's chair on the backs of another. The entire construct of mankind's so called civilization is motivated by selfishness. The animal doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be anything more than the dumb animal that it is. Those in control know not of balance, but rather excess so as to cheat the others, so as to remain above them. And largely they weave a web of deceit in order to accomplish this.

The absolute truth is all that exists when you remove the cancer, MAN, along with his worshiping the glittering prize, from the equation. Man is nothing but a liar. Let me take a 'small' piece of land, that is rightfully everyone's to take in the first place, as we are each born of this earth/universe, where I can live life as the universe provides, and to hell with the rest of you selfish battling crazy fucks. Sure when all you selfish crazies kill off the planet I'll die too, but at least in the meantime I can live a truthful life, devoid of your day to day rat racing to nowhere insanity.

Excuse me but, "I'll follow the sun!"

Irrelevant rant.
No, but if you think so, then it was above your head, or you're a liar, take your pick.
I'll take my pick - the above is a meaningless rant of no significance to the thread.
I rarely read your posts, but sometimes I just need to refresh my memory as to why I don't tend to bother.

It's humans like you that think they have the handle on absolute knowledge
Putting words in my mouth, suits you as always. Obviously liar fits at this point, no surprise there..
As you have said from the day you joined the Forum
that are destroying the biosphere, not humans like me who think they can be wrong about their knowledge.

Your words are empty, meaningless!

Nope.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's not about constructing anything. There you go again placing mankind (and thus yourself, how convenient) as the pinnacle of the universe. Man is nothing, but a piece of meat, that thinks it's got a clue. Yet the dumb fucking animal is killing it's biosphere off, or at least aiding in it, because it has no clue of the universe and perverts it with it's glittering prize mentality, designed to have more than the next so that it can sit easy in it's chair on the backs of another. The entire construct of mankind's so called civilization is motivated by selfishness. The animal doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be anything more than the dumb animal that it is. Those in control know not of balance, but rather excess so as to cheat the others, so as to remain above them. And largely they weave a web of deceit in order to accomplish this.

The absolute truth is all that exists when you remove the cancer, MAN, along with his worshiping the glittering prize, from the equation. Man is nothing but a liar. Let me take a 'small' piece of land, that is rightfully everyone's to take in the first place, as we are each born of this earth/universe, where I can live life as the universe provides, and to hell with the rest of you selfish battling crazy fucks. Sure when all you selfish crazies kill off the planet I'll die too, but at least in the meantime I can live a truthful life, devoid of your day to day rat racing to nowhere insanity.

Excuse me but, "I'll follow the sun!"

Red

Blue:

Irrelevant rant.
No, but if you think so, then it was above your head, or you're a liar, take your pick.
I'll take my pick - the above is a meaningless rant of no significance to the thread.
Wrong answer, in this case it's obviously simply above your head!

I rarely read your posts, but sometimes I just need to refresh my memory as to why I don't tend to bother.

It's humans like you that think they have the handle on absolute knowledge
Putting words in my mouth, suits you as always. Obviously liar fits at this point, no surprise there..
As you have said from the day you joined the Forum
Which has no bearing on fact or truthfulness. Maybe it's merely a testament to your inabilities.

that are destroying the biosphere, not humans like me who think they can be wrong about their knowledge.

Your words are empty, meaningless!

Nope.
If you don't understand, it's no wonder you'd say this; simply par for your course.

[chaz wyman]

......]

Oh um.

[SpheresOfBalance]

......]

Oh um.

Surely you're not so dense as to not understand that by design mankind's current version of civilization stymies free will thus making some slaves to those that believe themselves rich, are you?

[chaz wyman]

......]

Oh um.

Surely you're not so dense as to not understand that by design mankind's current version of civilization stymies free will thus making some slaves to those that believe themselves rich, are you?

That would all depend on what you mean by 'rich'.
I don't think there is a clear and definite "desgin" to mankind's society. Society is the collective effort of a massive list of diverse interests. Who do you think designs it? For most of history those interests have been in the hands (not exclusively) of a small minority.

Free-will is illusionary on the question of cause and effect, but if you mean the will to act unhindered, I do not see modern society (current civilisation) as especially good at impeding this. On the contrary, in 2012 there has never been more choice. For sure there have been times where the choice to act as one would like was much more restricted than today. Traditional systems of morality and cultural conditioning have broken down and this has produced much uncertainty and the search for a massive range of beliefs and alternative systems of thought.

