Free will is all there is!
Edmond Wollmann
Free will exists on all levels. Before incarnation the free will of the
higher self determines through vibrational frequency and explorational
necessity, the idea as a physical being you wish to express and
expereince. This is then a "frozen vibrational frequency" in the
reflection known as the HOROSCOPE (time view). This is the "Hallway" of
incarnational choice-THE FREE WILL OF THE HIGHER SELF. If the universe
was closed ended-there would exist NO ABILITY FOR SELF REFLECTION. The
horoscope therefore helps us understand and FULFILL these choices.
As an incarnate being the identity then through conscious commandment as
a conscious being-an ego self (false face or persona) can then ACT on
this hallway. You can go down this hallway in an integrated way, happy,
sad, focused, unfocused, with inspiration, with dispair, with joy or out
of integrity-BUT GO DOWN THIS HALLWAY YOU HAVE ALREADY WILLED. This is
what the horoscope IS, it is the hallway that the free will of the higher
self has chosen. The free will of the physical self then directs this
choice through conscious choice, action is the conviction of belief.
Belief determines definitions, definitions determine behavior, reality
creation and experience. It is ALWAYS free will, it always works based
upon the belief and definitions held CONSCIOUSLY, UNCONSCIOUSLY AND AS
THE EFFECT OF HIGHER WILL CHOICES.
The apparency of fate is simply unrecognized choice-choices made at other
levels by you-for you-to explore the you you are. Even if you CHOOSE to
create the illusion that you have no free will-it is still a choice and
you are using your creative power to do so-even if you use 90% to create
the illusion you only have 10%. Everything therefore-in everyones life-is
there for a reason THEIR reason, there is something within the scenario
they wish and have WILLED to learn from, observe, reflect on and
understand.
"He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
Webster
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Jonathan C. Dunn
> Free will exists on all levels.
Does this conflict with the assertion 'cause and effect exists on all
levels'? 'Determinism exists on all levels'?
> Before incarnation the free will of the
> higher self determines through vibrational frequency and explorational
> necessity, the idea as a physical being you wish to express and
> expereince.
'necessity' - Is this not the antithesis of 'freedom'?
> This is then a "frozen vibrational frequency" in the
> reflection known as the HOROSCOPE (time view). This is the "Hallway" of
> incarnational choice-THE FREE WILL OF THE HIGHER SELF.
The selection of charts available for the next 1000 years is limited.
Reincarnation research seems to favor that people accept lives reasonably
soon after deaths - I might decided that my soul evolution required a
particular chart. I might find that such a chart will never exist. One
simply must make allowances in one's philosophy for 'cause and effect' or
'necessity' which goes beyond the inclinations of the individual - this
limits the potency of 'individual free will'.
> If the universe
> was closed ended-there would exist NO ABILITY FOR SELF REFLECTION.
Determinism is an idea quite in harmony with much of mysticism - there is
a 'cosmic drama' in which the apparent loss and gain of 'self-reflection'
occur at fixed times. In other words, 'self reflection' without 'ability'
which is a term laden with what could be called 'dualities'.
> You can go down this hallway in an integrated way, happy,
> sad, focused, unfocused, with inspiration, with dispair, with joy or out
> of integrity-BUT GO DOWN THIS HALLWAY YOU HAVE ALREADY WILLED. This is
> what the horoscope IS, it is the hallway that the free will of the higher
> self has chosen. The free will of the physical self then directs this
> choice through conscious choice, action is the conviction of belief.
> Belief determines definitions, definitions determine behavior, reality
> creation and experience. It is ALWAYS free will, it always works based
> upon the belief and definitions held CONSCIOUSLY, UNCONSCIOUSLY AND AS
> THE EFFECT OF HIGHER WILL CHOICES.
'held unconsciously' does this mean that one is not responsible? It
sounds as if some 'aspect' of my 'self' has free-will, and that my own
CONSCIOUS choices and responses are irrelevant: 'free will' in abstract
truth, but 'anything but' for all practical purposes.
> The apparency of fate is simply unrecognized choice-choices made at other
> levels by you-for you-to explore the you you are. Even if you CHOOSE to
> create the illusion that you have no free will-it is still a choice and
> you are using your creative power to do so-even if you use 90% to create
> the illusion you only have 10%.
> Everything therefore-in everyones life-is
> there for a reason THEIR reason, there is something within the scenario
> they wish and have WILLED to learn from, observe, reflect on and
> understand.
Conspicuously absent from this rendition of things is any addressing of
issues of what happens when YOUR scenario for what happens to US is
different from MY scenario of what happens to US. Everything that happens
to me is what I willed? That means you can't do anything to change my
life? Or somehow everything fits together in some mystical fore-ordained
way? The latter is consonant with the mystical (and scientific) view that
'free will' is in some sense illusory. The former view either insists that
one's hands are tied vis-a-vis affecting others (severely curtailing our
'free will') , or else that we are all in illusory worlds all by
ourselves, in which case if you are reading this then you somehow willed
this illusion of my disagreeing with you into existence.
> "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
> changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
> fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
> Webster
To 'change one's own nature'. Here is a bit of a contradiction, unless you
accept that some of this 'change' will come from outside the individual
self. Then, the 'free will' of any part of you which is dualistic and
separate is not entirely relevant. And this is desirable.
Moderation in all things. This means balance between building (and
crediting) one's own will and appreciating whatever comes to you from will
which is entirely exterior to your individual will. If the 'higher will'
which directs and chooses your life is the same as for everyone else, then
the duality questions are resolved, although the picture which emerges
from 'putting everything in God's hands' is quite opposite from
'unconditioned free will'.
Is there nothing irrevocable about what the 'individual higher self' will
choose eventually? And can whatever patterns that exist here not be
conceived as a form of 'cause and effect' or 'determinism'?
Thanks.
Edmond Wollmann
Jonathan C. Dunn wrote:
>
> > Free will exists on all levels.
>
> Does this conflict with the assertion 'cause and effect exists on all
> levels'? 'Determinism exists on all levels'?
It is a fact that cause and effect are the illusional effect of the
dimension 3 and its time/space continuum. I do not believe in any
deterministic potential in the multiverse, there are only probabilities
with most likely momentum unfoldment. Determinism would imply a closed
ended multiverse-this is not possible simply because we are able to
reflect upon our selves.
> > Before incarnation the free will of the
> > higher self determines through vibrational frequency and explorational
> > necessity, the idea as a physical being you wish to express and
> > expereince.
>
> 'necessity' - Is this not the antithesis of 'freedom'?
Well I say this colloquially (sp) meaning that there may be
considerations from the oversoul perspective that may seem like "fated"
or necessary scenarios that need to be explored to get from point A to
point B that the conscious mind with its narrow focus may not be able to
percieve with enough vision to take responsibility for and carry through-
therefore they manifest as the effect of unconscious agreements previous
to incarnation.
> > This is then a "frozen vibrational frequency" in the
> > reflection known as the HOROSCOPE (time view). This is the "Hallway" of
> > incarnational choice-THE FREE WILL OF THE HIGHER SELF.
>
> The selection of charts available for the next 1000 years is limited.
How do you figure this? Have you seen the post I did of the least amount
of astrological configuration potentials. it is to the 58th power. You
are not taking into consideration ascendants and possible aspect
configurations.
> Reincarnation research seems to favor that people accept lives reasonably
> soon after deaths - I might decided that my soul evolution required a
> particular chart. I might find that such a chart will never exist.
this is not possible, because all exists "now" because there is no such
thing really as time and therefore the entire unfoldment is like a film
strip with its FRAME-AFTER-FRAME-AFTER-FRAME sequential appearance in
physicality, but the film itself already exists-out of time- and
therefore all possibilities and probabilities exist already albeit on
different time tracks.
> One
> simply must make allowances in one's philosophy for 'cause and effect' or
> 'necessity' which goes beyond the inclinations of the individual - this
> limits the potency of 'individual free will'.
These are just the illusions of 3D that the conscious mind percieves as
"real" because of the degree of its focus eliminates all other
information that exists contrary to this in order that it is capable of
functioning properly in this dimension-but as I have said and is commonly
known-time is an illusion-real while you are focused in it-but an
illusion none-the-less. You are confusing the free will of the higher
self and giving far to much credence to conscious prowess.
> > If the universe
> > was closed ended-there would exist NO ABILITY FOR SELF REFLECTION.
>
> Determinism is an idea quite in harmony with much of mysticism - there is
> a 'cosmic drama' in which the apparent loss and gain of 'self-reflection'
> occur at fixed times. In other words, 'self reflection' without 'ability'
> which is a term laden with what could be called 'dualities'.
Dualities once again are this illusive factor of the separation-or
apparent separation of consciousness as the effect of 3D focus. We create
our reality literally from all these levels, some appear determined as
the effect of limited vision and time/space distortions.
> > You can go down this hallway in an integrated way, happy,
> > sad, focused, unfocused, with inspiration, with dispair, with joy or out
> > of integrity-BUT GO DOWN THIS HALLWAY YOU HAVE ALREADY WILLED. This is
> > what the horoscope IS, it is the hallway that the free will of the higher
> > self has chosen. The free will of the physical self then directs this
> > choice through conscious choice, action is the conviction of belief.
> > Belief determines definitions, definitions determine behavior, reality
> > creation and experience. It is ALWAYS free will, it always works based
> > upon the belief and definitions held CONSCIOUSLY, UNCONSCIOUSLY AND AS
> > THE EFFECT OF HIGHER WILL CHOICES.
>
> 'held unconsciously' does this mean that one is not responsible? It
> sounds as if some 'aspect' of my 'self' has free-will, and that my own
> CONSCIOUS choices and responses are irrelevant: 'free will' in abstract
> truth, but 'anything but' for all practical purposes.
Well to some degree, yes, you have made agreements-what do you think the
horoscope is? It is a fixed-to some degree-set of agreements made prior
to "time" expereince to allow your life to unfold through the triggering
of these agreements by transits, progressions etc.. The conscious mind is
YES by definition limited, it is the conscious material that the ego is
aware of-other levels of psychic material (the unconscious,
superconscious) the ego is unaware of and therefore has little conscious
control over and basically REACTS to the prescriptions of the higher
self.
> > The apparency of fate is simply unrecognized choice-choices made at other
> > levels by you-for you-to explore the you you are. Even if you CHOOSE to
> > create the illusion that you have no free will-it is still a choice and
> > you are using your creative power to do so-even if you use 90% to create
> > the illusion you only have 10%.
>
> > Everything therefore-in everyones life-is
> > there for a reason THEIR reason, there is something within the scenario
> > they wish and have WILLED to learn from, observe, reflect on and
> > understand.
>
> Conspicuously absent from this rendition of things is any addressing of
> issues of what happens when YOUR scenario for what happens to US is
> different from MY scenario of what happens to US. Everything that happens
> to me is what I willed? That means you can't do anything to change my
> life?
Correct! You must agree to it on some level, there is an agreed upon
parameter that we all participate in-it is called physicality and it
allows an agreement of congruency in order that our reality expereinces
are then relative.
> Or somehow everything fits together in some mystical fore-ordained
> way?
"All That Is" (God) is ever creating and recreating the multiverse every
moment and we all participate as co-creators in this creation, therefore
it can change at any given moment there is no "preordained" things only
choices from probability momentums that appear fixed because of momentum.
> The latter is consonant with the mystical (and scientific) view that
> 'free will' is in some sense illusory. The former view either insists that
> one's hands are tied vis-a-vis affecting others (severely curtailing our
> 'free will') , or else that we are all in illusory worlds all by
> ourselves, in which case if you are reading this then you somehow willed
> this illusion of my disagreeing with you into existence.
You are making it too complicated, everything is created by definition,
vibrational frequency allows for agreement and overlap like Venn diagrams
in logic, it is not isolated, why must you make that assumption? It is
more like the EM spectra and is scaled not divided and isolated-or else
you and I would not even see each other let alone interact if there were
NO agreement.
> > "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
> > changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
> > fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
> > Webster
>
> To 'change one's own nature'. Here is a bit of a contradiction, unless you
> accept that some of this 'change' will come from outside the individual
> self. Then, the 'free will' of any part of you which is dualistic and
> separate is not entirely relevant. And this is desirable.
>
> Moderation in all things. This means balance between building (and
> crediting) one's own will and appreciating whatever comes to you from will
> which is entirely exterior to your individual will. If the 'higher will'
> which directs and chooses your life is the same as for everyone else, then
> the duality questions are resolved, although the picture which emerges
> from 'putting everything in God's hands' is quite opposite from
> 'unconditioned free will'.
It means like I said, you create your reality and experiences from
definitions and belief, the only way therefore reality is changed is
through the same process, because nothing is outside of you-this was the
fall in Eden and you are participating in it. There is no "outside" to
the universe, do you see?
> Is there nothing irrevocable about what the 'individual higher self' will
> choose eventually? And can whatever patterns that exist here not be
> conceived as a form of 'cause and effect' or 'determinism'?
No because they are only momentums, this can be shown through the
horoscope and when my book comes out it is explained, it would take far
too much room to do it here but I can guarantee you I can demonstrate the
validity of what I say. What would be the purpose of living in a
deterministic reality? And how would you know you were in one if there
was no ability to reflect upon it because of this closed endedness? You
need to think on this because it cannot be closed ended and aware at the
same time.
> Thanks.
Thank you for your response I will try to explain further if you wish but
I have many times i.e. "The Nature of Reality" and many other posts you
can review thrpough Deja news service if you are interested, thanks!
Ed
Jonathan C. Dunn
> >
> > > Free will exists on all levels.
> >
> > Does this conflict with the assertion 'cause and effect exists on all
> > levels'? 'Determinism exists on all levels'?
>
> It is a fact that cause and effect are the illusional effect of the
> dimension 3 and its time/space continuum. I do not believe in any
> deterministic potential in the multiverse, there are only probabilities
> with most likely momentum unfoldment. Determinism would imply a closed
> ended multiverse-this is not possible simply because we are able to
> reflect upon our selves.
I just basically don't see this 'determinism vs. self-reflection' thing at
all.
> > The selection of charts available for the next 1000 years is limited.
>
> How do you figure this? Have you seen the post I did of the least amount
> of astrological configuration potentials. it is to the 58th power. You
> are not taking into consideration ascendants and possible aspect
> configurations.
Well I am. No, I didn't see your post.
> > Reincarnation research seems to favor that people accept lives reasonably
> > soon after deaths - I might decided that my soul evolution required a
> > particular chart. I might find that such a chart will never exist.
>
> this is not possible, because all exists "now" because there is no such
> thing really as time and therefore the entire unfoldment is like a film
> strip with its FRAME-AFTER-FRAME-AFTER-FRAME sequential appearance in
> physicality, but the film itself already exists-out of time- and
> therefore all possibilities and probabilities exist already albeit on
> different time tracks.
Hmm. Predeterminism WITH many-universes, eh? And so - what? You 'choose'
which predetermined universe to dwell in? Actions have consequences,
right? Now isn't the other side of the coin that actions ARE consequences?
> > One
> > simply must make allowances in one's philosophy for 'cause and effect' or
> > 'necessity' which goes beyond the inclinations of the individual - this
> > limits the potency of 'individual free will'.
>
> These are just the illusions of 3D that the conscious mind percieves as
> "real" because of the degree of its focus eliminates all other
> information that exists contrary to this in order that it is capable of
> functioning properly in this dimension-but as I have said and is commonly
> known-time is an illusion-real while you are focused in it-but an
> illusion none-the-less. You are confusing the free will of the higher
> self and giving far to much credence to conscious prowess.
Thanks for attempting to clear up my 'confusion'. Is the fact that the
conscious mind perceives something as real which is not chosen by the
individual? Or is this the result of verities wholly outside of individual
choice, and conditioning it?
> > > If the universe
> > > was closed ended-there would exist NO ABILITY FOR SELF REFLECTION.
No matter how LARGE this message is printed, I just don't seem to get what
this is about.
> > Determinism is an idea quite in harmony with much of mysticism - there is
> > a 'cosmic drama' in which the apparent loss and gain of 'self-reflection'
> > occur at fixed times. In other words, 'self reflection' without 'ability'
> > which is a term laden with what could be called 'dualities'.
>
> Dualities once again are this illusive factor of the separation-or
> apparent separation of consciousness as the effect of 3D focus. We create
> our reality literally from all these levels, some appear determined as
> the effect of limited vision and time/space distortions.
But is not the idea of the 'individual oversoul' making 'individual
over-choices' dualistic? Is this entity not separate from the next
person's higher self in your presentation?
> > 'held unconsciously' does this mean that one is not responsible? It
> > sounds as if some 'aspect' of my 'self' has free-will, and that my own
> > CONSCIOUS choices and responses are irrelevant: 'free will' in abstract
> > truth, but 'anything but' for all practical purposes.
>
> Well to some degree, yes, you have made agreements-what do you think the
> horoscope is?
There would seem to be merit to the idea that it is another aspect of the
individual/environment interaction - just like genetics, society, etc. and
therefore not >especially< spiritual or mystical.
> It is a fixed-to some degree-set of agreements made prior
> to "time" expereince to allow your life to unfold through the triggering
> of these agreements by transits, progressions etc.. The conscious mind is
> YES by definition limited, it is the conscious material that the ego is
> aware of-other levels of psychic material (the unconscious,
> superconscious) the ego is unaware of and therefore has little conscious
> control over and basically REACTS to the prescriptions of the higher
> self.
This higher self is dualistic/individual then. Does it every midjudge?
Does the mere fact that it is individual not mean that it is subject to
neuroses/issues etc?
