Free Will

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

salaams everybody!
I hope the new year has started well for everyone.
I noticed some discussions recently concerning the idea of free will.
I believe it is one that we should delve deeply into. I am not one
given to arbirtary or inherited beliefs. I spent two years meditating
on free will. The idea presented itself as an obstacle on my
spiritual journey. I had inherently believed in it but belief is not
the same thing as understanding. The conclusion that I arrived at
troubled me deeply but after a long period of time I could find no way
out of the well of truth that I had climbed down into.
There is no thing free-standing. Everything has a relative
existence. Every'thing' is in perpetual motion. Every'thing' is
absolutely predicated.
After a lengthy period of meditation, I had moved from watching the
paths of things outside of myself to the movements of my own mind.
They were analogous. Planets, stars, the leaves in the trees, the
flight of a hawk... every movement, every change absolutely predicated
and in perpetual motion. Every thought, emotion, choices... there was
no thing free-standing... only perpetual rivers of change, all
connected and unfolding as if one sublime thought. I went 'down' in
my mind to 'the smallest'... I went 'out' in my mind to the largest.
That doesn't mean that we are free from responsibility in our
choices. Because we do have choices. I am simply saying that those
choices are wholly predicated. Choices can be predicated upon 'fear
of consequence'. And in a universe established upon balance, I would
have to say that even our own selves must balance out.
Now, you guys know me and can trust that I truly believe what I say I
believe. But you know I am not asking for my ideas to be written in
stone. I would love for these things to be debated. Let's get
carried away!

[Pat]

On 4 Jan, 06:38, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

You're absolutely correct. Free will is an illusion caused by
not being able to predict the future because of the inherent
complexity of interconnectedness. As Einstein's work linked space and
time to form a continuum, one thing about a continuum is it MUST
contain the entirety of past, present and future. The continuum is
the lot. There are no missing points in space-time. So, that means
that, as you said, one thing follows on to the next.
The future appears mutable because we never see all that goes
into it and we can't remember it. The future is just as much a part
of the continuum as is the past and just as fixed as the past. The
main difference is we have memory access to the past. The space-time
continuum IS the stone in which everything is permanently written.
Our future is just waiting for us and there no other way to go.
This is why it can be said that nothing happens outside the will
of Allah. The 'body' of Allah IS that continuum and, as there is
nothing else BUT Allah, all things flow according to His deeds, some
of which we see as ours. It is through the geometry of the space-time
continuum that Allah easily maintains His Omnipresence, Omnipotence
and Omniscience. When you look at the universe as One (space-time
continuum) which is 'All there is', the 3 Os are easier to comprehend.

[Vamadevananda]

Regarding free will, I recall reading about the following incident in
the life Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and his pupil, Swami Vivekananda :

The two were debating ' free will ' from their respective positions :
Ramakrishna, with his knowledge that God alone is not bound by His
nature, and is therefore the only One with infinite free will ; and
Vivekananda, forever the scientifically inclined, stating that there
is no free will anywhere, in God and the creature.

During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
flowers : Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.

And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
coloured flowers !

The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !

Ramakrishna further explained : There is free will with individuals as
well, but more in the manner of that of a sheep that is tethered to a
fixed pole with a rope of finite length. The sheep will be free to
move about but within a finite radius. So are humans situated.

The further secret is : The ' length of the rope ' is flexible ( in
material, mental and spiritual domains ) , and is as ' earned ' by
the individual through choices and actions made, and resultant
realisations acquired by the individual, in the respective domains !

We each will awaken into the Truth Infinite, when our single - minded
desire for It becomes infinite ( or, in pedantic terms, when our time
is come ) !

> continuum) which is 'All there is', the 3 Os are easier to comprehend.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/5/08, Vamadevananda <atewa...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

I believe that we are approaching the marrow, guys.  Both posts were just what I was looking for from you both.  Great story, Vam!

During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
flowers :  Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.

And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
coloured flowers !

The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !

Here's the rub...

 

I'm not implying that the story grant's Ramakrishna's will a primary cause in the color change.  But let's say for the sake of the argument I need to make, that his will was the co-author of that outcome. 

Everything that both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda thought and did was sublimely predicated and in perpetual motion.  Even if one could move mountains with the mind, it is an action predicated upon choices, and the knowledge necessary to make those choices.  Even when the choice is made or the when the connection is reached as consequence of that choice is manifested are absolutely predicated.  Action in and of itself, whether plainly understood or miraculous, is not free-will in and of itself.  Agree or disagree?
 