In general the advent of civilisation (c 10kBP) has meant oppression, slavery, lack of choice, and socially and personally restrictive moral systems, but there have been exceptions. Times of rebellion, barbarism (very underrated), and self determination. But in the last 150 years we have had a burgeoning of personal freedom in the West unprecedented.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Red:

Surely you're not so dense as to not understand that by design mankind's current version of civilization stymies free will thus making some slaves to those that believe themselves rich, are you?

That would all depend on what you mean by 'rich'.
I don't think there is a clear and definite "desgin" to mankind's society.
I obviously think otherwise.
Society is the collective effort of a massive list of diverse interests.
Not true, in reality it's a collective of self serving interests of the so called powerful/rich, at the expense of all the backs that their foundation rests upon, which is accepted by that foundation, only due to the promise of their potential inclusion into the, would be, elite group.
Who do you think designs it?
Not think, I KNOW that it's the totality of the misguided human animal.
For most of history those interests have been in the hands (not exclusively) of a small minority.
I agree, but it also requires the compliance of their, so called, underlings, largely due to the promise of some percentage of inclusion (being bought and sold).

Free-will is illusionary on the question of cause and effect,
I don't know exactly what you're saying here, but if you're saying that free-will is not adversely affected by causals contained within the current construct of civilization, then I disagree 100%.

but if you mean the will to act unhindered, I do not see modern society (current civilisation) as especially good at impeding this. On the contrary, in 2012 there has never been more choice. For sure there have been times where the choice to act as one would like was much more restricted than today. Traditional systems of morality and cultural conditioning have broken down and this has produced much uncertainty and the search for a massive range of beliefs and alternative systems of thought.
For me it's all the same thing. Free-will, for me is the ability to create your life in your image, outside any constraints of the current civilization construct.

In general the advent of civilisation (c 10kBP) has meant oppression, slavery, lack of choice, and socially and personally restrictive moral systems, but there have been exceptions. Times of rebellion, barbarism (very underrated), and self determination. But in the last 150 years we have had a burgeoning of personal freedom in the West unprecedented.
I do not see personal freedom as something to be handed out by any entity. It's not anyone's to give. I see that it's quite the opposite, such that it's personal limitation that should be that which is handed out, but only when it's designed to ensure another's freedom. Freedom is that which you are born with, it's a perversion to believe otherwise. I mean come on, as if someone knows the totality of the universe, really?

[chaz wyman]

... as if someone knows the totality of the universe, really?

No one is sitting down and designing the future of mankind.
Do you think god exists or something?

"Society is the collective effort of a massive list of diverse interests."
You have a shockingly naive view that makes you a slave.
If you simply accept that the rich as in control then you have put your own hands in the manacles and chains.

And then you contradict yourself "Not think, I KNOW that it's the totality of the misguided human animal."
A totality of misguided animals does not "Design" society. it emerges from their diverse interests - as I said.

From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... as if someone knows the totality of the universe, really?

No one is sitting down and designing the future of mankind.
Do you think god exists or something?

design
de·sign [dih-zahyn] noun
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.

As you can see I'm referring to the noun. It matters not by what means it is a design. In this case is was the culmination of a great many of mans twisted notions, that for selfish reasons he implemented along with some much better ones. I only have issue with the twisted ones.


"Society is the collective effort of a massive list of diverse interests."
You have a shockingly naive view that makes you a slave.
If you simply accept that the rich as in control then you have put your own hands in the manacles and chains.
Wrong each man of today is physically a slave of the rich, anyone, such as yourself can take mind altering drugs to escape into his mind so as to believe otherwise. It would seem that no one can claim ones mind, which shall always remain free. It's only that one cannot truly be said to be free, if they only have it in their heads. Sure they can say they are free, but only because they are forced too, by the ones that own the physical structure, that each is forced to endure.

And then you contradict yourself "Not think, I KNOW that it's the totality of the misguided human animal."
A totality of misguided animals does not "Design" society. it emerges from their diverse interests - as I said.
This is a common belief of those that would dominate so as to own the rest. Or I should say, so as to feel good about, that percentage, that they can control.


From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.
Wrong again, while we may agree generally speaking, obviously we don't on specific points, or I wouldn't be engaging you in the first place. There is no reason to converse on our similarities, as we agree. There is only ever a reason to talk of those things we do not agree on, as we try and bridge the gap of our beliefs. Maybe we shall both learn of another perspective that shall in some way enrich us. Isn't that the point of debate.