> > > The apparency of fate is simply unrecognized choice-choices made at other
> > > levels by you-for you-to explore the you you are. Even if you CHOOSE to
> > > create the illusion that you have no free will-it is still a choice and
> > > you are using your creative power to do so-even if you use 90% to create
> > > the illusion you only have 10%.
There genuinely seems to be a chicken-and-egg thing here. You >assert< the
primacy of choice OVER cause-and-effect. I could (if I wanted to) assert
that 'the apparency of free will is simply unrecognized cause' etc. You
readily accept that the ego is often deluded in this way - subject to fate
set in motion at an earlier time by a higher self. Can it not also be
taken up a level - i.e. the 'higher individual self' is also subject to
MAYA etc?
> > > Everything therefore-in everyones life-is
> > > there for a reason THEIR reason, there is something within the scenario
> > > they wish and have WILLED to learn from, observe, reflect on and
> > > understand.
> >
> > Conspicuously absent from this rendition of things is any addressing of
> > issues of what happens when YOUR scenario for what happens to US is
> > different from MY scenario of what happens to US. Everything that happens
> > to me is what I willed? That means you can't do anything to change my
> > life?
>
> Correct! You must agree to it on some level, there is an agreed upon
> parameter that we all participate in-it is called physicality and it
> allows an agreement of congruency in order that our reality expereinces
> are then relative.
You do not write in order to change someone's mind/life?
> > Or somehow everything fits together in some mystical fore-ordained
> > way?
>
> "All That Is" (God) is ever creating and recreating the multiverse every
> moment and we all participate as co-creators in this creation, therefore
> it can change at any given moment there is no "preordained" things only
> choices from probability momentums that appear fixed because of momentum.
I heard someone say 'not even God knows what is going to happen in the
future'. Do you subscribe to this? If so, how can you be so sure?
> > > "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
> > > changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
> > > fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
> > > Webster
> >
> > To 'change one's own nature'. Here is a bit of a contradiction, unless you
> > accept that some of this 'change' will come from outside the individual
> > self. Then, the 'free will' of any part of you which is dualistic and
> > separate is not entirely relevant. And this is desirable.
> >
> > Moderation in all things. This means balance between building (and
> > crediting) one's own will and appreciating whatever comes to you from will
> > which is entirely exterior to your individual will. If the 'higher will'
> > which directs and chooses your life is the same as for everyone else, then
> > the duality questions are resolved, although the picture which emerges
> > from 'putting everything in God's hands' is quite opposite from
> > 'unconditioned free will'.
>
> It means like I said, you create your reality and experiences from
> definitions and belief, the only way therefore reality is changed is
> through the same process, because nothing is outside of you-this was the
> fall in Eden and you are participating in it. There is no "outside" to
> the universe, do you see?
Intersting assertions, but why?
> > Is there nothing irrevocable about what the 'individual higher self' will
> > choose eventually? And can whatever patterns that exist here not be
> > conceived as a form of 'cause and effect' or 'determinism'?
>
> No because they are only momentums, this can be shown through the
> horoscope and when my book comes out it is explained, it would take far
> too much room to do it here but I can guarantee you I can demonstrate the
> validity of what I say.
> What would be the purpose of living in a
> deterministic reality?
The 'purpose' often described by mystics is that it is a 'play' or a
'flowering' of the one - to forget and then remember, or to become many
and then reunite. Nothing in the idea of determinism conflicts with this
in any way. Many of these schools of thought are explicitly deterministic.
> And how would you know you were in one if there
> was no ability to reflect upon it because of this closed endedness?
I reiterate: the above model includes real reflection which occurs as part
of the unfolding of history/universe, and ability (which intrinsically
implies duality - both separateness and choice ) is part of the illusion
or play.
> You
> need to think on this because it cannot be closed ended and aware at the
> same time.
So you say. The best you can do, really, is to explain your impressions or
ideas in this regard. You would be hard-pressed, I think, to actually
prove or demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of these two concepts.
Thanks.
Edmond Wollmann
Jonathan C. Dunn wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote;
> > > > Free will exists on all levels.
> > > Does this conflict with the assertion 'cause and effect exists on all
> > > levels'? 'Determinism exists on all levels'?
Yes. If you have an unconscious habit are you aware of it?
> > It is a fact that cause and effect are the illusional effect of the
> > dimension 3 and its time/space continuum. I do not believe in any
> > deterministic potential in the multiverse, there are only probabilities
> > with most likely momentum unfoldment. Determinism would imply a closed
> > ended multiverse-this is not possible simply because we are able to
> > reflect upon our selves.
> I just basically don't see this 'determinism vs. self-reflection' thing at
> all.
If you become aware of this "habit" and change it, is it still a habit?
> > > The selection of charts available for the next 1000 years is limited.
> > How do you figure this? Have you seen the post I did of the least amount
> > of astrological configuration potentials. it is to the 58th power. You
> > are not taking into consideration ascendants and possible aspect
> > configurations.
> Well I am. No, I didn't see your post.
> > > Reincarnation research seems to favor that people accept lives reasonably
> > > soon after deaths - I might decided that my soul evolution required a
> > > particular chart. I might find that such a chart will never exist.
> > this is not possible, because all exists "now" because there is no such
> > thing really as time and therefore the entire unfoldment is like a film
> > strip with its FRAME-AFTER-FRAME-AFTER-FRAME sequential appearance in
> > physicality, but the film itself already exists-out of time- and
> > therefore all possibilities and probabilities exist already albeit on
> > different time tracks.
> Hmm. Predeterminism WITH many-universes, eh?
Well not quite because "All That Is" is infinitely expanding and
probabilities follow this in their infinite expression, so if they are
constantly created, how can this be determined?
> And so - what? You 'choose'
> which predetermined universe to dwell in? Actions have consequences,
> right? Now isn't the other side of the coin that actions ARE consequences?
Well it is easier to understand if you look at it as vibrational
freequency alignment. If when a police officer stops you he has not
checked his radar with a tuning fork to check for accuracy, the alignment
may not be correct and you could fight the ticket. If the fork aligns the
gun, your dead because they match and that accuracy-just through
vibrational freqency matching is "proof" that you were speeding. The
vibration you are will be the reality you experience everywhere all the
time, because your definitions allow you to vibrate a certain pitch and
that pitch attracts all into your reality to match it. This is where the
idea of like attracts like (or the polarity which is the other end of the
same thing)comes from.
> > > One
> > > simply must make allowances in one's philosophy for 'cause and effect' or
> > > 'necessity' which goes beyond the inclinations of the individual - this
> > > limits the potency of 'individual free will'.
> > These are just the illusions of 3D that the conscious mind percieves as
> > "real" because of the degree of its focus eliminates all other
> > information that exists contrary to this in order that it is capable of
> > functioning properly in this dimension-but as I have said and is commonly
> > known-time is an illusion-real while you are focused in it-but an
> > illusion none-the-less. You are confusing the free will of the higher
> > self and giving far to much credence to conscious prowess.
> Thanks for attempting to clear up my 'confusion'. Is the fact that the
> conscious mind perceives something as real which is not chosen by the
> individual? Or is this the result of verities wholly outside of individual
> choice, and conditioning it?
The individual cannot percieve anything it does not believe is real or
does not match its vibration, this is why some people have insights to
solve problems that others just don't get. There is NOTHING outside the
self. External reality is a projection of internal belief, this is
reflected in the Cancer/Capricorn Cardinality which is then reflected in
DNA nucleotide base pairing.
> > > > If the universe
> > > > was closed ended-there would exist NO ABILITY FOR SELF REFLECTION.
> No matter how LARGE this message is printed, I just don't seem to get what
> this is about.
Please refer to my "habit" question, I am not being flippant.
> > > Determinism is an idea quite in harmony with much of mysticism - there is
> > > a 'cosmic drama' in which the apparent loss and gain of 'self-reflection'
> > > occur at fixed times. In other words, 'self reflection' without 'ability'
> > > which is a term laden with what could be called 'dualities'.
Well part of this is a contradiction because the reality and its
experience are one in the same, you cannot have self reflection and no
ability for it at the same time.
> > Dualities once again are this illusive factor of the separation-or
> > apparent separation of consciousness as the effect of 3D focus. We create
> > our reality literally from all these levels, some appear determined as
> > the effect of limited vision and time/space distortions.
> But is not the idea of the 'individual oversoul' making 'individual
> over-choices' dualistic? Is this entity not separate from the next
> person's higher self in your presentation?
In reality no. "All That Is" is all one thing manifesting in all the ways
it can infinitely. There is no "real" disconnection from the conscious
mind either, but the reconnection is what my counsel and arguments here
are all about, and it is only through the recognitions that I present can
this be achieved to some degree, it is really mechanics I am discussing.
Of course knowing persons realize that I cannot prove this to you, you
must take, examine and apply and therein you will see the "truth" of it,
just like the cynics here will never see the proof of astrology until
they shift gears and learns to apply it to obtain further truths to act
upon.
> > > 'held unconsciously' does this mean that one is not responsible? It
> > > sounds as if some 'aspect' of my 'self' has free-will, and that my own
> > > CONSCIOUS choices and responses are irrelevant: 'free will' in abstract
> > > truth, but 'anything but' for all practical purposes.
> > Well to some degree, yes, you have made agreements-what do you think the
> > horoscope is?
But I must add here it is not implicate of irresponsibility.
> There would seem to be merit to the idea that it is another aspect of the
> individual/environment interaction - just like genetics, society, etc. and
> therefore not >especially< spiritual or mystical.
Well there only seems to be because that is how you were taught to view
it. From this conscious mind focus as if the locus of control was within
this tiny and limited frame of reference.
> > It is a fixed-to some degree-set of agreements made prior
> > to "time" expereince to allow your life to unfold through the triggering
> > of these agreements by transits, progressions etc.. The conscious mind is
> > YES by definition limited, it is the conscious material that the ego is
> > aware of-other levels of psychic material (the unconscious,
> > superconscious) the ego is unaware of and therefore has little conscious
> > control over and basically REACTS to the prescriptions of the higher
> > self.
> This higher self is dualistic/individual then. Does it every midjudge?
> Does the mere fact that it is individual not mean that it is subject to
> neuroses/issues etc?
It is not dualistic, the conscious mind percieves it this way because of
the focus of its lens in this reality. No it cannot "misjudge" it is
through vibration-this actually happens as well in your physical reality
you just cannot perciewve it but ought to being an astrologer. Nueroses
are the effect of the DENIAL of these different levels of psychic
material and hence psychic dis-ease.
> > > > The apparency of fate is simply unrecognized choice-choices made at other
> > > > levels by you-for you-to explore the you you are. Even if you CHOOSE to
> > > > create the illusion that you have no free will-it is still a choice and
> > > > you are using your creative power to do so-even if you use 90% to create
> > > > the illusion you only have 10%.
> There genuinely seems to be a chicken-and-egg thing here. You >assert< the
> primacy of choice OVER cause-and-effect. I could (if I wanted to) assert
> that 'the apparency of free will is simply unrecognized cause' etc. You
> readily accept that the ego is often deluded in this way - subject to fate
> set in motion at an earlier time by a higher self. Can it not also be
> taken up a level - i.e. the 'higher individual self' is also subject to
> MAYA etc?
Then why look at a chart at all?
> > > > Everything therefore-in everyones life-is
> > > > there for a reason THEIR reason, there is something within the scenario
> > > > they wish and have WILLED to learn from, observe, reflect on and
> > > > understand.
> > > Conspicuously absent from this rendition of things is any addressing of
> > > issues of what happens when YOUR scenario for what happens to US is
> > > different from MY scenario of what happens to US. Everything that happens
> > > to me is what I willed? That means you can't do anything to change my
> > > life?
> > Correct! You must agree to it on some level, there is an agreed upon
> > parameter that we all participate in-it is called physicality and it
> > allows an agreement of congruency in order that our reality expereinces
> > are then relative.
> You do not write in order to change someone's mind/life?
These things are already within them, if I strike the chord they will or
may respond and accelarate their lives because of this inner vibrational
frequency recognition and this moves them into a different universe
altogether. One person can indeed make a difference, there have been many
to prove this.
> > > Or somehow everything fits together in some mystical fore-ordained
> > > way?
> > "All That Is" (God) is ever creating and recreating the multiverse every
> > moment and we all participate as co-creators in this creation, therefore
> > it can change at any given moment there is no "preordained" things only
> > choices from probability momentums that appear fixed because of momentum.
> I heard someone say 'not even God knows what is going to happen in the
> future'. Do you subscribe to this? If so, how can you be so sure?
Because I do not know all that can happen, and I am one of the ways that
"All That Is" has of expressing itself.
> > > > "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
> > > > changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
> > > > fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
> > > > Webster
> > > To 'change one's own nature'. Here is a bit of a contradiction, unless you
> > > accept that some of this 'change' will come from outside the individual
> > > self. Then, the 'free will' of any part of you which is dualistic and
> > > separate is not entirely relevant. And this is desirable.
> > > Moderation in all things. This means balance between building (and
> > > crediting) one's own will and appreciating whatever comes to you from will
> > > which is entirely exterior to your individual will. If the 'higher will'
> > > which directs and chooses your life is the same as for everyone else, then
> > > the duality questions are resolved, although the picture which emerges
> > > from 'putting everything in God's hands' is quite opposite from
> > > 'unconditioned free will'.
> > It means like I said, you create your reality and experiences from
> > definitions and belief, the only way therefore reality is changed is
> > through the same process, because nothing is outside of you-this was the
> > fall in Eden and you are participating in it. There is no "outside" to
> > the universe, do you see?
> Intersting assertions, but why?
When I see a client make a connection between their environment and their
belief and this becomes clear as a bell to all involved, we don't need
another reason. It is not an assertion it is mechanics, empirically
unprovable because it is psychic material manifestation, but mechanics
none-the-less, and if you apply what I say I can guarantee it. But I
cannot prove it FIRST, this is how reality in this dimension is set up
that is the idea of the doubting Thomas, because it is believing is
seeing not seeing is believing, that reality is created and if you do not
believe you will not see. Do you understand? This is where "ye of little
faith" descended from. Your reality and the universe responds to the
trust you have of the most likely reality to manifest, it makes it so
when you do and it is full trust I am talking about not what if's.
> > > Is there nothing irrevocable about what the 'individual higher self' will
> > > choose eventually? And can whatever patterns that exist here not be
> > > conceived as a form of 'cause and effect' or 'determinism'?
> > No because they are only momentums, this can be shown through the
> > horoscope and when my book comes out it is explained, it would take far
> > too much room to do it here but I can guarantee you I can demonstrate the
> > validity of what I say.
> > What would be the purpose of living in a
> > deterministic reality?
> The 'purpose' often described by mystics is that it is a 'play' or a
> 'flowering' of the one - to forget and then remember, or to become many
> and then reunite. Nothing in the idea of determinism conflicts with this
> in any way. Many of these schools of thought are explicitly deterministic.
But if there is no time like groundhog day (the movie) then the only
thing left is the excitement of recreation, do you see?
> > And how would you know you were in one if there
> > was no ability to reflect upon it because of this closed endedness?
> I reiterate: the above model includes real reflection which occurs as part
> of the unfolding of history/universe, and ability (which intrinsically
> implies duality - both separateness and choice ) is part of the illusion
> or play.
Nothing is intrinistic unless you believe it to be so. This then places
it firmly into reality as you have created it. It is a matter of choice,
you will see.
> > You
> > need to think on this because it cannot be closed ended and aware at the
> > same time.
> So you say. The best you can do, really, is to explain your impressions or
> ideas in this regard. You would be hard-pressed, I think, to actually
> prove or demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of these two concepts.
Nothing is ever "proven" I think you would be hard pressed to disagree.
> Thanks.
Thank you for your interesting responses.
"Monks and scholars should accept my word, not out of respect, but upon
analysing it as a goldsmith analyses gold through cutting, melting,
scraping and rubbing it." Buddha
Jonathan C. Dunn
> > > > > Free will exists on all levels.
> > > > Does this conflict with the assertion 'cause and effect exists on all
> > > > levels'? 'Determinism exists on all levels'?
> Yes. If you have an unconscious habit are you aware of it?
If your aim was to befuddle you have succeeded. But I appreciate your
directness.
> > > It is a fact that cause and effect are the illusional effect of the
> > > dimension 3 and its time/space continuum. I do not believe in any
> > > deterministic potential in the multiverse, there are only probabilities
> > > with most likely momentum unfoldment. Determinism would imply a closed
> > > ended multiverse-this is not possible simply because we are able to
> > > reflect upon our selves.
> > I just basically don't see this 'determinism vs. self-reflection' thing at
> > all.
> If you become aware of this "habit" and change it, is it still a habit?
These are semantic distinctions which frankly I don't see the relevance
of. 'Pattern' is a much more useful word I think. There could be a
deterministic timetable to your realizations of your habits. This pattern
could surround and include an individual's 'cosmic drama' of unconscious
vs. conscious action. One's life follows certain patterns, and then
follows others after a particular 'coming to awareness' of something. And
this whole process could be deterministic.
> > > > The selection of charts available for the next 1000 years is limited.
> > > How do you figure this? Have you seen the post I did of the least amount
> > > of astrological configuration potentials. it is to the 58th power. You
> > > are not taking into consideration ascendants and possible aspect
> > > configurations.
> > Well I am. No, I didn't see your post.
> > > > Reincarnation research seems to favor that people accept lives reasonably
> > > > soon after deaths - I might decided that my soul evolution required a
> > > > particular chart. I might find that such a chart will never exist.
> > > this is not possible, because all exists "now" because there is no such
> > > thing really as time and therefore the entire unfoldment is like a film
> > > strip with its FRAME-AFTER-FRAME-AFTER-FRAME sequential appearance in
> > > physicality, but the film itself already exists-out of time- and
> > > therefore all possibilities and probabilities exist already albeit on
> > > different time tracks.
