"Free will was given to man by god."

[Lacewing]

I can hardly believe you would feel "peace and love" if you chanced upon someone raping your child!

Are you saying that if I cannot choose my feelings in every extreme example, then the possibility of doing so is non-existent?

Of course, there are circumstances where anger might be helpful. And of course there are circumstances when feelings overwhelm the ability to choose. I do understand that, even if I was a bit too exuberant in the first place of suggesting that people have the ability to choose! I think choice is possible dependent on people and circumstances.

I guess, Lacewing, your calmness in the face of insult is caused by nurturing of that response plus a calm temperament.

Well, it wasn't nurtured in my upbringing. I'm thinking it's a result of how I've come to look at life and the world, which continues to be formed. I feel a lot of love and connection, more than hate and division. When I see someone flipping out -- I can still see/consider that they are divine, even in their thrashing around. That doesn't mean I'm complacent. It just means that I try not to be blinded by my own fury. That's ineffective. The best thing to do (in my experience) is to be calm and balanced in the face of madness. If more physical reaction or restraint is needed, okay. But most of the time, it would be my own unchecked/unconscious emotional response that would be my biggest obstacle or threat.

[Lacewing]

gimme five minutes and I'll have her bouncin' off the walls

Is that typically the effect you have on people?

[henry quirk]

gimme five minutes and I'll have her bouncin' off the walls

Is that typically the effect you have on people?

When I want to. Made you froth at the mouth many a time, yeah?

Good times...

[Lacewing]

Made you froth at the mouth many a time, yeah?

You are more than a little sick.

[henry quirk]

Made you froth at the mouth many a time, yeah?

You are more than a little sick.

And you love it...

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:13 pm
We learned that deeper discussion on the depth of the esoteric ideas within Plato's Cave allegory are too insulting and controversial to discuss.

Who is "we"? Maybe you are mistaken about "what was learned" by others.

We refers to those familiar with the depth of these ideas but have experienced the emotional resitance against them.

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:13 pm
When you emotionally ridicule objective reality you are ridiculing Plato's explanation of the world of forms as the source of visible phenomenon; not me.

Is it ridicule to not agree with an idea?

Is it ridicule to point out when someone is being dishonest and distorting things?

You do not seem to appreciate the difference between intellectual doubt which is a sign of intelligence and emotional doubt and ridicule which indicates a lack of intelligence.

There is nothing dishonest or being distorted about Plato’s conception of the Good which is the wholeness from which partial truths arise. You emotionally reject the idea preferring to believe in partial truths as the highest form of human consciousness. Since my interest is in learning the complimentary relationship between science and religion I am attracted to what makes it possible. Understanding the means by which the wholeness of the Good devolves into partial truths is essential for the quality of understanding which attracts me. You will call it distorted and dishonest since the norm is to fight over these things. I’ve never claimed to be normal

Plato's explanation/ideas are not the only example of some truths. Neither are Simone's. Nor anyone else you might choose to quote. Truths are everywhere, in many forms. Zeroing in on certain ideas that resonate for you, and claiming them to be some ultimate reality of truth that only a minority of people are courageous enough to pursue, is a self-serving story you like telling over and over.

Yes partial truths are everywhere but they all have a place within the ineffable whole truth which you reject

Doesn't it seem outrageously foolish, however, to think that any inherently limited human ideas/understandings could represent some grand ultimate truth OF ALL, FOR ALL? Yet, how many have thought such a thing? How giant and needy must such fears and egos be to claim to know that in spite of all else? That's WHY it requires dishonesty and distortion. Very easy to see!

Of course a person through the experiences of satori or gnosis can feel the presence of the ineffable source they are within. You must believe that noesis as the highest form of human reason is just distortion and dishonesty. To each is own

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:13 pm
Secular intolerance is due to the conditioned tendency to remain closed to the third dimension of thought.

The same could be said of theist intolerance... just change "third dimension" to dimensions! Right?

Yes secular theism or theism without the third dimension of thought leads to idolatry. Physical dimensions are one thing and the third dimension of thought when experienced is the conscious vertical dimension of being.

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:13 pm
I admire those past and present who have been open to experience it rather than defending horizontal dualism in the nastiest ways..

Don't you think your dishonesty and distortions are nasty???