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/5/08, Abdullah Abd' Badi <aswat.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow!!!

 

thank you both, thank you thank you for pushing me...

I just went down to where I was a homogeneous, featureless, unrelative sphere of energy (something that does not exist here).  I could release energy in any direction and to me it would be the same no matter the direction.  There would be no choice.  Any choice, no matter how insignificant and uninformed is relative and predicated.  The spacetime continuum is a perpetual flow.

 

[Ian Pollard]

Hi Abdullah,

I've taken you off moderation, so your posts will now come through immediately. Welcome to Mind's Eye!

xxxianxx

--
"They declaim against the passions without bothering to think that it is from their flame philosophy lights its torch."

-- Marquis de Sade

[Vamadevananda]

What is your meaning of free will ? In what context, overal
picture ? I feel there is a need to define, or understand, better.
In absence of that, I am not able fully comprehend the import of your
propositions.

For instance, if you are merged in infinite, homogeneous being
( consciousness ), there can no concept ( much less, meaning ) of free
will. Free will, as opposed to bound or predicated will, has a meaning
only in the context of individual consciousness.

On Jan 5, 11:18 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/08, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that we are approaching the marrow, guys.  Both posts were just
> what I was looking for from you both.  Great story, Vam!
>
> During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
>
> > Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
> > flowers :  Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
> > Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.
>
> > And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
> > on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
> > coloured flowers !
>
> > The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
> > traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
> > ( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
> > Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !
>
> > Here's the rub...
>

> I'm not implying that the story grant's Ramakrishna's *will* a primary cause

> in the color change.  But let's say for the sake of the argument I need to

> make, that his *will* was the co-author of that outcome.
> Every*thing* that both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda thought and did was

> sublimely predicated and in perpetual motion.  Even if one could move

> mountains with the mind, it is an action *predicated* upon choices, and the
> knowledge necessary to make those choices.  Even *when* the choice is made
> or the *when* the connection is reached as consequence of that choice is
> manifested are absolutely predicated.  *Action* in and of itself, whether
> plainly understood or miraculous, *is not free-will* in and of itself.
> Agree or disagree?

[Pat]

On 5 Jan, 06:18, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/08, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that we are approaching the marrow, guys.  Both posts were just
> what I was looking for from you both.  Great story, Vam!
>
> During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
>
> > Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
> > flowers :  Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
> > Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.
>
> > And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
> > on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
> > coloured flowers !
>
> > The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
> > traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
> > ( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
> > Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !
>
> > Here's the rub...
>

> I'm not implying that the story grant's Ramakrishna's *will* a primary cause

> in the color change.  But let's say for the sake of the argument I need to

> make, that his *will* was the co-author of that outcome.

I would say that he 'appears' to be co-author, but there is only one
author...God. Neither Ramakrishna nor Vivekananda is separate from
God, so God works through them. In truth, the white flowers would
have appeared without their argument, as it seems to have been God's
will. The fact that they were standing next to it and talking about
it is, more or less, coincidental.

> Every*thing* that both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda thought and did was

> sublimely predicated and in perpetual motion.  

And everything that they thought and did was God's thoughts and deeds,
as we can do nothing else. The entire past has led to where we are,
and that's a force unreckonable, that is, you can't stop the reactions
from the cause called 'Big Bang'.

>Even if one could move

> mountains with the mind, it is an action *predicated* upon choices, and the
> knowledge necessary to make those choices.  Even *when* the choice is made
> or the *when* the connection is reached as consequence of that choice is
> manifested are absolutely predicated.  *Action* in and of itself, whether
> plainly understood or miraculous, *is not free-will* in and of itself.
> Agree or disagree?


Agree completely. There is only one actor in motion in this universe
and we are 'our part' of that. There is no difference between our
deeds and God's. If we see a separation, it is illusory, a part of
the Maya.

[Pat]

On 5 Jan, 06:31, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/08, Abdullah Abd' Badi <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow!!!
>
> thank you both, thank you thank you for pushing me...

> I just went *down* to where I was a homogeneous, featureless, unrelative
> sphere of *energy* (something that does not exist *here*).  I could release
> energy in any direction and *to me* it would be the same no matter the
> direction.  There would be no *choice*.  Any choice, no matter how

> insignificant and uninformed is relative and predicated.  The spacetime
> continuum is a perpetual flow.