> > Hmm. Predeterminism WITH many-universes, eh?
> Well not quite because "All That Is" is infinitely expanding and
> probabilities follow this in their infinite expression, so if they are
> constantly created, how can this be determined?
One definition (the best I think) of 'probabilities' is a measure of an
individual's ignorance - many people may see that a coin is heads-up, but
if I wear a blindfold, I declare a 50/50 probability of heads.
'Constantly created' out of thin air, or out of what came before? I cannot
assert absolutely one or the other, only that the latter makes more sense
to me. On what basis do you assert?
> > And so - what? You 'choose'
> > which predetermined universe to dwell in? Actions have consequences,
> > right? Now isn't the other side of the coin that actions ARE consequences?
> Well it is easier to understand if you look at it as vibrational
> freequency alignment. If when a police officer stops you he has not
> checked his radar with a tuning fork to check for accuracy, the alignment
> may not be correct and you could fight the ticket. If the fork aligns the
> gun, your dead because they match and that accuracy-just through
> vibrational freqency matching is "proof" that you were speeding. The
> vibration you are will be the reality you experience everywhere all the
> time, because your definitions allow you to vibrate a certain pitch and
> that pitch attracts all into your reality to match it. This is where the
> idea of like attracts like (or the polarity which is the other end of the
> same thing)comes from.
This analogy/model of life doesn't strike me as being intrinisically
opposed to a deterministic outlook.
> > > > One
> > > > simply must make allowances in one's philosophy for 'cause and effect' or
> > > > 'necessity' which goes beyond the inclinations of the individual - this
> > > > limits the potency of 'individual free will'.
> > > These are just the illusions of 3D that the conscious mind percieves as
> > > "real" because of the degree of its focus eliminates all other
> > > information that exists contrary to this in order that it is capable of
> > > functioning properly in this dimension-but as I have said and is commonly
> > > known-time is an illusion-real while you are focused in it-but an
> > > illusion none-the-less. You are confusing the free will of the higher
> > > self and giving far to much credence to conscious prowess.
> > Thanks for attempting to clear up my 'confusion'. Is the fact that the
> > conscious mind perceives something as real which is not chosen by the
> > individual? Or is this the result of verities wholly outside of individual
> > choice, and conditioning it?
> The individual cannot percieve anything it does not believe is real or
> does not match its vibration, this is why some people have insights to
> solve problems that others just don't get. There is NOTHING outside the
> self. External reality is a projection of internal belief, this is
> reflected in the Cancer/Capricorn Cardinality which is then reflected in
> DNA nucleotide base pairing.
This is quite an ambitious theory or system of assertions. Even if it were
to be accepted, there is no intrinsic conflict with determinism. One can
be sealed in a universe all by one's self and have a 'train of thought'
i.e. a deterministic process whereby today's mind-state yields tomorrow's.
> > > > > If the universe
> > > > > was closed ended-there would exist NO ABILITY FOR SELF REFLECTION.
> > No matter how LARGE this message is printed, I just don't seem to get what
> > this is about.
> Please refer to my "habit" question, I am not being flippant.
I see no reason to think that a process of realization of a past habit and
consequent changes of behavior/attitude is intrinsically opposed to the
concept of cause-and-effect.
> > > > Determinism is an idea quite in harmony with much of mysticism - there is
> > > > a 'cosmic drama' in which the apparent loss and gain of 'self-reflection'
> > > > occur at fixed times. In other words, 'self reflection' without 'ability'
> > > > which is a term laden with what could be called 'dualities'.
> Well part of this is a contradiction because the reality and its
> experience are one in the same, you cannot have self reflection and no
> ability for it at the same time.
The >experience< of self-reflection, the >illusion< of ability, which is
an idea akin to probability. Ability/Probability is directly experienced
as incomplete knowledge - a coin is 'able' to come up heads with a 50/50
'probability'. To assert that this incomplete knowledge tells us something
about incomplete reality or incomplete cause-and-effect is another thing
entirely. It seems to me that I wake up in the morning. Nothing about this
gives the impression of my having 'willed' it. And so I see no
contradiction between the idea of 'realization' and cause-and-effect.
> > > Dualities once again are this illusive factor of the separation-or
> > > apparent separation of consciousness as the effect of 3D focus. We create
> > > our reality literally from all these levels, some appear determined as
> > > the effect of limited vision and time/space distortions.
> > But is not the idea of the 'individual oversoul' making 'individual
> > over-choices' dualistic? Is this entity not separate from the next
> > person's higher self in your presentation?
> In reality no. "All That Is" is all one thing manifesting in all the ways
> it can infinitely. There is no "real" disconnection from the conscious
> mind either, but the reconnection is what my counsel and arguments here
> are all about, and it is only through the recognitions that I present can
> this be achieved to some degree, it is really mechanics I am discussing.
> Of course knowing persons realize that I cannot prove this to you, you
> must take, examine and apply and therein you will see the "truth" of it,
> just like the cynics here will never see the proof of astrology until
> they shift gears and learns to apply it to obtain further truths to act
> upon.
Intriguing. Nothing here explicitly removes determinism from
consideration, however.
> > There would seem to be merit to the idea that it is another aspect of the
> > individual/environment interaction - just like genetics, society, etc. and
> > therefore not >especially< spiritual or mystical.
> Well there only seems to be because that is how you were taught to view
> it. From this conscious mind focus as if the locus of control was within
> this tiny and limited frame of reference.
I don't think so. My initial readings of astrology were both the 'chart is
your great mission' variety as well as 'chart is your individual leanings'
variety. Really I think that one could (if so inclined) argue that your
family, caste, etc. were a direct message to you about your great karmic
mission. Initially, the caste system taught this. So, there are various
aspects of your earthly limitations/personality/whatever, and various
people can enthrone one or another of them as a divine decree of your life
purpose. And arguments are often made the other way, especially these
days. It could be argued that (in the name of moderation, and realization,
say) it is best to investigate one's leanings as shown by the horoscope
and be on guard against the extremes. To develop within your body by
avoiding too close an attachment, and within your chart the same way.
> > > It is a fixed-to some degree-set of agreements made prior
> > > to "time" expereince to allow your life to unfold through the triggering
> > > of these agreements by transits, progressions etc.. The conscious mind is
> > > YES by definition limited, it is the conscious material that the ego is
> > > aware of-other levels of psychic material (the unconscious,
> > > superconscious) the ego is unaware of and therefore has little conscious
> > > control over and basically REACTS to the prescriptions of the higher
> > > self.
> > This higher self is dualistic/individual then. Does it every midjudge?
> > Does the mere fact that it is individual not mean that it is subject to
> > neuroses/issues etc?
> It is not dualistic, the conscious mind percieves it this way because of
> the focus of its lens in this reality. No it cannot "misjudge" it is
> through vibration-this actually happens as well in your physical reality
> you just cannot perciewve it but ought to being an astrologer. Nueroses
> are the effect of the DENIAL of these different levels of psychic
> material and hence psychic dis-ease.
My point is: free will suggests duality or incomplete knowledge.
Duality or incomplete knowledge suggests psychic structure and thus
intra-psychic issues and conflicts. Is my 'chooser of incarnation'
different from yours?
> > > > > The apparency of fate is simply unrecognized choice-choices made at other
> > > > > levels by you-for you-to explore the you you are. Even if you CHOOSE to
> > > > > create the illusion that you have no free will-it is still a choice and
> > > > > you are using your creative power to do so-even if you use 90% to create
> > > > > the illusion you only have 10%.
> > There genuinely seems to be a chicken-and-egg thing here. You >assert< the
> > primacy of choice OVER cause-and-effect. I could (if I wanted to) assert
> > that 'the apparency of free will is simply unrecognized cause' etc. You
> > readily accept that the ego is often deluded in this way - subject to fate
> > set in motion at an earlier time by a higher self. Can it not also be
> > taken up a level - i.e. the 'higher individual self' is also subject to
> > MAYA etc?
> Then why look at a chart at all?
I don't have a grand justificaion, just curiousity.
> > > > > Everything therefore-in everyones life-is
> > > > > there for a reason THEIR reason, there is something within the scenario
> > > > > they wish and have WILLED to learn from, observe, reflect on and
> > > > > understand.
> > > > Conspicuously absent from this rendition of things is any addressing of
> > > > issues of what happens when YOUR scenario for what happens to US is
> > > > different from MY scenario of what happens to US. Everything that happens
> > > > to me is what I willed? That means you can't do anything to change my
> > > > life?
> > > Correct! You must agree to it on some level, there is an agreed upon
> > > parameter that we all participate in-it is called physicality and it
> > > allows an agreement of congruency in order that our reality expereinces
> > > are then relative.
> > You do not write in order to change someone's mind/life?
> These things are already within them, if I strike the chord they will or
> may respond and accelarate their lives because of this inner vibrational
> frequency recognition and this moves them into a different universe
> altogether. One person can indeed make a difference, there have been many
> to prove this.
A difference in your life? Theirs? Are people's happiness/fates related?
Wholly separate? Why do you care about helping others if we are all in
isolated cubicles?
> > > > Or somehow everything fits together in some mystical fore-ordained
> > > > way?
> > > "All That Is" (God) is ever creating and recreating the multiverse every
> > > moment and we all participate as co-creators in this creation, therefore
> > > it can change at any given moment there is no "preordained" things only
> > > choices from probability momentums that appear fixed because of momentum.
> > I heard someone say 'not even God knows what is going to happen in the
> > future'. Do you subscribe to this? If so, how can you be so sure?
> Because I do not know all that can happen, and I am one of the ways that
> "All That Is" has of expressing itself.
So - because you have limited knowledge of reality, there is no complete
reality about which we might posit true knowledge? If you don't know how
many fingers I'm holding up does it mean that that number is
intrinisically indefinite? It seems to me that if we ascribe reality to
all of the beings, and maybe objects, then the sum of their knowledge
(which far surpasses the ego's) constitutes reality regardless of our
limited knowledge. If X is an individual, then X can be surprised, and
this proves a reality beyond X's mind, right?
> > > > > "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
> > > > > changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
> > > > > fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
> > > > > Webster
> > > > To 'change one's own nature'. Here is a bit of a contradiction, unless you
> > > > accept that some of this 'change' will come from outside the individual
> > > > self. Then, the 'free will' of any part of you which is dualistic and
> > > > separate is not entirely relevant. And this is desirable.
> > > > crediting) one's own will and appreciating whatever comes to you from will
> > > > which is entirely exterior to your individual will. If the 'higher will'
> > > > which directs and chooses your life is the same as for everyone else, then
> > > > the duality questions are resolved, although the picture which emerges
> > > > from 'putting everything in God's hands' is quite opposite from
> > > > 'unconditioned free will'.
> > > It means like I said, you create your reality and experiences from
> > > definitions and belief, the only way therefore reality is changed is
> > > through the same process, because nothing is outside of you-this was the
> > > fall in Eden and you are participating in it. There is no "outside" to
> > > the universe, do you see?
> > Intersting assertions, but why?
> When I see a client make a connection between their environment and their
> belief and this becomes clear as a bell to all involved, we don't need
> another reason.
Fine, BUT. Fine, but if a counselor in an adjacent office is preaching
about determinism is he/she WRONG? If he/she says to clients 'whatever
will be will be', 'toil not' , see beyond the illusion of individuality
and free will, etc. do you object?
> It is not an assertion it is mechanics, empirically
> unprovable because it is psychic material manifestation, but mechanics
> none-the-less, and if you apply what I say I can guarantee it.
To guarantee that your method/therapy works is not to say that someone
else's (with quite a different outlook) won't.
> But I
> cannot prove it FIRST, this is how reality in this dimension is set up
> that is the idea of the doubting Thomas, because it is believing is
> seeing not seeing is believing, that reality is created and if you do not
> believe you will not see.
If 'reality' deserves to be called reality, it should be the opposite:
'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away' -
Philip K. Dick.
> Do you understand? This is where "ye of little
> faith" descended from. Your reality and the universe responds to the
> trust you have of the most likely reality to manifest, it makes it so
> when you do and it is full trust I am talking about not what if's.
'Ye of little faith' was really about getting the individual to accept
some reality outside of his mind. A salvation that the individual would
never imagine personally. The opposite of 'mind creates reality'. An
appeal to go outside of the limited individual perspective.
> > > And how would you know you were in one if there
> > > was no ability to reflect upon it because of this closed endedness?
> > I reiterate: the above model includes real reflection which occurs as part
> > of the unfolding of history/universe, and ability (which intrinsically
> > implies duality - both separateness and choice ) is part of the illusion
> > or play.
> Nothing is intrinistic unless you believe it to be so. This then places
> it firmly into reality as you have created it. It is a matter of choice,
> you will see.
This is the opposite of 'self-reflection' in my view - not attempting to
understand the patterns, momentums, and causes which underlie what seem to
be one's 'free choices'.
> > > You
> > > need to think on this because it cannot be closed ended and aware at the
> > > same time.
> > So you say. The best you can do, really, is to explain your impressions or
> > ideas in this regard. You would be hard-pressed, I think, to actually
> > prove or demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of these two concepts.
> Nothing is ever "proven" I think you would be hard pressed to disagree.
My point is this: there is a weak (reasonable) version of your argument
and a strong (unreasonable) one.
If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something which
is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I would
ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
help others understand' then your behavior begs arguments and demands of
'proof'.
Thanks.
Markus
Jonathan C. Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.93.96090...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
>
***snip***
> My point is this: there is a weak (reasonable) version of your argument
> and a strong (unreasonable) one.
>
> If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something
which
> is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I
would
> ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
> everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
> help others understand' then your behavior begs arguments and demands of
> 'proof'.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Here Here Jonathan! In following this discussion I quite agree, however, in
reading Mr. Wollmann's writings there can be only one reply. Beep .. Beep
... Blip ... Blap ... Edmond ... Dit ... Dot ... Edmond ... Dit ... Dot ...
Blap ... Your message has been received .... Dat .... Boop .... . The
mother ship ... Buzz ... Pwap ... will arrive to pick you up ... Ping ...
Twang .... at the next Vlexien cycle ... Beep .... Pwap ..... Fizz ... !!!
Edmond Wollmann
Jonathan C. Dunn wrote:
> > > > > > Free will exists on all levels.
> > > > > Does this conflict with the assertion 'cause and effect exists on all
> > > > > levels'? 'Determinism exists on all levels'?
> > Yes. If you have an unconscious habit are you aware of it?
> If your aim was to befuddle you have succeeded. But I appreciate your
> directness.
No you are missing the point.
> > If you become aware of this "habit" and change it, is it still a habit?
My aim is to allow you to recognize that you cannot have a deterministic
universe and be aware of it. So basically anything as far as points made
without this recognition are moot. If you have a habit and are not aware
of it-it is deterministic that you will practice it. If you become aware
of a habit-it is no longer a habit-awareness has changed it. This is the
crux of the philosophic thrust that you seem unable to acknowledge.
> These are semantic distinctions which frankly I don't see the relevance
> of. 'Pattern' is a much more useful word I think.
A pattern is a concept and therefore would be a good argument for the
self aware universe.
> There could be a
> deterministic timetable to your realizations-
Realizations are a contradiction to determinism.
> > constantly created, how can this be determined?
> One definition (the best I think) of 'probabilities' is a measure of an
> individual's ignorance - many people may see that a coin is heads-up, but
> if I wear a blindfold, I declare a 50/50 probability of heads.
These are 3D probabilities, not infinite. All you are describing is
physical laws not probabilities.
> This analogy/model of life doesn't strike me as being intrinisically
> opposed to a deterministic outlook.
Is this an argument? An argument must have a truth premise and a
conclusion, if there is something new in the conclusion it is inductive
if not it is deductive these are the basic requirements for an argument.
> > DNA nucleotide base pairing.
> This is quite an ambitious theory or system of assertions. Even if it were
> to be accepted, there is no intrinsic conflict with determinism.
Belief would be irrelevant in a deterministic system. You assert these
things with no argumeent and much contradiction, surely you don't believe
I or others will be convinced in this manner?
> > Please refer to my "habit" question, I am not being flippant.
> I see no reason to think that a process of realization of a past habit and
> consequent changes of behavior/attitude is intrinsically opposed to the
> concept of cause-and-effect.
It is the awareness that makes the entire universe a different animal-I
don't know how else to explain it. Cause and effect-once again are the
illusions of time/space continuum. This is pretty much fact Jonathan!
> > just like the cynics here will never see the proof of astrology until
> > they shift gears and learns to apply it to obtain further truths to act
> > upon.
> Intriguing. Nothing here explicitly removes determinism from
> consideration, however.
Well, like my capitalization, no matter how many times you say that, it
does not provide a truth premise necessary in logic to form the
conclusion you assert. Whereas my asking of the question of the habit and
awareness idea indeed is relevant to the point. And most obviously had a
conclusion.
> > it. From this conscious mind focus as if the locus of control was within
> > this tiny and limited frame of reference.
> I don't think so. My initial readings of astrology were both the 'chart is
> your great mission' variety as well as 'chart is your individual leanings'
> variety. Really I think that one could (if so inclined) argue that your
> family, caste, etc. were a direct message to you about your great karmic
Define karma in a deterministic system.
> My point is: free will suggests duality or incomplete knowledge.
Explain? Explain how having the freedom to choose infinite probabilities
which would contain all awareness and knowledge all at once out of time
would in your opinion reflect incomplete knowledge? Duality is the effect
of focus and illusion - not will.
> Duality or incomplete knowledge suggests psychic structure and thus
> intra-psychic issues and conflicts. Is my 'chooser of incarnation'
> different from yours?