No, I just refer to ides you are closed to

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

I support the young on the verge of awakening to their humanity and willing to sacrifice indoctrination. They are being opposed by adults who are right in terms of secular facts but closed to the source of values the heart is drawn to. You may call them dishonest and delusional but I know they are on the verge of remembering what has been forgotten and emotionally rejected by the darkness of the world.

Certain ideas and art can help in remembering. For example are you open to what Goethe meant in this quote?

“Colors are the deeds/ and sufferings of light.”

It may appear delusional and dishonest to you but maybe a person opening to the third dimension of thought which reconciles duality will appreciate the value and depth of the idea.

[Belinda]

Are you saying that if I cannot choose my feelings in every extreme example, then the possibility of doing so is non-existent?

Choosing is something we and many other species do. Choosing is selecting from what courses of action or thought are available, and is not the same as Free Will. So you can choose, and you seem to me to have a lot of choices available due to your being able to control your fear and anger. People who can control their emotional reactions are more free than unthinking reactors . People who think for themselves are more free than people who acccept the authority of other individuals or power elites such as princes or churches. It is the proper duty of teachers to teach children to think for themselves and give them the mental and affective wherewithal to do so.

Well, it wasn't nurtured in my upbringing. I'm thinking it's a result of how I've come to look at life and the world, which continues to be formed.

You misunderstand what I mean by nurture. By nurture I mean all the individual people , the material and temporal circumstances including where you lived as a child and where you live up to the present, the public ethos that has influenced you including the religion or the political stances that surrounded you and surround you, and accidents such as illnesses and other traumas.

Together with your genetic inheritance the above define what your personality will be and to an extent what it will become. In the opinions of determinists there is no mysterious additional cause of your choices which is called Free Will.
You are a comparatively free individual who is able to argue with other philosophers. By contrast individuals who lack the mental capacity to think about life (I am not blaming!) are less free. However neither you nor anyone else has Free Will.

Your future as a free thinking individual in an affluent society looks rosily free although I am not a fortune teller. Determinism does not of itself imply prediction.

I feel a lot of love and connection, more than hate and division. When I see sipping out -- I can still see/consider that they are divine, even in their thrashing around. That doesn't mean I'm complacent. It just means that I try not to be blinded by my own fury. That's ineffective. The best thing to do (in my experience) is to be calm and balanced in the face of madness. If more physical reaction or restraint is needed, okay. But most of the time, it would be my own unchecked/unconscious emotional response that would be my biggest obstacle or threat.

Your ethics and affective style are thoroughly in line with deterministic ethics. I guess you are caught up in a belief system, maybe traditional Christian I wouldn't know, which lays down this 'Free Will' entity is a good thing, and so you feel you have to find a place for it.

[Lacewing]

By nurture I mean all the individual people , the material and temporal circumstances including where you lived as a child and where you live up to the present, the public ethos that has influenced you including the religion or the political stances that surrounded you and surround you, and accidents such as illnesses and other traumas.

Belinda... how is it that people can end up in all kinds of ways, despite having similar encounters, influences, and circumstances? If these things are what create/mold the individual, then there would not be people who explore or think or function beyond their circumstances or experiences. Yet, clearly many people do. Even children, who have very little life exposure, may have unique or profound abilities very early on.

I'd like to be clear that I'm not saying people are not affected by their environment. And I realize that everyone has different capabilities and patterns. However, as someone who has always looked and reached beyond the circumstances I was in, that has seemingly revealed (for me) a truth about capability and potential (against odds, and rules, and expectations), and which I like to encourage others to consider for themselves. They may have had an easier or better or worse or harder life path -- that does not seem to override who they are (in their purest form) and what they're capable of IF they are able (and interested) to see and function beyond it. (Maybe some people simply cannot due to certain limitations or distortions.)

In my experience, sharing the "present moment" with someone, quieting everything in one's head and setting aside all the stuff on the Earth stage (including all labels), we can see each other as the free, clear, connected beings we are, and we can glimpse the potential and implications of THAT. Even a brief glimpse can be powerfully transformative/informative.

I don't know if this makes any sense in the way I've described it. My hope is that it provides some clarity about why I don't see circumstances as typically being the primary determining or limiting factor for a person's capabilities.