[chaz wyman]

... as if someone knows the totality of the universe, really?

No one is sitting down and designing the future of mankind.
Do you think god exists or something?

design
de·sign [dih-zahyn] noun
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.

As you can see I'm referring to the noun. It matters not by what means it is a design. In this case is was the culmination of a great many of mans twisted notions, that for selfish reasons he implemented along with some much better ones. I only have issue with the twisted ones.


"Society is the collective effort of a massive list of diverse interests."
You have a shockingly naive view that makes you a slave.
If you simply accept that the rich as in control then you have put your own hands in the manacles and chains.
Wrong each man of today is physically a slave of the rich, anyone, such as yourself can take mind altering drugs to escape into his mind so as to believe otherwise. It would seem that no one can claim ones mind, which shall always remain free. It's only that one cannot truly be said to be free, if they only have it in their heads. Sure they can say they are free, but only because they are forced too, by the ones that own the physical structure, that each is forced to endure.

And then you contradict yourself "Not think, I KNOW that it's the totality of the misguided human animal."
A totality of misguided animals does not "Design" society. it emerges from their diverse interests - as I said.
This is a common belief of those that would dominate so as to own the rest. Or I should say, so as to feel good about, that percentage, that they can control.


From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.
Wrong again, while we may agree generally speaking, obviously we don't on specific points, or I wouldn't be engaging you in the first place. There is no reason to converse on our similarities, as we agree. There is only ever a reason to talk of those things we do not agree on, as we try and bridge the gap of our beliefs. Maybe we shall both learn of another perspective that shall in some way enrich us. Isn't that the point of debate.

Having waited 2 weeks for the reply, you merely confirm my final statement.

From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.
And I mean in the sense that you cannot resist contradiction regardless of the truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... as if someone knows the totality of the universe, really?

No one is sitting down and designing the future of mankind.
Do you think god exists or something?

design
de·sign [dih-zahyn] noun
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.

As you can see I'm referring to the noun. It matters not by what means it is a design. In this case is was the culmination of a great many of mans twisted notions, that for selfish reasons he implemented along with some much better ones. I only have issue with the twisted ones.


"Society is the collective effort of a massive list of diverse interests."
You have a shockingly naive view that makes you a slave.
If you simply accept that the rich as in control then you have put your own hands in the manacles and chains.
Wrong each man of today is physically a slave of the rich, anyone, such as yourself can take mind altering drugs to escape into his mind so as to believe otherwise. It would seem that no one can claim ones mind, which shall always remain free. It's only that one cannot truly be said to be free, if they only have it in their heads. Sure they can say they are free, but only because they are forced too, by the ones that own the physical structure, that each is forced to endure.

And then you contradict yourself "Not think, I KNOW that it's the totality of the misguided human animal."
A totality of misguided animals does not "Design" society. it emerges from their diverse interests - as I said.
This is a common belief of those that would dominate so as to own the rest. Or I should say, so as to feel good about, that percentage, that they can control.


From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.
Wrong again, while we may agree generally speaking, obviously we don't on specific points, or I wouldn't be engaging you in the first place. There is no reason to converse on our similarities, as we agree. There is only ever a reason to talk of those things we do not agree on, as we try and bridge the gap of our beliefs. Maybe we shall both learn of another perspective that shall in some way enrich us. Isn't that the point of debate.

Having waited 2 weeks for the reply, you merely confirm my final statement.

From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.
And I mean in the sense that you cannot resist contradiction regardless of the truth.

Wrong again! You the skeptic and believer of a relative truth, continually undermine the latter. Case in point. You say that you mean that I cannot resist using my words which are a contradiction to yours, obviously! We are in debate my friend. But further, this is a problem for you, in the face of your relative truth belief system????? You are surely the man of contradiction. With your belief system there can only ever be contradiction amongst men, as there are no absolutes, or so you say. In this case how can there ever be any contradiction as that is the rule not the exception, at least according to you. Under your belief system us agreeing would be the contradiction. I fear you have no real clue as to what relativity actually entails. Or I should say that you conveniently only ever apply it where it suits your agenda, in much the same way as your skepticism.

P.S. you actually fear engaging me because you know I shall best you and knock your little glass house down.

[chaz wyman]

Wrong again! .

QED

From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.
And I mean in the sense that you cannot resist contradiction regardless of the truth.