Only by degree and vibration-Well now you are carrying on an argument
that is very difficult to make sense out of. This is a slippery slope
fallacious line of reasoning.
> > > taken up a level - i.e. the 'higher individual self' is also subject to
> > > MAYA etc?
> > Then why look at a chart at all?
> I don't have a grand justificaion, just curiousity.
Well my point is if there is great argument for a deterministic universe
why do anything? This was my initial point that everyone I guess did not
get, if you skeptically and critically think everything as far as it can
be done FOR NOW, the only thing left is more action to create a void for
more probabilities to allow questions through application to continue.
> > frequency recognition and this moves them into a different universe
> > altogether. One person can indeed make a difference, there have been many
> > to prove this.
> A difference in your life? Theirs? Are people's happiness/fates related?
By vibrational similarity and agreement yes. But happiness is very
nebulous, explain. And fate is unrecognized and unconscious choice-just
like a habit.
> Wholly separate?
Did not I already use the idea of Venn diagrams to make this point?
> Why do you care about helping others if we are all in
> isolated cubicles?
Who said that? That is your assumption that leads you to these slippery
slopes.
> > Because I do not know all that can happen, and I am one of the ways that
> > "All That Is" has of expressing itself.
> So - because you have limited knowledge of reality, there is no complete
> reality about which we might posit true knowledge?
All knowledge is true knowledge-define your difference in meaning.
>If you don't know how
> many fingers I'm holding up does it mean that that number is
> intrinisically indefinite?
It will still be only my version and is unprovable like everything else
in the universe. You cannot prove others experience. There are only
versions and agreed parameters and you will be foolish to attempt to
argue this premise.
>It seems to me that if we ascribe reality to
> all of the beings, and maybe objects, then the sum of their knowledge
> (which far surpasses the ego's) constitutes reality regardless of our
> limited knowledge. If X is an individual, then X can be surprised, and
> this proves a reality beyond X's mind, right?
CONSCIOUS MIND, yes. But that is not the entirity of the self-or of
reality.
> > When I see a client make a connection between their environment and their
> > belief and this becomes clear as a bell to all involved, we don't need
> > another reason.
> Fine, BUT. Fine, but if a counselor in an adjacent office is preaching
> about determinism is he/she WRONG?
What would be the point? Why would you possibly need counsel in a
deterministic universe????? Without meaning to sound deragatory do you
see the rediculous contradictions in your assertions? The counselor would
be analytically incorrect yes, because it would be redundant. If the
universe was indeed deterministic then this counselor would be under
great delusions and would serve no one by counseling. No one would need
to DO anything if the universe was deterministic!
> If he/she says to clients 'whatever
> will be will be', 'toil not' , see beyond the illusion of individuality
> and free will, etc. do you object?
Anything can happen in any way BECAUSE we are NOT in a determninistic
universe, so it is not my place to judge if this scenario was agreed upon
to be the creation-but since we don't, then not taking action in a
material world that is MEANT for action is like getting on a bike and
riding to stay in one place. It is utter nonsense. Individuality, free
will are not illusions, they are real constructs and if you did not chose
to explore those constructs then they simply would not exist-in your
reality-, it is just that simple.
> > It is not an assertion it is mechanics, empirically
> > unprovable because it is psychic material manifestation, but mechanics
> > none-the-less, and if you apply what I say I can guarantee it.
> To guarantee that your method/therapy works is not to say that someone
> else's (with quite a different outlook) won't.
Won't work to do what? You must define what it is that you intend to get
working before I can answer such a wild question.
> > But I
> > cannot prove it FIRST, this is how reality in this dimension is set up
> > that is the idea of the doubting Thomas, because it is believing is
> > seeing not seeing is believing, that reality is created and if you do not
> > believe you will not see.
> If 'reality' deserves
Explain this condition of deserving, how does a reality "deserve" to be a
reality? This implies restrictions and judgements you must define these
parameters.
> to be called reality, it should be the opposite:
> 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away'
You are defining EXTERNAL reality, this is pure Saturnian delusion. This
is the illusion of 3D, that is all, even physics now knows this statement
is nonsense-proven.
> > Do you understand? This is where "ye of little
> > faith" descended from. Your reality and the universe responds to the
> > trust you have of the most likely reality to manifest, it makes it so
> > when you do and it is full trust I am talking about not what if's.
> 'Ye of little faith' was really about getting the individual to accept
> some reality outside of his mind. A salvation that the individual would
> never imagine personally. The opposite of 'mind creates reality'. An
> appeal to go outside of the limited individual perspective.
Then why would Christ say to Pontious "you would have no power over me
were it not given you from above"? It implies self empowerment in the
creation of his own reality scenarios. He also said after performing
miracles "do not marvel, greater things than this shall you also do, you
shall say mountain move here and the mountain will move" and "the kigdom
of heaven is within you" these are not statements of faith in something
outside of you Johnathan and you are making huge stretches with these
arguments.
Anyway if you reread your statement it makes no sense whatever. Nothing
is "outside" of your mind that is an illusion. Your reality and your
perspective are one thing, and if you truly believe the reality you have
been expressing here, your reality is exceedingly limited indeed.
> > Nothing is intrinistic unless you believe it to be so. This then places
> > it firmly into reality as you have created it. It is a matter of choice,
> > you will see.
> This is the opposite of 'self-reflection' in my view - not attempting to
> understand the patterns, momentums, and causes which underlie what seem to
> be one's 'free choices'.
Again-patterns and momentums ARE REFLECTIONS and concepts and are totally
irrelevant to the point (I think) you are trying to make. The definition
of self determination does not carry with it these definitions and you
are only contradicting yourself.
> My point is this: there is a weak (reasonable) version of your argument
> and a strong (unreasonable) one.
To be perfectly honest with you I have seen no point.
> If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something which
> is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I would
> ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
> everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
> help others understand'
If they are not improving the quality of life-to put all this nonsense to
rest-then no it is not service. How -please explain, does convincing
someone that they have no power to do anything serve them? Anyone reading
this care to help him? How, I ask again. Therefore all these arguments
you propose are red herrings, and quite frankly a waste of time. As would
be the existance of a deterministic universe.
> then your behavior begs arguments and demands of
> 'proof'.
Well I'll use your argument style-you just say this but how do you prove
this assertion?
Well this is fallacious, because if free will helps to empower an
individual and you say that convincing them that it is deterministic is
just as helpful, that is a contradiction- and I am clever enough to see
that you're the one who has tried to confuse a perfectly logical argument
and method to help individuals empower themselves to greater reality
experience. My only question left therefore is how does it serve you to
have created such a limited and burdonsome view? I certainly cannot see
how this is helpful.
"His arguments are as thin as soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that
has starved to death." Abraham Lincoln on Douglas'debating ability.
Jonathan C. Dunn
> My aim is to allow you to recognize that you cannot have a deterministic
> universe and be aware of it. So basically anything as far as points made
> without this recognition are moot. If you have a habit and are not aware
> of it-it is deterministic that you will practice it. If you become aware
> of a habit-it is no longer a habit-awareness has changed it. This is the
> crux of the philosophic thrust that you seem unable to acknowledge.
A moment in time where one habit (presumably of many) comes to an end (and
is perhaps replaced by another?) does not contradict the idea of
determinism.
> > These are semantic distinctions which frankly I don't see the relevance
> > of. 'Pattern' is a much more useful word I think.
>
> A pattern is a concept and therefore would be a good argument for the
> self aware universe.
'Self aware universe' particularly if conceived as totally non-dualistic,
does not contradict the idea of determinism.
> > There could be a
> > deterministic timetable to your realizations-
>
> Realizations are a contradiction to determinism.
Repeated assertions do not convice me of anything.
Repeated assertions do not convice me of anything.
Repeated assertions do not convice me of anything.
> > One definition (the best I think) of 'probabilities' is a measure of an
> > individual's ignorance - many people may see that a coin is heads-up, but
> > if I wear a blindfold, I declare a 50/50 probability of heads.
> These are 3D probabilities, not infinite. All you are describing is
> physical laws not probabilities.
Your 'probabilities' then have nothing to do with the definition of the
word as I understand it, and therefore I can neither argue or agree.
Rather I am baffled.
> > > DNA nucleotide base pairing.
> > This is quite an ambitious theory or system of assertions. Even if it were
> > to be accepted, there is no intrinsic conflict with determinism.
> Belief would be irrelevant in a deterministic system. You assert these
> things with no argumeent and much contradiction, surely you don't believe
> I or others will be convinced in this manner?
One could conceive of a moment's belief having causes and effects. It is
not 'irrelevant' in the sense of being inconsequential, but an
individual's mental state at a given moment would not have the same status
as some primal universal thought.
It is more reasonable to begin with a fair or blank slate: 'I have no
opinion about whether life is deterministic or not'. Then, grand claims
one way or the other need to be questioned. Therefore, as far as being
'convinced' goes, it is you and not I who try to 'convince others' in a
particular 'manner'. I am not convinced. My 'arguments' basically state
that I am not convinced. Your repeated reiterations and reassertions
rather than other supportive discussion is what surely will not 'convince
others in this manner'.
> It is the awareness that makes the entire universe a different animal-I
> don't know how else to explain it. Cause and effect-once again are the
> illusions of time/space continuum. This is pretty much fact Jonathan!
Ya know, I don't have a problem with an assertion such as 'it is pretty
much fact that cause-and-effect are the illusions of time/space
continuum'. It's just that the well-balanced thinker will readily add 'it
is pretty much a fact the FREE WILL is the illusion of time/space' as
well!
> > > just like the cynics here will never see the proof of astrology until
> > > they shift gears and learns to apply it to obtain further truths to act
> > > upon.
> > Intriguing. Nothing here explicitly removes determinism from
> > consideration, however.
> Well, like my capitalization, no matter how many times you say that, it
> does not provide a truth premise necessary in logic to form the
> conclusion you assert. Whereas my asking of the question of the habit and
> awareness idea indeed is relevant to the point. And most obviously had a
> conclusion.
I am saying that in the absence of conclusive evidence/arguments against
'the universe is absolutely deterministic' it is more reasonable to remain
agnostic. This is really what I'm asking you to do in the name of being
fair and reasonable. I am not the one asking someone to accept grand
assertions here I think.
> Define karma in a deterministic system.
Implicit here is the idea that there is a contradiction. I throw the ball
back in your court by saying 'I see no reason to think that karma is any
harder to 'define' in a deterministic or non-deterministic context'. You
must expain your bias, then in order for your grand claims to be
accepted.
> > My point is: free will suggests duality or incomplete knowledge.
> Explain? Explain how having the freedom to choose infinite probabilities
> which would contain all awareness and knowledge all at once out of time
> would in your opinion reflect incomplete knowledge? Duality is the effect
> of focus and illusion - not will.
Individual will is dualistic - one is 'different' from others, from one's
possible future #1, from one's possible future #2, etc.
> > Duality or incomplete knowledge suggests psychic structure and thus
> > intra-psychic issues and conflicts. Is my 'chooser of incarnation'
> > different from yours?
> Only by degree and vibration-Well now you are carrying on an argument
> that is very difficult to make sense out of. This is a slippery slope
> fallacious line of reasoning.
Now you know how I feel.
^
> > > Then why look at a chart at all?
> > I don't have a grand justificaion, just curiousity.
> Well my point is if there is great argument for a deterministic universe
> why do anything? This was my initial point that everyone I guess did not
> get, if you skeptically and critically think everything as far as it can
> be done FOR NOW, the only thing left is more action to create a void for
> more probabilities to allow questions through application to continue.
'Why do anything'? Not with a rationale so much as with motives. A certain
serenity derives from the notion that at some future time not only the
rationales, but also the motives and desires will subside - nirvana or
some such. My personal reality is much as you promote:
action/experimentation/refinement/new vistas. But my intellectual
understanding leaves plenty of room as least for the possibility that it
is all deterministic.
> > > One person can indeed make a difference, there have been many
> > > to prove this.
> > A difference in your life? Theirs? Are people's happiness/fates related?
> By vibrational similarity and agreement yes. But happiness is very
> nebulous, explain. And fate is unrecognized and unconscious choice-just
> like a habit.
Now you know how I feel.
^
> > Wholly separate?
> Did not I already use the idea of Venn diagrams to make this point?
There seems to be a problem. If others will 'overlaps' somehow with mine,
then how is my will (this is really the crux - individual free will is all
about 'me not being influenced or caused-upon by anything external to my
individual self) 'free'?
> > Why do you care about helping others if we are all in
> > isolated cubicles?
> Who said that? That is your assumption that leads you to these slippery
> slopes.
We cannot influence others. We can all make a difference. Slippery? Now
you know how I feel.
^
> > > Because I do not know all that can happen, and I am one of the ways that
> > > "All That Is" has of expressing itself.
> > So - because you have limited knowledge of reality, there is no complete
> > reality about which we might posit true knowledge?
> All knowledge is true knowledge-define your difference in meaning.
This was about 'does God not know about our futures' and you said 'Because
I do not know......expressing itself'. I was just trying to see the
relevance of this response in the context of 'are you saying that your
lack of knowledge implies God's lack of knowledge, which then would imply
that there is no intrinsic knowledge beyond your own personal sphere'.
> >If you don't know how
> > many fingers I'm holding up does it mean that that number is
> > intrinisically indefinite?
> It will still be only my version and is unprovable like everything else
> in the universe. You cannot prove others experience. There are only
> versions and agreed parameters and you will be foolish to attempt to
> argue this premise.
Does this mean your 'version': that 'free will is all there is' is
unprovable? Is it possible that I will never see/agree? And does this mean
that it will never be true for me? And does this mean that in some sense
it simply isn't true?
> > > When I see a client make a connection between their environment and their
> > > belief and this becomes clear as a bell to all involved, we don't need
> > > another reason.
> > Fine, BUT. Fine, but if a counselor in an adjacent office is preaching
> > about determinism is he/she WRONG?
> What would be the point? Why would you possibly need counsel in a
> deterministic universe?????
Cosmic drama. And only on the most abstract level would this idea be
entertained. I'm not saying it would permeate every last level and moment
of life.
> Without meaning to sound deragatory do you
> see the rediculous contradictions in your assertions? The counselor would
> be analytically incorrect yes, because it would be redundant. If the
> universe was indeed deterministic then this counselor would be under
> great delusions and would serve no one by counseling. No one would need
> to DO anything if the universe was deterministic!
'No one would NEED to DO anything...'. Many mystical paths flirt with this
attitude explicity: TAOism, some Buddhism...
> > If he/she says to clients 'whatever
> > will be will be', 'toil not' , see beyond the illusion of individuality
> > and free will, etc. do you object?
> Anything can happen in any way BECAUSE we are NOT in a determninistic
> universe,
Shall I give in at this moment under the weight of your repeated
assertion?!
> so it is not my place to judge if this scenario was agreed upon
> to be the creation-but since we don't, then not taking action in a
> material world that is MEANT for action is like getting on a bike and
> riding to stay in one place. It is utter nonsense. Individuality, free
> will are not illusions, they are real constructs and if you did not chose
> to explore those constructs then they simply would not exist-in your
> reality-, it is just that simple.
Shall I give in at this moment under the weight of your repeated
assertion?!
> > > It is not an assertion it is mechanics, empirically
> > > unprovable because it is psychic material manifestation, but mechanics
> > > none-the-less, and if you apply what I say I can guarantee it.
> > To guarantee that your method/therapy works is not to say that someone
> > else's (with quite a different outlook) won't.
> Won't work to do what? You must define what it is that you intend to get
> working before I can answer such a wild question.
To 'help', to 'make a difference'.
> > > But I
> > > cannot prove it FIRST, this is how reality in this dimension is set up
> > > that is the idea of the doubting Thomas, because it is believing is
> > > seeing not seeing is believing, that reality is created and if you do not
> > > believe you will not see.
> Explain this condition of deserving, how does a reality "deserve" to be a
> reality? This implies restrictions and judgements you must define these
> parameters.
To confer on some assertion or version of things the mantle of being
'reality' is to make a differentiation vis-a-vis its opposite which is
seen as unreal. You say non-determinism is real and determinism unreal.
> > 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away'
> You are defining EXTERNAL reality, this is pure Saturnian delusion. This
> is the illusion of 3D, that is all, even physics now knows this statement
> is nonsense-proven.
Well...not really. Many interpretations of the most up-to-date
quantum-level experiments are one way or another 'realistic'.
I can imagine any old thing. The charm and value of 'reality' is that it
continues regardless of what I think. Can't it be stated thus: 'Jonathan
imagined that the world is deterministic, whereas IN REALITY it is not?'
You are conferring on your statements that they possess a REALITY
regardless of what I, Jon Dunn, may wrongly think, eh?
> > > Do you understand? This is where "ye of little
> > > faith" descended from. Your reality and the universe responds to the
> > > trust you have of the most likely reality to manifest, it makes it so
> > > when you do and it is full trust I am talking about not what if's.
> > 'Ye of little faith' was really about getting the individual to accept
> > some reality outside of his mind. A salvation that the individual would
> > never imagine personally. The opposite of 'mind creates reality'. An
> > appeal to go outside of the limited individual perspective.
> Then why would Christ say to Pontious "you would have no power over me
> were it not given you from above"? It implies self empowerment in the
> creation of his own reality scenarios.
I will not say that I'm sure you're wrong in this only that it makes much
more sense TO ME that he must be referring to a REALITY above and beyond
either of them individually, a force of history, a celestial diety.
> He also said after performing
> miracles "do not marvel, greater things than this shall you also do, you
> shall say mountain move here and the mountain will move" and "the kigdom
> of heaven is within you" these are not statements of faith in something
> outside of you Johnathan and you are making huge stretches with these
> arguments.