Your ethics and affective style are thoroughly in line with deterministic ethics. I guess you are caught up in a belief system, maybe traditional Christian I wouldn't know, which lays down this 'Free Will' entity is a good thing, and so you feel you have to find a place for it.

I don't know why you said this. It seems strange to me.

[henry quirk]

I don't know why you said this. It seems strange to me.

B is a determinist. Everything and -one is assessed as dominos fallin'. Accordin' to B, you're not much more than a link in a causal chain. She, B, sees herself in the same way. I, on the other hand, see you as a cause, an agent.

Funny how that works: I dislike you but still think more highly of you than B who seems to get along with you.

[Lacewing]

Nick, I think your honest answers to these questions and challenges will provide more clarity on what we each see.

We learned that deeper discussion on the depth of the esoteric ideas within Plato's Cave allegory are too insulting and controversial to discuss.

Who is "we"? Maybe you are mistaken about "what was learned" by others.

We refers to those familiar with the depth of these ideas but have experienced the emotional resitance against them.

Why would people who already think such a thing, be "learning it" as you suggest?

And why are "they" (whoever they are) enough of a consensus for a conclusion?

So, see how your use of "We learned..." can be seen as deceptive and manipulative? It aims to frame what suits you -- and to dismiss what doesn't -- while claiming to be complete, which it is not.

You do not seem to appreciate the difference between intellectual doubt which is a sign of intelligence and emotional doubt and ridicule which indicates a lack of intelligence.

So which one of these would it be when YOU disagree with someone else's idea/belief?

You [prefer] to believe in partial truths as the highest form of human consciousness.

This is your interpretation, Nick -- and it does not represent what I think. It's best if you don't make such claims when you lack the context and understanding that would help you get it right. It's like trying to use a language that doesn't apply, to describe something you have no experience with. So when trying to compare yourself with me or others, your language and ideas are like some kind of tribal native babbling to people in a completely different land. Just as my language surely sounds to you.

You can question/challenge what I say... and I can question/challenge what you say... but it's dishonest and distorted for you to claim what I'm about. You have no clue.

Truths are everywhere, in many forms.

Yes partial truths are everywhere but they all have a place within the ineffable whole truth which you reject

So here's another example of you reframing and then saying what I do.

You say, "Yes partial truths are everywhere". Well, I did not say "partial truths" -- that's your idea. You say "Yes", as if we're in agreement -- or as if you have the more complete view of what we both can see -- and then you state your complete view which you say I "reject". Rather than saying I "disagree"... you say "reject". Because you're framing it as the ONLY complete view, and therefore, my resistance is futile and I am "rejecting" it.

Dishonest, distorted, AND manipulative.

You must believe that noesis as the highest form of human reason is just distortion and dishonesty.

You're misappropriating my comments and claiming what I believe as it serves your beliefs.

Secular intolerance is due to the conditioned tendency to remain closed to the third dimension of thought.

The same could be said of theist intolerance... just change "third dimension" to dimensions! Right?

Yes secular theism or theism without the third dimension of thought leads to idolatry.

Not what I said. Again you start out with "Yes" as if there's agreement with your conclusive view.

Don't you think your dishonesty and distortions are nasty???

No, I just refer to ides you are closed to

How about communicating in an honest way and not claiming falsely what I believe? How about not framing and distorting things so that they can only suit your argument? Are you REALLY interested in "truth"? If so, you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

I support the young on the verge of awakening to their humanity and willing to sacrifice indoctrination. …/... You may call them dishonest and delusional but I know they are on the verge of remembering what has been forgotten and emotionally rejected by the darkness of the world.

Geez, Nick... can you really not see how you distort and misappropriate things in a way that truly misrepresents people? I have not spoken anything about this (above), and yet you are tying statements from me to THEM... "the young". It's outrageous the levels you stoop to. It appears to be an attempt to side-step responsibility for yourself... while projecting it onto others in my behalf, to claim how horrific and unfair I am? You really know how to twist things to serve yourself and deplore others, don't you? How are you able to be so blatant about it -- are you unconscious of it, or do you think it is some kind of debating/warfare skill?

[Lacewing]

I don't know why you said this. It seems strange to me.