Yup! Without doubt. That sphere-form is fun, play with it. Go
places. That form can sense; use it to experience things you can only
experience like that. Now, if you could retain that form whilst
dancing and spinning around and ensuring your body is breathing in
beat with the spinning, you'll understand the visions of the
Dervishes. Their practices are not all that different from Shaolin-
style awakening, using that concept that 'all is in motion' and
becoming one with it.

[Pat]

On 5 Jan, 10:11, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is your meaning of free will ?  In what context, overal
> picture ?  I feel there is a need to define, or understand, better.
> In absence of that, I am not able fully comprehend the import of your
> propositions.
>
> For instance, if you are merged in infinite, homogeneous being
> ( consciousness ), there can no concept ( much less, meaning ) of free
> will. Free will, as opposed to bound or predicated will, has a meaning
> only in the context of individual consciousness.
>

I believe Abdullah is in that merging process and has seen his
'self', his 'free will', absorbed into the whole. He's now
understanding that it is 'Allah undifferentiated' (Brahman) that is
all there is and it is THAT will that prevails. He has seen that it
is THAT which he is. Now comes practice of ACTING like Brahma-Shiva-
Vishnu(Allah differentiated) and making it up as he goes along (the
free will you expounded), but knowing that it is Brahman (Allah
undifferentiated) that is the REAL actor.

> > Agree or disagree?- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 5 Jan, 06:18, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/08, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that we are approaching the marrow, guys.  Both posts were just
> what I was looking for from you both.  Great story, Vam!
>

Another example of 'cause and effect' and, equally, another example of
'ask and ye shall receive'. This is how the universe works. And
you've no choice but to play along. ;-)

> During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
>
> > Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
> > flowers :  Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
> > Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.
>
> > And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
> > on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
> > coloured flowers !
>
> > The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
> > traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
> > ( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
> > Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !
>
> > Here's the rub...
>

> I'm not implying that the story grant's Ramakrishna's *will* a primary cause

> in the color change.  But let's say for the sake of the argument I need to

> make, that his *will* was the co-author of that outcome.
> Every*thing* that both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda thought and did was

> sublimely predicated and in perpetual motion.  Even if one could move

> mountains with the mind, it is an action *predicated* upon choices, and the
> knowledge necessary to make those choices.  Even *when* the choice is made
> or the *when* the connection is reached as consequence of that choice is
> manifested are absolutely predicated.  *Action* in and of itself, whether
> plainly understood or miraculous, *is not free-will* in and of itself.
> Agree or disagree?

[archytas]

When it comes to familiarity breeding contempt, I generally don't
bother seeking this kind of familiarity, it's everywhere. The phrase
struck me hardest whist trying to explain to a gay right's group why
their research was utter crap. The had 'conclusively proved'
familiarity with gays increased tolerance towards them. A pile of
loaded questions had been asked by an idiot with a PhD to prove this
point and to rip off the research funding by giving the group the
answers it wanted to hear. This research scene is all-too-familiar,
yet so very shallow. All the idiot researcher proved was that non-
gays learned politically correct language, and nothing about what they
really thought or their knowledge and attitudes. Classically, in the
Balkans, men and women intermarry, live 'harmonisously' for years and
then slaughter each other along the old ethnic lines in 50 year
cycles, no doubt within a couple of days of some arse researcher
discovering Xtians and Muslims living in harmony. Once I eliminated
such misunderstandings as gay = paedophile and so on from the data,
there was little warming towards the gays or homosexuality, let alone
familiarity breeding tolerance, or even 'familiarity' as none of the
subjects had any real understanding of gay lives or even what gay sex
might be. The straights had merely been conteneted that their kids
were not in danger and that gays did not have two heads.
Those who over-focus on self are prone to rationalisation and
projection, rather than bracing a familiarity of much that is really
wrong and clearly identifiable beyond the end of their noses. Self-
familiarity ahead of genuine knowledge of difference and others is a
poor goal, and leads to the kind of idiot projections of personal
ignorance clear in the vapid phrase 'search yourself'. One wonders
whether this kind of 'self' can ever be familiar with what is human in
another as it consumes everything to self.