This comes a little closer to being in line with your views. However,
there are many scholars whose eyes would bug out at your 'huge stretches',
and interpret these things in quite a different way than you have: in the
overall context of sin/forgiveness/my-father etc, it is seen as about
having the birthright or possibility of living as a child unto the father
(and this potentiality is 'within you') and moving the mountain through
prayer - to a higher diety which has being and will quite above and beyond
whatever these people have in their minds. When native peoples rain-dance,
they are 'relating', praying to the soul of something greater to and (at
least in some limited sense) exterior to their individual wills and selves
- a request or invitation, not a glorification of unfettered individual
freedom.
> Anyway if you reread your statement it makes no sense whatever. Nothing
> is "outside" of your mind that is an illusion. Your reality and your
> perspective are one thing, and if you truly believe the reality you have
> been expressing here, your reality is exceedingly limited indeed.
Sorry. I take your criticism of being limited as a reassurance that my
ideas are not grandiose or overblown, at least. ;)
> > > Nothing is intrinistic unless you believe it to be so. This then places
> > > it firmly into reality as you have created it. It is a matter of choice,
> > > you will see.
> > This is the opposite of 'self-reflection' in my view - not attempting to
> > understand the patterns, momentums, and causes which underlie what seem to
> > be one's 'free choices'.
> Again-patterns and momentums ARE REFLECTIONS and concepts and are totally
> irrelevant to the point (I think) you are trying to make. The definition
> of self determination does not carry with it these definitions and you
> are only contradicting yourself.
It is quite beyond me to argue with this. (Congratulations?)
> > My point is this: there is a weak (reasonable) version of your argument
> > and a strong (unreasonable) one.
> To be perfectly honest with you I have seen no point.
Okey-doke.
> > If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something which
> > is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I would
> > ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
> > everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
> > help others understand'
> If they are not improving the quality of life-to put all this nonsense to
> rest-then no it is not service. How -please explain, does convincing
> someone that they have no power to do anything serve them? Anyone reading
> this care to help him? How, I ask again. Therefore all these arguments
> you propose are red herrings, and quite frankly a waste of time. As would
> be the existance of a deterministic universe.
You're sounding like a Buddhist or Taoist again. ;)
> > then your behavior begs arguments and demands of
> > 'proof'.
> Well I'll use your argument style-you just say this but how do you prove
> this assertion?
> Well this is fallacious, because if free will helps to empower an
> individual and you say that convincing them that it is deterministic is
> just as helpful, that is a contradiction- and I am clever enough to see
> that you're the one who has tried to confuse a perfectly logical argument
> and method to help individuals empower themselves to greater reality
> experience. My only question left therefore is how does it serve you to
> have created such a limited and burdonsome view? I certainly cannot see
> how this is helpful.
Many quite spiritual earnest and helpful people see that the problem with
the human condition is 'making too much of individual
will/mind/circumstances' and suggest that people attain enlightenment
through putting all that you glorify (i.e 'empowerment') 180 degrees
behind them. In astrological terms, this is a classic Uranus vs. Neptune
argument we're having. You argue for the primacy of individual
independence and freedom. I must say it seems there is something beyond
individual dramas and more inclusive at work in this broad universe.
> "His arguments are as thin as soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that
> has starved to death." Abraham Lincoln on Douglas'debating ability.
Um...whatever.
Jeff Inman
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes (to Jonathan Dunn):
>My aim is to allow you to recognize that you cannot have a deterministic
>universe and be aware of it. So basically anything as far as points made
>without this recognition are moot. If you have a habit and are not aware
>of it-it is deterministic that you will practice it. If you become aware
>of a habit-it is no longer a habit-awareness has changed it. This is the
>crux of the philosophic thrust that you seem unable to acknowledge.
I have to agree with Dunn that this seems like a bad argument. Makes
much more sense to me to suppose that the "free will versus
determinism" thing is a false dichotomy propagated by folks who don't
really understand what either thing is. But, meanwhile, in the narrow
understanding of these terms, determinism seems much more coherent.
Can you make an argument that demonstrates why "realization" can't be
deterministic?
Seems to me that it could well be that our sense of chosing things is
an illusion at some level. Or, it could be that in some sense we do
"choose", but since only one thing can ever really be chosen the idea
that there are alternative paths is an illusion. Perhaps these boil
down to the same thing. Positing many parallel universes in which we
are allowed to make many different choices doesn't seem to me to offer
any resolution. It merely makes the situation more complicated.
If you are going to say that choices are not mere arbitrary accidents
of "will", but follow from something like "intent", then it seems to
me that you're going to have to explain how this could happen without
there being some kind of "ordering principle".
I don't mean this as a personal attack. I'm just curious about how
you could support the position you seem to be taking. Like Mr. Dunn,
I just don't get it.
>Realizations are a contradiction to determinism.
Okay. How?
>Belief would be irrelevant in a deterministic system.
How so?
>Define karma in a deterministic system.
Easy. Seems natural as heck. But how can it be defined in a
non-deterministic one? Does it become probabalistic?
>Well my point is if there is great argument for a deterministic universe
>why do anything?
Because if you don't, something bad will happen? It's subtle, but not
contradictory. Seems possible that there could be a deterministic
universe in which I am faced with an angry lion and make the "choice"
of dealing with it, rather than merely lying down. The only trick is
that "choice" requires quotation marks, as do the words "random",
"probability", and "likelihood".
This position engenders a zen kind of insight into life. Saying that
"our life is an illusion" doesn't mean that it is worthless and one
should strive to "get over it". It merely means that enlightened ones
have some irony and sense of "listening" in regard to what it seems to
tham that they are doing.
>It will still be only my version and is unprovable like everything else
>in the universe. You cannot prove others experience. There are only
>versions and agreed parameters and you will be foolish to attempt to
>argue this premise.
Irrelevant. This doesn't help us resolve whether determinism must be
involved, or not. Could well be that epistemological problems prevent
resolving multiple perspectives in a deterministic system as well.
(Or maybe not.)
>What would be the point? Why would you possibly need counsel in a
>deterministic universe?????
You are confusing the macrocosmic perspective with the human
(microcosmic) one. Determinism, if it obtains, must obviously work at
a level that is not opposed to the possibility that our experience
would be just like it is. We struggle and contend. This doesn't mean
that we are wasting our time, nor that the same things will happen if
we don't struggle and contend. It means that, for whatever reason,
our struggles and contentions are bound to follow certain courses,
e.g. due to the specific things which we will encounter, the mood
we'll be in when a certain choice presents itself, etc. It's not a
prison.
>Without meaning to sound deragatory do you
>see the rediculous contradictions in your assertions? The counselor would
>be analytically incorrect yes, because it would be redundant. If the
>universe was indeed deterministic then this counselor would be under
>great delusions and would serve no one by counseling. No one would need
>to DO anything if the universe was deterministic!
This is plain wrong. You will find that there is more to this issue
than you have granted, yet. The problem with non-deterministic models
is that they actually *deny* the possibility of character, will,
choice, intent, and ultimately, even, of principle. The end of
science, as well. This is why quantum mechanics is (must be) a crock
of shit. One can never prove anything in a non-deterministic world.
Especially not that it was non-deterministic. Such a proof would have
the property of rendering itself inconclusive. Neat trick!
>Jonathan Dunn:
>> If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something which
>> is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I would
>> ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
>> everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
>> help others understand'
>
>If they are not improving the quality of life-to put all this nonsense to
>rest-then no it is not service.
Well, this should be irrelevant to our question. For now, let's be
interested in thinking about things, and tough luck if it turns out
not to be helpful to people. For now, our task is to be philosophers,
not necessarily to be useful. (I think real philosophy is bound to be
useful, but that's because my goals are generally philosophical.) My
goal isn't to make people happy.
--
"If you put me in there, I'll work your garden as it's never been worked before!"
Edmond Wollmann
Jeff Inman wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes (to Jonathan Dunn):
> >My aim is to allow you to recognize that you cannot have a deterministic
> >universe and be aware of it. So basically anything as far as points made
> >without this recognition are moot. If you have a habit and are not aware
> >of it-it is deterministic that you will practice it. If you become aware
> >of a habit-it is no longer a habit-awareness has changed it. This is the
> >crux of the philosophic thrust that you seem unable to acknowledge.
> I have to agree with Dunn that this seems like a bad argument.
Well there are a lot of things that would have to be resolved here, for
one thing everyone talks as if determinism automatically implies cause
and effect, this is not necessarily so. And vice versa. It is also not a
given that free will is devoid of cause and effect, and my philosophical
perspective allows for effect within the free will scenario. Finally you
gentlemen are as aware as I that we wouldn't be the first to fill a few
volumes of writing deabating it. But I choose the free will idea not
because it is a nice philosophy but because it is the only one that fits
with other mechanics that I know work.
The argument above is simple. If you are capable of objectification a
system cannot be entirely closed. If the system in the strictest sense is
derterministic-meaning only the illusion of choice but not "really" any,
then objectification as in the example of a habit CAN prove if you are so
willing, that we can only be "outside" to some degree in observation of
the idea that has been created in order to observe it. Now I have heard
all the arguments of determinism and knew from the beginning where he was
going, I also know that he cannot prove the reverse-nor can you.
Therefore as a counselor which may make a difference at least between you
and I-I don't know if he counsels, but between you and I the difference
is that I have been able to observe the difference between applied
awareness and none. And the difference is marked. Now I know the both of
you will say this does not prove anything as far as free will but my
perspective is not based on the typical argument of either soft
determinism or free will per se. It contains many other things. And I
also know that regardless of either you can still create a reality that
appears determined and that is your choice-you are doing it by arguing it
now. But I see little value-all things being equal to argue FOR one. I
could as well as you guys can, why? You must admit it can be argued
anyway-it is the consequences for what I know to be true that I will not
relinquish. Therefore if my arguments are unsatisfactory for anyone they
are encouraged to follow what they think and it inspires them to do.
Nothing can be proven TO anyone, and to propogate intent based soley on
the fact that you know it can be argued the limiting way, to me is
senseless, now that is not an insult, that is a choice and my
perspective which is based on service.
> Makes
> much more sense to me to suppose that the "free will versus
> determinism" thing is a false dichotomy propagated by folks who don't
> really understand what either thing is.
It is very difficult for anyone to truly understand it at all, yes.
> But, meanwhile, in the narrow
> understanding of these terms, determinism seems much more coherent.
Well here again like Jonathan, you are not willing to do what you ask me
to do, and that is provide a coherent premise for an argument first
rather than just say it seems. I can argue other reasons that fit with
what I propose and they fit neatly, I don't just participate in the free
will argument because it seems that way, it has been demonstrated to my
satisfaction throughout my work. But I cannot adequately cover all
aspects in even 50 posts. If you really review my posts old and new, you
will find many different ways to look at it. I also realize that a
MILLION posts will not convince someone with that perspective because
like the habit there are certain perspectives that they just cannot
reverse or redesign without work on the awareness of the pattern. This
habit idea is more important than you are willing to acknowledge. And the
DEGREE of determination is dependent upon its recognition, but even that
is an illusion and it is still all choice albeit manifesting in many
different possible ways.
> Can you make an argument that demonstrates why "realization" can't be
> deterministic?
Only analogies you know that, and you cannot make one against it other
than that either. Which is the reality when you go to sleep at night the
fact that it seemed like a minute or that it was "actually" 8 hrs or
whatever? Both of you know it depends on the experiencer, and the
materialist determinist will give the credence to one reality and the
metaphysist to the other. And thats about it, it is a choice is the only
obvious thing about the whole argument.
> Seems to me that it could well be that our sense of chosing things is
> an illusion at some level.
Well the conscious mind is psychologically known to be the psychic
material we are aware of-that is all. Perhaps if we had no psychology
whatever that allows us to understand that we indeed do have unconscious
behavior (which appears as lack of choice) I probably would side with you
guys in a minute, but it is always a matter of awareness that detrmines
the extent of these habits.
> Or, it could be that in some sense we do
> "choose", but since only one thing can ever really be chosen the idea
> that there are alternative paths is an illusion. Perhaps these boil
> down to the same thing. Positing many parallel universes in which we
> are allowed to make many different choices doesn't seem to me to offer
> any resolution. It merely makes the situation more complicated.
It is not parallel universes it is psychic material levels of the self
and these levels because of focus become appearently separate-which
creates reality to appear out of CONCIOUS control but it can be traced to
other levels of consciousness, the unconscious which can be dealt with
right here in this level is one that is not some mystical thing that we
cannot comprehend.
> If you are going to say that choices are not mere arbitrary accidents
> of "will", but follow from something like "intent", then it seems to
> me that you're going to have to explain how this could happen without
> there being some kind of "ordering principle".
it is reflected throughout the natural zodiac and astrology and it is
ordered but this does not force it into deterministic modulation.
> I don't mean this as a personal attack. I'm just curious about how
> you could support the position you seem to be taking. Like Mr. Dunn,
> I just don't get it.
Belief (Cardinal-intention)) Emotion (Fixed-momentum) Thought
(Mutable-dissemination effect), this is reflected in the DNA structure of
nucleotide bases, subatomic particle bosons, quarks leptons and the four
forces, the Lorenz transformations, the four dimensions time/space
continuum proposed by Einstein, the structure of the pyramid, the quarks
proposed construct, and the artificial construct of the person-ality that
can be seen through the horoscopic structure as the EFFECT of the white
light of "All That Is' nonphysically being splayed and diffracted through
the prism of materiality-it is all one will, we just participate in its
outcome and help to determine its momentum. The "proof" as they say is in
the observation of the "pudding" all around you.
> >Realizations are a contradiction to determinism.
Because a self contained (meaning no room for creating free will) closed
system will have NO MIRRORS from which to view and percieve itself. Just
like the Grand trine is a closed circut psychologically that the
individual uses to DEFEND against intrusion into its system of support,
it is a habit, when its a habit-whether it is spiritual, physical, or
intellectual you cannot change what you cannot reflect on, and you cannot
create the extension of a reflection with a closed system. I can't prove
it I have already told everyone at the beginng of this, you can only
prove it to yourself once the choice to PARTICIPATE in the creation
occurs. The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter because
of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
> Okay. How?
> >Belief would be irrelevant in a deterministic system.
> How so?
Because it would make no differnce what you believed.
> >Define karma in a deterministic system.
> Easy. Seems natural as heck. But how can it be defined in a
> non-deterministic one? Does it become probabalistic?
Well you didn't define it-easy as heck I see-but it is simply the
momentum (Fixed) of ideation (Mutable) as the effect of belief (Cardinal)
intiation. This is nonphysical AND of course and natuarally is reflected
in the shadow of it called materialty.
> >Well my point is if there is great argument for a deterministic universe
> >why do anything?
> Because if you don't, something bad will happen? It's subtle, but not
> contradictory. Seems possible that there could be a deterministic
> universe in which I am faced with an angry lion and make the "choice"
> of dealing with it, rather than merely lying down. The only trick is
> that "choice" requires quotation marks, as do the words "random",
> "probability", and "likelihood".
Well this is just indecision, either it is or it aint.
> This position engenders a zen kind of insight into life. Saying that
> "our life is an illusion" doesn't mean that it is worthless and one
> should strive to "get over it". It merely means that enlightened ones
> have some irony and sense of "listening" in regard to what it seems to
> tham that they are doing.
Illusion simply means that there may be other elements as well-not JUST
the percieved one.
> >It will still be only my version and is unprovable like everything else
> >in the universe. You cannot prove others experience. There are only
> >versions and agreed parameters and you will be foolish to attempt to
> >argue this premise.
> Irrelevant. This doesn't help us resolve whether determinism must be
> involved, or not. Could well be that epistemological problems prevent
> resolving multiple perspectives in a deterministic system as well.
> (Or maybe not.)
Well thats irrelevant, cause aint none of us here going to resolve it.
> >What would be the point? Why would you possibly need counsel in a
> >deterministic universe?????
> You are confusing the macrocosmic perspective with the human
> (microcosmic) one. Determinism, if it obtains, must obviously work at
> a level that is not opposed to the possibility that our experience
> would be just like it is. We struggle and contend. This doesn't mean
> that we are wasting our time, nor that the same things will happen if
> we don't struggle and contend. It means that, for whatever reason,
> our struggles and contentions are bound to follow certain courses,
> e.g. due to the specific things which we will encounter, the mood
> we'll be in when a certain choice presents itself, etc. It's not a
> prison.
> >Without meaning to sound deragatory do you
> >see the rediculous contradictions in your assertions? The counselor would
> >be analytically incorrect yes, because it would be redundant. If the
> >universe was indeed deterministic then this counselor would be under
> >great delusions and would serve no one by counseling. No one would need
> >to DO anything if the universe was deterministic!
> This is plain wrong.
Well now you cannot say this about this subject and you know it.
> You will find that there is more to this issue
> than you have granted, yet. The problem with non-deterministic models
> is that they actually *deny* the possibility of character, will,
> choice, intent, and ultimately, even, of principle. The end of
> science, as well. This is why quantum mechanics is (must be) a crock
> of shit. One can never prove anything in a non-deterministic world.
You can't prove anything in any world because there is no standard to
measure it against. There is no one truth.
> Especially not that it was non-deterministic. Such a proof would have
> the property of rendering itself inconclusive. Neat trick!
> >Jonathan Dunn:
> >> If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something which
> >> is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I would
> >> ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
> >> everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
> >> help others understand'
> >If they are not improving the quality of life-to put all this nonsense to
> >rest-then no it is not service.