B is a determinist. Everything and -one is assessed as dominos fallin'. Accordin' to B, you're not much more than a link in a causal chain. She, B, sees herself in the same way. I, on the other hand, see you as a cause, an agent.

Funny how that works: I dislike you but still think more highly of you than B who seems to get along with you.

Thanks for the clarification. Dominos may fall, and we may push them or jump out of the way too. Is it possible that both are in play to some degree?

I typically neither like you nor think highly of you, but I wish you the best.

[henry quirk]

Thanks for the clarification. Dominos may fall, and we may push them or jump out of the way too. Is it possible that both are in play to some degree?

That's exactly it. You and me, as agents, push at and jump over and pull at dominos (events & causal chains), but we're not dominos, you and me.

I typically neither like you nor think highly of you, but I wish you the best.

[Nick_A]

"Free will was given to man by god." This I often hear from theists. I searched the bible and found no support for this from the word of the supposed god.

So this is inference? Or did I miss something.

Will Guffo or somebody else please tell me where the idea of "free will" emerged in christian thinking, and what Christians use as explanation to it in the bible?

Back to the OP for a moment. What does it take to understand the meaning of free will? Doing so requires discriminating between the outer man (our personality) and the inner man (qualities we were born with.)

“The outward man is the swinging door; the inner man is the still hinge.”
― Meister Eckhart

Our social lives are defined by the duality expressed by the outer man. We are a plurality. One moment we are one way and like a pendulom we swing in the other direction and become different. The hinge is the depth of our being we are born with

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself." Meister Eckhart

While our outer man lives in accordance with the laws of duality, the inner man never grows in secular society. It remains captive of the dominance of our personality. Yet it is God's will to arouse it, to set it free so it remembers its purpose and how to develop so it can return to God.

Secularism defines Man by its physical traits and the mechanics of its personality while Christianity defines Man by the nature and potential for the living being of the inner man. This is why secularism cannot understand Christianity and what is meant by free will. The outer man cannot understand the inner man.

Sometimes a person has an experience which arouses the inner man and they experience that they are called to something beyond reacting to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave normal for animal life. Then they may experience what conscious free will and its attraction to its Source is as opposed to continually reacting to desire.

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

Belinda... how is it that people can end up in all kinds of ways, despite having similar encounters, influences, and circumstances? If these things are what create/mold the individual, then there would not be people who explore or think or function beyond their circumstances or experiences.

I see how you feel, but please think on the following true examples.

I was given a book with stories about long ago ,more than two hundred year old, events in the city where I now live which at the time was a market town of no great size. The common people were all similarly reared and experienced in a popular culture common to simple market towns that served the local farms. The blatant cruelty to animals for public entertainment was appalling and since i read the story I have to make an effort to not dwell on it.The particular entertainment must have been sponsored by the largest church as it involved the church's high bell tower and also a neighbouring church. This was an age when cruelty was not generally seen as cruelty even when it was in full public view. Perhaps there was some individual who felt sorry for the animals but there is no record of this.

The other true example of people similarly reared and experienced was from my own experience. Towards the end of the 1939-45 war against the Nazis my brother said to me with regard to the concentration camps "British people could never have done this". He was mistaken ,had not studied history, as had another another of my brothers whose opinion would have been very different.

In my experience, sharing the "present moment" with someone, quieting everything in one's head and setting aside all the stuff on the Earth stage (including all labels), we can see each other as the free, clear, connected beings we are, and we can glimpse the potential and implications of THAT. Even a brief glimpse can be powerfully transformative/informative.

The language you use in the above quote shows how much learned experience you share with the other. The feeling of fellowship you describe and the language you use to describe it are those of a particular culture you have learned. Why you learned this culture is because your life circumstances of location and time threw you into their path. You ,whose earlier circumstances of parentage , education and so forth had prepared you to be sympathetic to those ideas. It's almost unimaginable that a common townswoman such as in my first example would have had a clue what you were talking about. Indeed the priest may have objected you were a sinner not to leave such contact with "That" to the priest.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

That's exactly it. You and me, as agents, push at and jump over and pull at dominos (events & causal chains), but we're not dominos, you and me.

Some people are less like dominos . Strength to the people who refuse to be pushed over by popular opinions but have their bases anchored in knowledge and fair judgement.