Neil

> > Agree or disagree?- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

Regretfully, Neil, your post is completely off track from the subject
of this thread i.e. free will. It is so out of place that it almost
seems to be a mere rant and ramble.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[kenny]

well, everything is predictated as you say, at least of my
knowledeg... even an atom exchanges electrons for a reason and because
of something else. our thoughts too. time... is time predictated? is
happiness predictated? some things aren't, but they can't be things.
anything predictated must have action. thought requires energy. free
will and predictation? belifes aren't predictated are they? maybe if
you were to say yes, being the want(predictation) of beliefs, but can
want predictate things? and doesen't something have to be gained if
predictated? what isen't gained of a predictation, if only something
such as understanding? free will must be predictated, but what is
wrong with that?

On Jan 4, 1:38 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[restless]

Hello Abdullah
I have always been perplexed by the concept of free will. Simply
because would we make the same decisions if the basic tenants were
different. I mean we make decisions based on the outcome. If I do this
or that what are the consequences. Since there are consequences to
every action good or bad that we take into account, is it then actual
freewill we are using. How do you actually know what choice you would
make when you are taking into account outside variants. If all cause
and effect are taken out of the equasion what choice do you arrive at.
Thus you are not making a choice freely, for your choice contains all
the outside elements that weigh your decision. Then there is the point
where you have to wade through all of your life experiences and
indoctrination that family and society has heaped upon you. How do you
differentiate what is actually you choosing or what you were taught to
believe you should choose. To say that we all must make the choice
each for ourselves individually is fine, but you still must be able to
seperate what has been instilled in us to do so. The point where we
reach affirmation that there is something, a higher intelligence or
entity that somehow influences our freewill, if this is so, does it
remain freewill or are we just doing what we were programmed to do
from the beginning. How does one in all intents and purposes exercise
freewill if everything interconnects, are we not actually exercising
communal will.

On Jan 4, 10:18 pm, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/08, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that we are approaching the marrow, guys.  Both posts were just
> what I was looking for from you both.  Great story, Vam!
>
> During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
>
> > Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
> > flowers :  Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
> > Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.
>
> > And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
> > on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
> > coloured flowers !
>
> > The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
> > traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
> > ( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
> > Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !
>
> > Here's the rub...
>

> I'm not implying that the story grant's Ramakrishna's *will* a primary cause

> in the color change.  But let's say for the sake of the argument I need to

> make, that his *will* was the co-author of that outcome.
> Every*thing* that both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda thought and did was

> sublimely predicated and in perpetual motion.  Even if one could move

> mountains with the mind, it is an action *predicated* upon choices, and the
> knowledge necessary to make those choices.  Even *when* the choice is made
> or the *when* the connection is reached as consequence of that choice is
> manifested are absolutely predicated.  *Action* in and of itself, whether
> plainly understood or miraculous, *is not free-will* in and of itself.
> Agree or disagree?

[Pat]

On 6 Jan, 22:40, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Abdullah
> I have always been perplexed by the concept of free will. Simply
> because would we make the same decisions if the basic tenants were
> different. I mean we make decisions based on the outcome.

I wish. I make decisions based on what I think the outcome will be.
None of us, though, can factor in everything.

>If I do this
> or that what are the consequences. Since there are consequences to
> every action good or bad that we take into account, is it then actual
> freewill we are using. How do you actually know what choice you would
> make when you are taking into account outside variants. If all cause
> and effect are taken out of the equasion what choice do you arrive at.

None. as there are no longer any causes and no causes imply no
effects.

> Thus you are  not making a choice freely, for your choice contains all
> the outside elements that weigh your decision. Then there is the point
> where you have to wade through all of your life experiences and
> indoctrination that family and society has heaped upon you. How do you
> differentiate what is actually you choosing or what you were taught to
> believe you should choose. To say that we all must make the choice
> each for ourselves individually is fine, but you still must be able to
> seperate  what has been instilled in us to do so. The point where we
> reach affirmation that there is something, a higher intelligence or
> entity that somehow influences our freewill, if this is so, does it
> remain freewill or are we just doing what we were programmed to do
> from the beginning.

More the latter, I'm afraid. Physics doesn't allow for free will
irrespective of how our decisions might appear.