> Well, this should be irrelevant to our question. For now, let's be
> interested in thinking about things, and tough luck if it turns out
> not to be helpful to people. For now, our task is to be philosophers,
> not necessarily to be useful. (I think real philosophy is bound to be
> useful, but that's because my goals are generally philosophical.) My
> goal isn't to make people happy.
Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine. Service is the whole point in
mine. Because "All That Is" is all one thing, and my desire and choice is
to be in accord with it and its creations-not at variance.
Jonathan C. Dunn
(much that is right in line with my own thinking snipped)
> Well, this should be irrelevant to our question. For now, let's be
> interested in thinking about things, and tough luck if it turns out
> not to be helpful to people. For now, our task is to be philosophers,
> not necessarily to be useful. (I think real philosophy is bound to be
> useful, but that's because my goals are generally philosophical.) My
> goal isn't to make people happy.
>
> --
> "If you put me in there, I'll work your garden as it's never been worked before!"
But you wouldn't enthusiastically dive right in and 'work someone's
garden' etc. if you didn't think that they'd appreciate or benefit from
it, eh? :)
I was somewhat torn here. I thought that some of the abstract arguments
with determinism were irrelevant, but was somewhat sensitive to the value
of saying what helps someone. I was, moreover asking a kind of
multiple-choice question, trying to fetter out what the actual
disagreement was. Mr W. seems to argue often from the perspective of being
of the opinion of having the most helpful point of view, and I did not
want to say 'I don't care about being helpful...' thus falling into the
trap of 20th century nihilistic materialistic determinism...
Jonathan C. Dunn
> Well there are a lot of things that would have to be resolved here, for
> one thing everyone talks as if determinism automatically implies cause
> and effect, this is not necessarily so. And vice versa. It is also not a
> given that free will is devoid of cause and effect, and my philosophical
> perspective allows for effect within the free will scenario.
This is what seems so one-sided to me. Actions have effects but not
causes?
> Finally you
> gentlemen are as aware as I that we wouldn't be the first to fill a few
> volumes of writing deabating it. But I choose the free will idea not
> because it is a nice philosophy but because it is the only one that fits
> with other mechanics that I know work.
If someone says the above to me it doesn't rattle in the slightest my
open-minded regard for the possibility of determinism.
> The argument above is simple. If you are capable of objectification a
> system cannot be entirely closed.
> If the system in the strictest sense is
> derterministic-meaning only the illusion of choice but not "really" any,
> then objectification as in the example of a habit CAN prove if you are so
> willing, that we can only be "outside" to some degree in observation of
> the idea that has been created in order to observe it.
Nothing in the assertion or the accompanying arguments would dissuade me
from my bias toward considering this some variety of self-indulgent
wishful thinking or some such dangerous oblivion...
> Now I have heard
> all the arguments of determinism and knew from the beginning where he was
> going, I also know that he cannot prove the reverse-nor can you.
> Therefore as a counselor which may make a difference at least between you
> and I-I don't know if he counsels, but between you and I the difference
> is that I have been able to observe the difference between applied
> awareness and none.
?
> And the difference is marked. Now I know the both of
> you will say this does not prove anything as far as free will but my
> perspective is not based on the typical argument of either soft
> determinism or free will per se. It contains many other things. And I
> also know that regardless of either you can still create a reality that
> appears determined and that is your choice-you are doing it by arguing it
> now.
Am I a part of your world? Why not choose for me to stop? Are my choices
effecting your life - not absolutely I mean, but at least a little? In
your mind at this moment are thoughts that my actions have put there,
right? This will affect your for the rest of the day, if not the rest of
your life. There is a slippery slope here toward my actions affecting your
actions, and thus everybody's affecting everybody's and so on, not to
mention the constraints of the apparently inanimate physical/chemical
world. Have you every seen what malnutrition or drugs can do to a person's
mental state? These things would appear to be beyond an individual's
choice, often. An argument that there is SOME will/choice/plan would have
to be one in which INDIVIDUALS are in some sense subsidiary or
subservient. If it somehow works out that everyone gets what their
evolution wants or needs, then this is an even greater indication of a
purely PATTERNED GLOBAL COLLECTIVE development BEYOND WHAT I MIGHT CHOOSE
at the moment!
> Nothing can be proven TO anyone, and to propogate intent based soley on
> the fact that you know it can be argued the limiting way, to me is
> senseless, now that is not an insult, that is a choice and my
> perspective which is based on service.
People see points made by others every day. And often dearly held ideas
are renounced, after one person has made something clear to another. And
this is not merely through the power of assertion or personality. (I'm not
sure - would this be your claim?)
> > Makes
> > much more sense to me to suppose that the "free will versus
> > determinism" thing is a false dichotomy propagated by folks who don't
> > really understand what either thing is.
After years and years, I came to this position - that it is a false
dichotomy. That is why I only argue with the strong version of Mr. W's
statement 'free will is all there is [and determinism is false and
wrong]'.
> > But, meanwhile, in the narrow
> > understanding of these terms, determinism seems much more coherent.
> I don't just participate in the free
> will argument because it seems that way, it has been demonstrated to my
> satisfaction throughout my work.
The 'work', experience and thought of many many others have led them at
least to accept a more moderate view. What do you think of them, eh?
> But I cannot adequately cover all
> aspects in even 50 posts. If you really review my posts old and new, you
> will find many different ways to look at it. I also realize that a
> MILLION posts will not convince someone with that perspective because
> like the habit there are certain perspectives that they just cannot
> reverse or redesign without work on the awareness of the pattern.
Slope or not, this is very slippery indeed...
> This
> habit idea is more important than you are willing to acknowledge. And the
> DEGREE of determination is dependent upon its recognition, but even that
> is an illusion and it is still all choice albeit manifesting in many
> different possible ways.
I think you underrate my appreciation for the dichotomy. I have thought
about this and discussed it with others for years and years. Only an
attitude such as yours 'I have the revealed knowledge and you just don't
get it' remains as the APPARENT holdout against a moderate position - that
there is no contradiction between FWvsD, or that determinism is not
necessarily false.
> > Can you make an argument that demonstrates why "realization" can't be
> > deterministic?
> Only analogies you know that, and you cannot make one against it other
> than that either. Which is the reality when you go to sleep at night the
> fact that it seemed like a minute or that it was "actually" 8 hrs or
> whatever? Both of you know it depends on the experiencer, and the
> materialist determinist will give the credence to one reality and the
> metaphysist to the other. And thats about it, it is a choice is the only
> obvious thing about the whole argument.
Both of these are often determinists!
> > Seems to me that it could well be that our sense of chosing things is
> > an illusion at some level.
>
> Well the conscious mind is psychologically known to be the psychic
> material we are aware of-that is all. Perhaps if we had no psychology
> whatever that allows us to understand that we indeed do have unconscious
> behavior (which appears as lack of choice) I probably would side with you
> guys in a minute, but it is always a matter of awareness that detrmines
> the extent of these habits.
If I have a facial tic and discover a mineral deficiency, and then change
my diet and no longer have a facial tic, is this not a good analogy of
'habit', one which moreover dissolves the apparent dichotomy between my
'actions' and the physical world? Many miserable habits of thought can be
induced by nutrition problems and corrected also. These can be detected
and corrected by others or oneself. What of an argument against a larger
deterministic loop now?
> > Or, it could be that in some sense we do
> > "choose", but since only one thing can ever really be chosen the idea
> > that there are alternative paths is an illusion. Perhaps these boil
> > down to the same thing. Positing many parallel universes in which we
> > are allowed to make many different choices doesn't seem to me to offer
> > any resolution. It merely makes the situation more complicated.
>
> It is not parallel universes it is psychic material levels of the self
> and these levels because of focus become appearently separate-which
> creates reality to appear out of CONCIOUS control but it can be traced to
> other levels of consciousness, the unconscious which can be dealt with
> right here in this level is one that is not some mystical thing that we
> cannot comprehend.
At a particular time there is a particular event - such as my 'choice' to
no longer 'put myself down' or whatever, and there is no reason not to
think that this event is a part of a larger causal loop outside of my
individual will!
> > If you are going to say that choices are not mere arbitrary accidents
> > of "will", but follow from something like "intent", then it seems to
> > me that you're going to have to explain how this could happen without
> > there being some kind of "ordering principle".
>
> it is reflected throughout the natural zodiac and astrology and it is
> ordered but this does not force it into deterministic modulation.
Again, congratulations.
> Belief (Cardinal-intention)) Emotion (Fixed-momentum) Thought
> (Mutable-dissemination effect), this is reflected in the DNA structure of
> nucleotide bases, subatomic particle bosons, quarks leptons and the four
> forces, the Lorenz transformations, the four dimensions time/space
> continuum proposed by Einstein, the structure of the pyramid, the quarks
> proposed construct, and the artificial construct of the person-ality that
> can be seen through the horoscopic structure as the EFFECT of the white
> light of "All That Is' nonphysically being splayed and diffracted through
> the prism of materiality-it is all one will, we just participate in its
> outcome and help to determine its momentum. The "proof" as they say is in
> the observation of the "pudding" all around you.
An exalted version/vision. This is fine. But when you put it forth as a
CONTRADICTION of what others (with as much 'experience', 'work' and
thought as yourself) have said...
> > >Realizations are a contradiction to determinism.
>
> Because a self contained (meaning no room for creating free will) closed
> system will have NO MIRRORS from which to view and percieve itself.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
Duality is about one individual PERCEIVING another. Maya/change is also
about an individual PERCEIVING previous versions of itself. In mystical
terms, it is often said that this PERCEIVING SELF is really only the
highest nod-dual state of absolute realizaion, and certainly there is no
'choice' here!
> Just
> like the Grand trine is a closed circut psychologically that the
> individual uses to DEFEND against intrusion into its system of support,
> it is a habit, when its a habit-whether it is spiritual, physical, or
> intellectual you cannot change what you cannot reflect on, and you cannot
> create the extension of a reflection with a closed system.
An individual history, or opinions, perecptions, realizations. It
interlaces with the histories of others. This is neither a view of things
that mystifies me nor is it something which strikes me as contradicting
deterministic ideas.
> I can't prove
> it I have already told everyone at the beginng of this, you can only
> prove it to yourself once the choice to PARTICIPATE in the creation
> occurs.
So if I don't agree with you intellectually, I'm a spiritual deadbeat?
> The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter because
> of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
> astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
> things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
Various aspects of astrology are 'proven to someones satisfaction' every
day - and these particular ideas show their worth regardless of an
individuals determination to believe one thing or another - it is open
fair mindedness.
> > Okay. How?
> > >Belief would be irrelevant in a deterministic system.
> > How so?
>
> Because it would make no differnce what you believed.
Belief leads to action (on an individual level). But also these beliefs
and actions are part of a larger patterned world of other people's beliefs
and actions, for instance.
> > >Define karma in a deterministic system.
> > Easy. Seems natural as heck. But how can it be defined in a
> > non-deterministic one? Does it become probabalistic?
>
> Well you didn't define it-easy as heck I see-but it is simply the
> momentum (Fixed) of ideation (Mutable) as the effect of belief (Cardinal)
> intiation. This is nonphysical AND of course and natuarally is reflected
> in the shadow of it called materialty.
I'm dazzled and everything, but there really isn't anything here against
determinism. I'm starting to think seriously that I should just stop
bothering you at this point...
> Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine. Service is the whole point in
> mine. Because "All That Is" is all one thing, and my desire and choice is
> to be in accord with it and its creations-not at variance.
I appreciate the philosphy here, and only hope that my personal God visits
you and reveals that your aims are not necessarily at odds with the idea
of determinism. ;) Have a nice day, and keep up the good work.
Edmond Wollmann
Jonathan C. Dunn wrote:
> This is what seems so one-sided to me. Actions have effects but not
> causes?
Edmond Wollmann writes;
The present is the only time you "actually" exist therefore all 'causes"
and effects radiate from there.
> If someone says the above to me it doesn't rattle in the slightest my
> open-minded regard for the possibility of determinism.
You are getting quite silly Jonathan, I have no idea what others wish to
"convince" you of but I have no intention of promoting anything but that
it is your choice to create or not create whatever you prefer. I am not
on a mission, it is my reality that I have 100% control over- not yours,
nor do I care to. But this defensiveness has gotten away with you I am
always just discussing. Don't worry you can remain just as open minded as
you always have been, no one can change this unless you believe it to be
so.
> Nothing in the assertion or the accompanying arguments would dissuade me
> from my bias toward considering this some variety of self-indulgent
> wishful thinking or some such dangerous oblivion...
And here again.
> Am I a part of your world? Why not choose for me to stop? Are my choices
> effecting your life - not absolutely I mean, but at least a little? In
> your mind at this moment are thoughts that my actions have put there,
> right?
No you do not and if you do it is because I create it and allow it.
> This will affect your for the rest of the day, if not the rest of
> your life. There is a slippery slope here toward my actions affecting your
> actions, a
None of these things or anything else affect me unless I allow it to. Why
do you think so many go into my kill file? Why do I do any of the things
I do? Because I choose to period, the other way is just powerlessness and
acting on "shoulds" and guilt-this I do not do.
> People see points made by others every day. And often dearly held ideas
> are renounced, after one person has made something clear to another.
Yes, and so? When I see them I renounce.
> The 'work', experience and thought of many many others have led them at
> least to accept a more moderate view. What do you think of them, eh?
Transformation is not the product of mediocrity, they are perfectly
relfecting the reality they believe to be truest for them and most likely
to be expereinced-at this time.
> > guys in a minute, but it is always a matter of awareness that detrmines
> > the extent of these habits.
> If I have a facial tic and discover a mineral deficiency, and then change
> my diet and no longer have a facial tic, is this not a good analogy of
> 'habit',
Yes and a good example of how awareness changed it.
> > > me that you're going to have to explain how this could happen without
> > > there being some kind of "ordering principle".
> > it is reflected throughout the natural zodiac and astrology and it is
> > ordered but this does not force it into deterministic modulation.
> Again, congratulations.
> > Belief (Cardinal-intention)) Emotion (Fixed-momentum) Thought
> > (Mutable-dissemination effect), this is reflected in the DNA structure of
> > nucleotide bases, subatomic particle bosons, quarks leptons and the four
> > forces, the Lorenz transformations, the four dimensions time/space
> > continuum proposed by Einstein, the structure of the pyramid, the quarks
> > proposed construct, and the artificial construct of the person-ality that
> > can be seen through the horoscopic structure as the EFFECT of the white
> > light of "All That Is' nonphysically being splayed and diffracted through
> > the prism of materiality-it is all one will, we just participate in its
> > outcome and help to determine its momentum. The "proof" as they say is in
> > the observation of the "pudding" all around you.
> An exalted version/vision. This is fine. But when you put it forth as a
> CONTRADICTION of what others (with as much 'experience', 'work' and
> thought as yourself) have said...
Then they get defensive and cry about it yes, and so? Whats new? No one
can make you feel inferior without your consent.
percieve itself.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> Duality is about one individual PERCEIVING another.
This is just your belief. Duality is the illusion of the percieved
separateness of "All That Is" not the reality.
> So if I don't agree with you intellectually, I'm a spiritual deadbeat?
No you have different preferences, why are you so defensive? Do you not
believe in your own definitions? Why must you place this "good" and bad"
meaning into a nuetral universe?
> > The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter because
> > of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
> > astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
> > things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
> Various aspects of astrology are 'proven to someones satisfaction' every
> day
They must be willing to see it, your arguments following therefore are
redundant.
> > > >Define karma in a deterministic system.
> > > Easy. Seems natural as heck. But how can it be defined in a
> > > non-deterministic one? Does it become probabalistic?
> > Well you didn't define it-easy as heck I see-but it is simply the
> > momentum (Fixed) of ideation (Mutable) as the effect of belief (Cardinal)
> > intiation. This is nonphysical AND of course and natuarally is reflected
> > in the shadow of it called materialty.
> I'm dazzled and everything, but there really isn't anything here against
> determinism. I'm starting to think seriously that I should just stop
> bothering you at this point...
Doesn't bother me, these are my recognitions and preferences and I change
them based on new recognitions and preferences, you may add to that, but
you will never force it, convince it, or prove me into another. Your
sharing like all others is a gift.
> > Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine. Service is the whole point in
> > mine. Because "All That Is" is all one thing, and my desire and choice is
> > to be in accord with it and its creations-not at variance.
> I appreciate the philosphy here, and only hope that my personal God visits
> you and reveals that your aims are not necessarily at odds with the idea
> of determinism. ;) Have a nice day, and keep up the good work.
Well if I decide to create your reality then our truths would then look
very similar, I don't think they are that far apart, but I do think you
are seeking to bring to my awareness something I already am aware of and
so I don't really get baited by it, been there, just don't prefer it
anymore and enjoy the conviction of what I prefer. I don't act on guilt
or proposed wrongs. Perhaps you feel better if you do because you think I
am judging others when I add or subtact or criticise points, but that is
telling us more of you or the other individuals than about me, all I can
do is know my own intention to the best of my ability, thats all anyone
can do because we are not responsible for anyone but ourselves. We are
only responsible TO them by being all that we can be with integrity, and
that is what I do to the best of my ability at any given moment.
Keep up the good work too!
Ed
Jonathan C. Dunn
> > This is what seems so one-sided to me. Actions have effects but not
> > causes?
> The present is the only time you "actually" exist therefore all 'causes"
> and effects radiate from there.
Radiate FROM there but not TO there? That's what seems so one-sided.
> > If someone says the above to me it doesn't rattle in the slightest my
> > open-minded regard for the possibility of determinism.
>
> You are getting quite silly Jonathan, I have no idea what others wish to
> "convince" you of but I have no intention of promoting anything but that
> it is your choice to create or not create whatever you prefer.
I am getting quite silly. Your repeated assertions are not meant to
convince me of anything.
> I am not
> on a mission, it is my reality that I have 100% control over- not yours,
> nor do I care to.
Your aim is service, but you are not on a mission. My words are part of
your reality, which you have 100% control over. Why have you caused me to
react so defensively?
> But this defensiveness has gotten away with you I am
> always just discussing. Don't worry you can remain just as open minded as
> you always have been, no one can change this unless you believe it to be
> so.
There is a happy medium between a 'violent change' model of changing
someone's mind and a 'whatever you whimisically and self-indulgently
decide to be true' is your reality. It is nice for you to reassure me that
you are not trying to brainwash, but this assertion that you or I may
freely choose what to believe is downright sociopathic! Sorry.
> > Am I a part of your world? Why not choose for me to stop? Are my choices
> > effecting your life - not absolutely I mean, but at least a little? In
> > your mind at this moment are thoughts that my actions have put there,
> > right?
>
> No you do not and if you do it is because I create it and allow it.
Where does the raw data of my action come from - your 'allowance'? Or are
you merely referring to a filtering mechanism on your part. This would be
more common-sensical.
> > This will affect your for the rest of the day, if not the rest of
> > your life. There is a slippery slope here toward my actions affecting your
> > actions, a
>
> None of these things or anything else affect me unless I allow it to. Why
> do you think so many go into my kill file? Why do I do any of the things
> I do? Because I choose to period, the other way is just powerlessness and
> acting on "shoulds" and guilt-this I do not do.
This is quite mechanistic: people say things that offend you're inherent
sensibilities. This CAUSES you to reject them. If you never kill-filed
anyone, this MIGHT be a stronger argument. ;)
> > People see points made by others every day. And often dearly held ideas
> > are renounced, after one person has made something clear to another.
>
> Yes, and so? When I see them I renounce.
Thus a truth has come from outside of one's own will, albeit FILTERED by
individual judgments.
> > The 'work', experience and thought of many many others have led them at
> > least to accept a more moderate view. What do you think of them,
> > eh?
> Transformation is not the product of mediocrity, they are perfectly
> relfecting the reality they believe to be truest for them and most
> likely to be expereinced-at this time.
How exalted of you. How pitiable of them.
> > If I have a facial tic and discover a mineral deficiency, and then change
> > my diet and no longer have a facial tic, is this not a good analogy of
> > 'habit',
>
> Yes and a good example of how awareness changed it.
Someone else's, often.
> > An exalted version/vision. This is fine. But when you put it forth as a
> > CONTRADICTION of what others (with as much 'experience', 'work' and
> > thought as yourself) have said...
> Then they get defensive and cry about it yes, and so? Whats new? No one
> can make you feel inferior without your consent.
My 'defensiveness' is actually faithfulness to the principle of giving
discussion a chance. Many of these others wouldn't give you the time of
day, much less 'cry' etc.
> > So if I don't agree with you intellectually, I'm a spiritual deadbeat?
>
> No you have different preferences, why are you so defensive? Do you not
> believe in your own definitions? Why must you place this "good" and bad"
> meaning into a nuetral universe?
You are trying to have it both ways: you are right and I am wrong. Also,
there is no reason for me to be defensive. There is no point in living in
a universe such as I have put forth. On the other hand, it is only my
choice and there is no conflict here. Very slippery, in my opinion.
> > > The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter because
> > > of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
> > > astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
> > > things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
> > Various aspects of astrology are 'proven to someones satisfaction' every
> > day
>
> They must be willing to see it, your arguments following therefore are
> redundant.
'Willing to see' is no the same as feely whimisically self-indulgently
CHOOSING a reality with astrology in it. Your very phrase 'willing to see'
suggests a reality outside of that which is preferred or chosen.
> > I'm dazzled and everything, but there really isn't anything here against
> > determinism. I'm starting to think seriously that I should just stop
> > bothering you at this point...
> Doesn't bother me, these are my recognitions and preferences and I change
> them based on new recognitions and preferences, you may add to that, but
> you will never force it, convince it, or prove me into another. Your
> sharing like all others is a gift.
Individuals contain psychological blocks against seeing the truth. If one
surrenders to indulging them in the name of 'creating your own reality'
this is counter-evolutionary. You believe in reality. You believe in
truths. Stop pretending otherwise. Gifts or not, you consider some of
these 'gifts' to accurately reflect reality, others not. This is your
honest belief. Choice was involved, but not the sole determinator of your
beliefs. Reality compels. Reality inspires.
> > > Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine. Service is the whole point in
> > > mine. Because "All That Is" is all one thing, and my desire and choice is
> > > to be in accord with it and its creations-not at variance.
> > I appreciate the philosphy here, and only hope that my personal God visits
> > you and reveals that your aims are not necessarily at odds with the idea
> > of determinism. ;) Have a nice day, and keep up the good work.
>
> Well if I decide to create your reality then our truths would then look
> very similar, I don't think they are that far apart, but I do think you
> are seeking to bring to my awareness something I already am aware of and
> so I don't really get baited by it, been there, just don't prefer it
> anymore and enjoy the conviction of what I prefer.
...?
> I don't act on guilt
> or proposed wrongs.
At all? Ever? Not even just a little? Isn't this the true definition of
'sociopathic'?
> Perhaps you feel better if you do because you think I
> am judging others when I add or subtact or criticise points, but that is
> telling us more of you or the other individuals than about me, all I can
> do is know my own intention to the best of my ability, thats all anyone
> can do because we are not responsible for anyone but ourselves.
'Live and let live' is a wonderful thing, and I'm all for maximizing it,
but we invite great disasters by eschewing doubt, guilt, etc. eh?
> We are
> only responsible TO them by being all that we can be with integrity, and
> that is what I do to the best of my ability at any given moment.
You speak of responsibility, but don't like the word 'guilt'. Intense
guilt, extreme guilt, neurotic guilt is one thing. On a good day, a person
truly wants to do the 'responsible' thing. On a bad day, overcome by
destrucive motives or feelings, guilt often brings the whole person back
to center. I don't know if I'd want to run into you on a bad day... ;)
Edmond Wollmann
Jonathan C. Dunn wrote:
> > > This is what seems so one-sided to me. Actions have effects but not
> > > causes?
> > The present is the only time you "actually" exist therefore all 'causes"
> > and effects radiate from there.
> Radiate FROM there but not TO there? That's what seems so one-sided.
The point of power is in the present-the locus of control, so that even
other time tracks or what have you may radiate to the present that
control os still in the now to redefine any of them anywhere else. Thats
why the entire multiverse is rearranged by a single choice.
> > > If someone says the above to me it doesn't rattle in the slightest my
> > > open-minded regard for the possibility of determinism.
> > You are getting quite silly Jonathan, I have no idea what others wish to
> > "convince" you of but I have no intention of promoting anything but that
> > it is your choice to create or not create whatever you prefer.
> I am getting quite silly. Your repeated assertions are not meant to
> convince me of anything.
You can look at them as suggestions if it will allow you to feel better
and come up with some arguments rather than just saying "you aren't
rattled" I could care less whether your rattled. Choose what you prefer
and act on it with conviction, you seem to be more interested in trying
to tear mine down than in providing a substitute worthy of consideration
from my point of view.
> > I am not
> > on a mission, it is my reality that I have 100% control over- not yours,
> > nor do I care to.
> Your aim is service, but you are not on a mission. My words are part of
> your reality, which you have 100% control over. Why have you caused me to
> react so defensively?
I don't cause you to do anything these are your choices-it is then my
choice to decide how, if or whether I will react to them. They are a part
of my reality because I chose them at this moment, by the time I get to
the bottom I may discern that it is pointless to ramble on about this,
killfile you and go on professing what it inspires me to somewhere
else-no one HAS to do anything.
> > But this defensiveness has gotten away with you I am
> > always just discussing. Don't worry you can remain just as open minded as
> > you always have been, no one can change this unless you believe it to be
> > so.
> There is a happy medium between a 'violent change' model of changing
> someone's mind and a 'whatever you whimisically and self-indulgently
> decide to be true' is your reality.
These are your meanings and they are subjective value judgements. Explain
whimsical? That I can act without guilt on what I prefer without hurting
anyone else? Or does it include in your definitions that someone must get
hurt? These definitions tell us much about the mental patterns that you
hold and hence the reality you will see.
> It is nice for you to reassure me that
> you are not trying to brainwash,
No one can MAKE anyone do anything, they can only offer, advise,
suggest-then the other individual is faced with their choices of which
they believe to be most true for them. It is very simple when you take
the defensiveness and ego battle out of it.
> but this assertion that you or I may
> freely choose what to believe is downright sociopathic! Sorry.
You are confusing conscience and/or repression with clear free and
unfettered good judgement and choice.
> > > Am I a part of your world? Why not choose for me to stop? Are my choices
> > > effecting your life - not absolutely I mean, but at least a little? In
> > > your mind at this moment are thoughts that my actions have put there,
> > > right?
> > No you do not and if you do it is because I create it and allow it.
> Where does the raw data of my action come from - your 'allowance'? Or are
> you merely referring to a filtering mechanism on your part.
It doesn't come at all unless I allow it. There is no external reality
per se and "thats the way it is", it is the way each person choses to
define it to be. Yes there is an agreed upon collective experience, but
that does not mean choice is therefore limited, it comes from all levels.
> This would be
> more common-sensical.
Please refer to the definition of common sense that I posted by Einstein
we agree on this wholeheartedly, it is just a collection of predjudices
about the nature of reality that are accrued as "self-evident" in the
early environment that forms a schema-that schema may or may not reflect
anything we could say as THE truth.
> > > This will affect your for the rest of the day, if not the rest of
> > > your life. There is a slippery slope here toward my actions affecting your
> > > actions, a
> > None of these things or anything else affect me unless I allow it to. Why
> > do you think so many go into my kill file? Why do I do any of the things
> > I do? Because I choose to period, the other way is just powerlessness and
> > acting on "shoulds" and guilt-this I do not do.
> This is quite mechanistic: people say things that offend you're inherent
> sensibilities.
This is where you and many others are brainwashed with a sense of
powerlessness, crime, attack, OFFENSE, battle-these are definitions that
are the effect of not being in integrity. Integrity means functioning as
an integrated WHOLE self knowing that you are as powerful as you need to
be to create whatever you desire to create in your reality without having
to hurt yourself or anyone else in order to create it. People aren't
offended and don't need to BATTLE when they know beyond a shadow of a
doubt that the vibration they are will be the reality they experience
EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME. The negative person therefore may never find the
positive person-or if they do meet will be unable to affect the positive.
It is the belief in POWERLESSNESS that promotes the belief and the need
to DEFEND, ATTACK, and overpower another from the fear that they just
MIGHT be able to affect you. They cannot. Only your belief in their power
or disbelief in your own is what creates negative battles and needs for
ego dominance. Anti-social personalities DO NOT believe in their own
power and so have taken the view that the self must be dominant at all
costs. In my schema there is enough room for everyone to be all that they
can be without hurting anyone else -but then this is Uranian and most
still function at the limited focus of Saturn, wherein it must be a
competitive BATTLE ROYAL to determine the dominant and most powerful
creator-but the reality is that we all have this power and it is quite
equal. But those who do not believe will not allow themselves to
experience it that way. There is a difference between being grandiose as
you try to imply I am from insecurity, and acting on KNOWINGNESS with
confidence and trust-this LOOKS like Grandiosity to others, because of
their minimal belief in themselves.
> This CAUSES you to reject them. If you never kill-filed
> anyone, this MIGHT be a stronger argument. ;)
My actions are not reactions to defend, they are actions based on
preference and choice, if you wish to fight fire with fire you'll only
make a bigger fire and only fools believe in changing another reality
besides their own. Like this conversation, as long as it allows me to
express the principles and techniques that may be of service to those
wishing to learn I stay engaged, if it turns to some self aggrandizing
battle of the wits that serves no useful purpose that I can see, you will
be killfiled or just ignored. There are plenty of positive things for me
to do. Why would I stay focused on a worthless exposition of arguments?
Been there done that. Heard all of them trust me.
> > > People see points made by others every day. And often dearly held ideas
> > > are renounced, after one person has made something clear to another.
> > Yes, and so? When I see them I renounce.
> Thus a truth has come from outside of one's own will, albeit FILTERED by
> individual judgments.
No an opportunity for reassesment has been attracted to the person as the
product of positive definitions SOMEWHERE along the line and they have
attracted and created whatever scenario they needed to allow them to get
to what they wished to see explore and investigate ON SOME level,
everything is there for a reason YOUR reason there is something within
the scenario you wish to see-WHEN YOU ALLOW IT to be there for a reason,
then you will see it.
> > > The 'work', experience and thought of many many others have led them at
> > > least to accept a more moderate view. What do you think of them,
> > > eh?
> > Transformation is not the product of mediocrity, they are perfectly
> > relfecting the reality they believe to be truest for them and most
> > likely to be expereinced-at this time.
> How exalted of you. How pitiable of them.
More ego defensiveness. These are your problems do you see? This is how
we become aware of true motives, and I can see yours even if others
can't.
> > > If I have a facial tic and discover a mineral deficiency, and then change
> > > my diet and no longer have a facial tic, is this not a good analogy of
> > > 'habit',
> > Yes and a good example of how awareness changed it.
> Someone else's, often.
No one can affect anyone else without their acknowledgement and choice.
> > > An exalted version/vision. This is fine. But when you put it forth as a
> > > CONTRADICTION of what others (with as much 'experience', 'work' and
> > > thought as yourself) have said...
> > Then they get defensive and cry about it yes, and so? Whats new? No one
> > can make you feel inferior without your consent.
> My 'defensiveness' is actually faithfulness to the principle of giving
> discussion a chance. Many of these others wouldn't give you the time of
> day, much less 'cry' etc.
And, so? Is this supposed to bother me? Only a powerless person with no
conviction of themselves or love for themselves will react to this
baiting.
> > > So if I don't agree with you intellectually, I'm a spiritual deadbeat?
> > No you have different preferences, why are you so defensive? Do you not
> > believe in your own definitions? Why must you place this "good" and bad"
> > meaning into a nuetral universe?
> You are trying to have it both ways: you are right and I am wrong. Also,
> there is no reason for me to be defensive. There is no point in living in
> a universe such as I have put forth. On the other hand, it is only my
> choice and there is no conflict here. Very slippery, in my opinion.
Exactly, when we deal in the realm of the higher self that is when this
duality you speak of begins to dissolve and paradox is the order of the
day. The judgement of paradise referred to in the Garden of Eden is the
effect of value judging.
> > > > The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter because
> > > > of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
> > > > astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
> > > > things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
> > > Various aspects of astrology are 'proven to someones satisfaction' every
> > > day
> > They must be willing to see it, your arguments following therefore are
> > redundant.
> 'Willing to see' is no the same as feely whimisically self-indulgently
> CHOOSING a reality with astrology in it. Your very phrase 'willing to see'
> suggests a reality outside of that which is preferred or chosen.
All it reflects is the ability for choice. But "freely whimsically
self-indulgently" tells us how difficult it is for you to be unfettered
and positive because of "shoulds" -the reflection of less than full trust
in a creator and universe that unfolds naturally and for good reason.
> > > I'm dazzled and everything, but there really isn't anything here against
> > > determinism. I'm starting to think seriously that I should just stop
> > > bothering you at this point...
> > Doesn't bother me, these are my recognitions and preferences and I change
> > them based on new recognitions and preferences, you may add to that, but
> > you will never force it, convince it, or prove me into another. Your
> > sharing like all others is a gift.
> Individuals contain psychological blocks against seeing the truth. If
Yes, and it occurs through the judgement of natural expression and the
restriction of expression because of these "guilts and shoulds" not from
following bliss. And there is no one truth-except that the truth is
composed of all truths.
>one
> surrenders to indulging them in the name of 'creating your own reality'
> this is counter-evolutionary. You believe in reality. You believe in
> truths. Stop pretending otherwise. Gifts or not, you consider some of
> these 'gifts' to accurately reflect reality, others not. This is your
> honest belief. Choice was involved, but not the sole determinator of your
> beliefs. Reality compels. Reality inspires.
Reality just is-you do with it whatever you believe is the most likely
thing to be true. You use "indulgent" alot you must have some guilt here
yes? Try to look at this because it is keeping you from fully
participating and enjoying the life that "All That Is" thought was a
perfect expression as it is. What special thing must we do in order to
deserve to exist?
> > > > Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine. Service is the whole point in
> > > > mine. Because "All That Is" is all one thing, and my desire and choice is
> > > > to be in accord with it and its creations-not at variance.
> > > I appreciate the philosphy here, and only hope that my personal God visits
> > > you and reveals that your aims are not necessarily at odds with the idea
> > > of determinism. ;) Have a nice day, and keep up the good work.
> > Well if I decide to create your reality then our truths would then look
> > very similar, I don't think they are that far apart, but I do think you
> > are seeking to bring to my awareness something I already am aware of and
> > so I don't really get baited by it, been there, just don't prefer it
> > anymore and enjoy the conviction of what I prefer.
> ...?
> > I don't act on guilt
> > or proposed wrongs.
> At all? Ever? Not even just a little? Isn't this the true definition of
> 'sociopathic'?
No, it means that because of my self knowledge I evaluate my intentions
and to the best of my ability act on what I know to be true for me,
therefore I feel no guilt and no restriction from the world, because I
don't need to impose any on myself. "All That Is' has faith in me or
would not have created the idea that I am, and since it is infinite and
omnipotent I find it difficult to argue with it. Integrity and intention
are the keys-not guilt.
> > Perhaps you feel better if you do because you think I
> > am judging others when I add or subtact or criticise points, but that is
> > telling us more of you or the other individuals than about me, all I can
> > do is know my own intention to the best of my ability, thats all anyone
> > can do because we are not responsible for anyone but ourselves.
> 'Live and let live' is a wonderful thing, and I'm all for maximizing it,
> but we invite great disasters by eschewing doubt, guilt, etc. eh?
No, we invite problems by holding powerless beliefs such as this, which
creates the idea of power being outside of the self, which creates the
idea of dominance, status, inequality which creates the idea of having
power over others which creates "battles" because of percieved threats to
our own identity definition-which is an illusion-Neptune dissolves Saturn
and it is real-ized that we are all one thing.
> > We are
> > only responsible TO them by being all that we can be with integrity, and
> > that is what I do to the best of my ability at any given moment.
> You speak of responsibility, but don't like the word 'guilt'. Intense
> guilt, extreme guilt, neurotic guilt is one thing. On a good day, a person
> truly wants to do the 'responsible' thing. On a bad day, overcome by
> destrucive motives or feelings, guilt often brings the whole person back
> to center. I don't know if I'd want to run into you on a bad day... ;)
Response-ability is the ability to respond to your creations. Guilt is
the true opposite of love, not hate, hate is just powerless love, but
guilt is invalidation and the "All That Is"-once again had enough belief
in the idea that I am, and the both of us have faith in you to create a
more positive reality, no matter how miserable you insist on creating it
to be.
"All I have seen, teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not
seen" Emerson
Jonathan C. Dunn
> > > > This is what seems so one-sided to me. Actions have effects but not
> > > > causes?
> > > The present is the only time you "actually" exist therefore all 'causes"
> > > and effects radiate from there.
> > Radiate FROM there but not TO there? That's what seems so one-sided.
> The point of power is in the present-the locus of control, so that even
> other time tracks or what have you may radiate to the present that
> control os still in the now to redefine any of them anywhere else. Thats
> why the entire multiverse is rearranged by a single choice.
So be careful! ( A message to everybody else.)
> > I am getting quite silly. Your repeated assertions are not meant to
> > convince me of anything.
>
> You can look at them as suggestions if it will allow you to feel better
> and come up with some arguments rather than just saying "you aren't
> rattled" I could care less whether your rattled. Choose what you prefer
> and act on it with conviction, you seem to be more interested in trying
> to tear mine down than in providing a substitute worthy of consideration
> >from my point of view.
Comments about 'not being rattled' were meant to say that none of the
comments really trod upon the idea which you had pronounced dead -
determinism.
> > > I am not
> > > on a mission, it is my reality that I have 100% control over- not yours,
> > > nor do I care to.
> > Your aim is service, but you are not on a mission. My words are part of
> > your reality, which you have 100% control over. Why have you caused me to
> > react so defensively?
> I don't cause you to do anything these are your choices-it is then my
> choice to decide how, if or whether I will react to them. They are a part
> of my reality because I chose them at this moment, by the time I get to
> the bottom I may discern that it is pointless to ramble on about this,
> killfile you and go on professing what it inspires me to somewhere
> else-no one HAS to do anything.
Ok. 99% control maybe...
> > > But this defensiveness has gotten away with you I am
> > > always just discussing. Don't worry you can remain just as open minded as
> > > you always have been, no one can change this unless you believe it to be
> > > so.
> > There is a happy medium between a 'violent change' model of changing
> > someone's mind and a 'whatever you whimisically and self-indulgently
> > decide to be true' is your reality.
> These are your meanings and they are subjective value judgements. Explain
> whimsical? That I can act without guilt on what I prefer without hurting
> anyone else? Or does it include in your definitions that someone must get
> hurt? These definitions tell us much about the mental patterns that you
> hold and hence the reality you will see.
'Whimsical' refers to the idea of 'free choice' in a vacuum, stripped of
its connection to all others and the physical world. Free choice taken to
its logical conclusion. I was trying to get to the nub of all this.
> > It is nice for you to reassure me that
> > you are not trying to brainwash,
>
> No one can MAKE anyone do anything, they can only offer, advise,
> suggest-then the other individual is faced with their choices of which
> they believe to be most true for them. It is very simple when you take
> the defensiveness and ego battle out of it.
'Defensiveness and battle' are one extreme to avoid in an earnest
discussion. Total impenetrable complacency would be the other...
> > but this assertion that you or I may
> > freely choose what to believe is downright sociopathic! Sorry.
>
> You are confusing conscience and/or repression with clear free and
> unfettered good judgement and choice.
'Unfettered'? not completely then. If the judgment is 'good' then it is
fettered by conscience and a realistic outlook.
> > > > Am I a part of your world? Why not choose for me to stop? Are my choices
> > > > effecting your life - not absolutely I mean, but at least a little? In
> > > > your mind at this moment are thoughts that my actions have put there,
> > > > right?
> > > No you do not and if you do it is because I create it and allow it.
> > Where does the raw data of my action come from - your 'allowance'? Or are
> > you merely referring to a filtering mechanism on your part.
> It doesn't come at all unless I allow it. There is no external reality
> per se and "thats the way it is", it is the way each person choses to
> define it to be. Yes there is an agreed upon collective experience, but
> that does not mean choice is therefore limited, it comes from all levels.
There is no external reality per se and that's the way it is.
> This is where you and many others are brainwashed with a sense of
> powerlessness, crime, attack, OFFENSE, battle-these are definitions that
> are the effect of not being in integrity. Integrity means functioning as
> an integrated WHOLE self knowing that you are as powerful as you need to
> be to create whatever you desire to create in your reality without having
> to hurt yourself or anyone else in order to create it.
Or is 'integrity' functioning in a 'whole' way with regard to a larger
reality...
> People aren't
> offended and don't need to BATTLE when they know beyond a shadow of a
> doubt that the vibration they are will be the reality they experience
> EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.
Truly complacent, self-satisfied and intellectually corrupt people also
have 'no need to BATTLE'. I'm not saying you fit into this category, only
that you should be careful in glorifying what may be an utterly extreme
and unbalanced view.
> The negative person therefore may never find the
> positive person-or if they do meet will be unable to affect the positive.
> It is the belief in POWERLESSNESS that promotes the belief and the need
> to DEFEND, ATTACK, and overpower another from the fear that they just
> MIGHT be able to affect you. They cannot. Only your belief in their power
> or disbelief in your own is what creates negative battles and needs for
> ego dominance.
These attitude problems and differences play a part, yes.
> Anti-social personalities DO NOT believe in their own
> power and so have taken the view that the self must be dominant at all
> costs.
A spoiled child may take it for granted that 'the self WILL be dominant'
at all times, without any conflict, and remain complacent and unevolved.
> In my schema there is enough room for everyone to be all that they
> can be without hurting anyone else -but then this is Uranian and most
> still function at the limited focus of Saturn, wherein it must be a
> competitive BATTLE ROYAL to determine the dominant and most powerful
> creator-but the reality is that we all have this power and it is quite
> equal.
Avoiding conflict is not the highest good, nor the prime characteristic of
the enlightened. Think of autism. The autisitic may be reverting to a
lesser self-contained world due to problems associating. Would you applaud
this? I really wonder if you might...
> But those who do not believe will not allow themselves to
> experience it that way. There is a difference between being grandiose as
> you try to imply I am from insecurity, and acting on KNOWINGNESS with
> confidence and trust-this LOOKS like Grandiosity to others, because of
> their minimal belief in themselves.
Your bugaboo, which you project on me and worry I project on you is
insecurity/defensiveness. I'm saying there is another extreme which is
worthy of avoiding - complacency/self-satisfaction. If anything, it is
this which I am inclined to see you in terms of...
> > This CAUSES you to reject them. If you never kill-filed
> > anyone, this MIGHT be a stronger argument. ;)
>
> My actions are not reactions to defend, they are actions based on
> preference and choice, if you wish to fight fire with fire you'll only
> make a bigger fire and only fools believe in changing another reality
> besides their own.
Only fools believe in changing another reality besides their own.
> Like this conversation, as long as it allows me to
> express the principles and techniques that may be of service to those
> wishing to learn I stay engaged, if it turns to some self aggrandizing
> battle of the wits that serves no useful purpose that I can see, you will
> be killfiled or just ignored. There are plenty of positive things for me
> to do. Why would I stay focused on a worthless exposition of arguments?
> Been there done that. Heard all of them trust me.
So you have certain values. You have a certain agenda or nature which
determines who will be kill-filed. Did you 'choose' to have this nature?
If so, on what basis?
> > > > People see points made by others every day. And often dearly held ideas
> > > > are renounced, after one person has made something clear to another.
>
> > > Yes, and so? When I see them I renounce.
> > Thus a truth has come from outside of one's own will, albeit FILTERED by
> > individual judgments.
>
> No an opportunity for reassesment has been attracted to the person as the
> product of positive definitions SOMEWHERE along the line and they have
> attracted and created whatever scenario they needed to allow them to get
> to what they wished to see explore and investigate ON SOME level,
> everything is there for a reason YOUR reason there is something within
> the scenario you wish to see-WHEN YOU ALLOW IT to be there for a reason,
> then you will see it.
I would say that cause-and-effect might very well be at work in the whole
drama of when and what I allow into my sphere to influence me - a
psycho-karmic timetable. Possible?
> > > > The 'work', experience and thought of many many others have led them at
> > > > least to accept a more moderate view. What do you think of them,
> > > > eh?
> > > Transformation is not the product of mediocrity, they are perfectly
> > > relfecting the reality they believe to be truest for them and most
> > > likely to be expereinced-at this time.
> > How exalted of you. How pitiable of them.
> More ego defensiveness. These are your problems do you see? This is how
> we become aware of true motives, and I can see yours even if others
> can't.
No one can penetrate your complacency. Not even someone as defensive as I
am.
> > > > If I have a facial tic and discover a mineral deficiency, and then change
> > > > my diet and no longer have a facial tic, is this not a good analogy of
> > > > 'habit',
>
> > > Yes and a good example of how awareness changed it.
> > Someone else's, often.
>
> No one can affect anyone else without their acknowledgement and choice.
No one can affect anyone else without their acknowledgement and choice.
> > > > An exalted version/vision. This is fine. But when you put it forth as a
> > > > CONTRADICTION of what others (with as much 'experience', 'work' and
> > > > thought as yourself) have said...
> > > Then they get defensive and cry about it yes, and so? Whats new? No one
> > > can make you feel inferior without your consent.
> > My 'defensiveness' is actually faithfulness to the principle of giving
> > discussion a chance. Many of these others wouldn't give you the time of
> > day, much less 'cry' etc.
> And, so? Is this supposed to bother me? Only a powerless person with no
> conviction of themselves or love for themselves will react to this
> baiting.
You painted the 'person who disagrees with you' in a certain way - as
'crying' etc. I was attempting to put a different spin on things.
> > > > So if I don't agree with you intellectually, I'm a spiritual deadbeat?
>
> > > No you have different preferences, why are you so defensive? Do you not
> > > believe in your own definitions? Why must you place this "good" and bad"
> > > meaning into a nuetral universe?
> > You are trying to have it both ways: you are right and I am wrong. Also,
> > there is no reason for me to be defensive. There is no point in living in
> > a universe such as I have put forth. On the other hand, it is only my
> > choice and there is no conflict here. Very slippery, in my opinion.
> Exactly, when we deal in the realm of the higher self that is when this
> duality you speak of begins to dissolve and paradox is the order of the
> day. The judgement of paradise referred to in the Garden of Eden is the
> effect of value judging.
Exactly, etc.
> > > > > The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter because
> > > > > of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
> > > > > astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
> > > > > things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
> > > > Various aspects of astrology are 'proven to someones satisfaction' every
> > > > day
> > > They must be willing to see it, your arguments following therefore are
> > > redundant.
> > 'Willing to see' is no the same as feely whimisically self-indulgently
> > CHOOSING a reality with astrology in it. Your very phrase 'willing to see'
> > suggests a reality outside of that which is preferred or chosen.
> All it reflects is the ability for choice. But "freely whimsically
> self-indulgently" tells us how difficult it is for you to be unfettered
> and positive because of "shoulds" -the reflection of less than full trust
> in a creator and universe that unfolds naturally and for good reason.
I ask questions about the implications of your statements. You diagnose
me. Thanks?
You seem to consider complacency to be the highest good. You ridicule
'guilt'. This is not a balanced view.
> > > I don't act on guilt
> > > or proposed wrongs.
> > At all? Ever? Not even just a little? Isn't this the true definition of
> > 'sociopathic'?
> No, it means that because of my self knowledge I evaluate my intentions
> and to the best of my ability act on what I know to be true for me,
> therefore I feel no guilt and no restriction from the world, because I
> don't need to impose any on myself. "All That Is' has faith in me or
> would not have created the idea that I am, and since it is infinite and
> omnipotent I find it difficult to argue with it. Integrity and intention
> are the keys-not guilt.
Not a 'key', a 'real answer'. This isn't what I'm saying about guilt.
> > > Perhaps you feel better if you do because you think I
> > > am judging others when I add or subtact or criticise points, but that is
> > > telling us more of you or the other individuals than about me, all I can
> > > do is know my own intention to the best of my ability, thats all anyone
> > > can do because we are not responsible for anyone but ourselves.
> > 'Live and let live' is a wonderful thing, and I'm all for maximizing it,
> > but we invite great disasters by eschewing doubt, guilt, etc. eh?
> No, we invite problems by holding powerless beliefs such as this, which
> creates the idea of power being outside of the self, which creates the
> idea of dominance, status, inequality which creates the idea of having
> power over others which creates "battles" because of percieved threats to
> our own identity definition-which is an illusion-Neptune dissolves Saturn
> and it is real-ized that we are all one thing.
Neptune is normally (and correctly in my view) associated with a total
surrender of power and freedom along with ego and separateness. You are
promoting Uranus. I'm not opposed to this, but I do consider you to be
somewhat confused here.
> > > We are
> > > only responsible TO them by being all that we can be with integrity, and
> > > that is what I do to the best of my ability at any given moment.
> > You speak of responsibility, but don't like the word 'guilt'. Intense
> > guilt, extreme guilt, neurotic guilt is one thing. On a good day, a person
> > truly wants to do the 'responsible' thing. On a bad day, overcome by
> > destrucive motives or feelings, guilt often brings the whole person back
> > to center. I don't know if I'd want to run into you on a bad day... ;)
> Response-ability is the ability to respond to your creations.
This is not what anyone means. Charles Manson may 'respond to his
creations' but would not be regarded as responsible!
> Guilt is
> the true opposite of love, not hate,
It can be argued that extreme neurotic guilt is a form of hate. Milder
guilt in unarguably linked with love. People warmly 'kiss and make up'
after having a bad fight and feeling that something is not right. This
feeling is healthy guilt, eh?
> hate is just powerless love, but
> guilt is invalidation and the "All That Is"-once again had enough belief
> in the idea that I am, and the both of us have faith in you to create a
> more positive reality, no matter how miserable you insist on creating it
> to be.
Are there any events which might happen to you that you feel are
undesirable? Are you 100% sure that by will alone you can prevent them?
Would I be correct in thinking that you feel that unpleasant and miserable
things happen only to people who really really attract them? Does this
mean that these miserable circumstances will never visit you? Or do you
have a philosophical attitude that they may occur but it will be the
result of choices you may not be aware of at the moment?
Just wondering...
the inspired one
Edmond WRITES!!!
sniped LOTS of words ....
>
'...yeah......yeah.....yeah.........ok............yeah........yeah.........
.....ok.............well, I'm sorry.....' >an hour later<
'....yeah.............ok............I got..that....
that............yeah...................yeah........
..yeah......yeah.....yeah.........ok............yeah........yeah.........
.....ok.............yes, I'm sorry.....' >two hours later<
'....yeah.............ok............I got that too..... yeah...hmm..
well l...........yeah.............
......yeah........'
uninspired tired one
______________________________________________
I support free speech, so everyone shut up and let me talk!
Edmond Wollmann
the inspired one wrote:
> Edmond WRITES!!!
> sniped LOTS of words ....
>'...yeah......yeah.....yeah.........ok............yeah........yeah.........
>
> .....ok.............well, I'm sorry.....' >an hour later<
> '....yeah.............ok............I got..that....
> that............yeah...................yeah........
> ..yeah......yeah.....yeah.........ok............yeah........yeah.........>
> .....ok.............yes, I'm sorry.....' >two hours later<
> '....yeah.............ok............I got that too..... yeah...hmm..
> well l...........yeah.............
> ......yeah........'
>
> uninspired tired one
How does it serve you to see only this? And how does this serve to
inspire?
______________________________________________
> I support free speech, so everyone shut up and let me talk!
I think this adequately reflects your truest intentions.
If you find that there is something you could add or constructively
contribute I think it would be more indicative of true inspiration and
assistance -if not it appears the only thing that has occurred is that
your ego has gotten away with you and defensiveness can only serve you to
teach you more about yourself. This you could do on your own and don't
necessarily have to waste newsgroup space in order to reflect on it. Do
you really think this post serves any practical purpose?
Peter
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 01:44:53 GMT, g...@d.com (the inspired one) wrote:
>Edmond WRITES!!!
>
>sniped LOTS of words ....
>>
>
>'...yeah......yeah.....yeah.........ok............yeah........yeah.........
>
>.....ok.............well, I'm sorry.....' >an hour later<
>'....yeah.............ok............I got..that....
>
>uninspired tired one
>
>
>______________________________________________
>I support free speech, so everyone shut up and let me talk!
Did you find any bananas?
Peter
_________________________________________
The way I see it
This is another attempt
To search for bananas in the apple tree
Lao-Tse
________________________________________