>How does one in all intents and purposes exercise
> freewill  if everything interconnects, are we not actually exercising
> communal will.
>

Correct. And that communal will is the will of God. He acts
through us and, as there is none other than Him, His will prevails.
It's analogous to the cells in your body. They each go about their
merry business doing what cells do best; but are directed by something
they can't sense directly. They feed from it but don't know it. They
breathe because of it but can't feel it. They live and die for it but
they know it not. This is how hidden God is for us. But THROUGH us,
His will is made so. All life is the community of God and expresses,
in toto, His communal will. Not in any one of us in particular; but,
rather, through us all in particular.

> > Agree or disagree?- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

I wonder what 'free will' placed my rant where it did then Vam?
Freedom from, freedom to, freedom in knowledge, restraint from
knowledge, freedom to do right, freedom to let others die or live crap
lives, freedom to rip others off, the determination of a king social
mouse because the poor sod knows no better than to be a despot, the
'freewill' of human despots because they know better? How would you
know Vam - by looking at tat internal mirror again? Free from what?
God? Rules? Stupidity? Dross? Madness? Genetics? The list should be
expanded much further by anyone with genuine questions about will and
balance in evidence. I'm off to do a bit of doing - we do enough harm
to owe the balance just by mumbling these liturgies.

Neil

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dinesh]

Hello Abdullah Abd Badi

A predeterministic approach will end up in the mirror in mirror scene
i.e. the predictor predicts the predictors prediction, and so on
endlessly.

I personally think we all have free wills but the variables in any
situation will determine a set or band of outcomes. If one has control
on some of these variables then the set or band narrows down.

Dinesh

On Jan 5, 11:18 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/08, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that we are approaching the marrow, guys. Both posts were just
> what I was looking for from you both. Great story, Vam!
>
> During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
>
> > Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
> > flowers : Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
> > Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.
>
> > And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
> > on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
> > coloured flowers !
>
> > The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
> > traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
> > ( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
> > Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !
>
> > Here's the rub...
>

> I'm not implying that the story grant's Ramakrishna's *will* a primary cause

> in the color change. But let's say for the sake of the argument I need to

> make, that his *will* was the co-author of that outcome.
> Every*thing* that both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda thought and did was

> sublimely predicated and in perpetual motion. Even if one could move

> mountains with the mind, it is an action *predicated* upon choices, and the
> knowledge necessary to make those choices. Even *when* the choice is made
> or the *when* the connection is reached as consequence of that choice is
> manifested are absolutely predicated. *Action* in and of itself, whether
> plainly understood or miraculous, *is not free-will* in and of itself.
> Agree or disagree?

[archytas]

Difficult to understand whether we are really capable of working out
whether we are talking of free will as god's fingernails or in terms
of a bureaucrat treating someone else with humanity rather than
procedures in this debate. Broadly agree with Dinesh on
practicalities.

Neil

> > Agree or disagree?- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 7 Jan, 14:57, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Difficult to understand whether we are really capable of working out
> whether we are talking of free will as god's fingernails or in terms
> of a bureaucrat treating someone else with humanity rather than
> procedures in this debate.  Broadly agree with Dinesh on
> practicalities.
>
> Neil
>

Apologies, if/when my analogies vex thee. ;-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[restless]

I suppose I am disappointed. My questioning was divided up with one
part being if one believes in a higher power, the other if one does
not. Pat I thank you for answering but is it that simple. Looking in a
mirror, looking in a mirror how does that actually imply free will.
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick. Looking in a mirror in a mirror,
is that implying you already know what your choices are no matter how
closely you look again and again the outcome is the same you see the
same answer.

[chazwin]

I agree utterly. But there is a real problem for those that want to
beleive in redemption. The messianic religions hold that to have
salavation you must freely choose to follow the path of god (whatever
that is). If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all present a pan-
omni being, then god knows who will die a sinner even before they were
created by him. Indeed he will have created every sinner and saved
person. So then where is my free choice?
If god has made me, then he has made me the sort of person who thinks
that god does not exist and he knows that I will die rejecting his
existence. His offer of salvation is therefore a lie.
The only conclusion is that either god is a lesser being, or he does
not exist, or that his "promises" are false.

On Jan 4, 6:38 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[archytas]

Everytime we fed and trained up a common mouse to become king mouse it
triumphed and became a new king mouse. I wondered whether building a
mouse park with individual trailers for families might help - some
woman in the US actually did something a bit similar with drug-addict
rats and they almost immediately gave up the barbiturates, whlist the
caged ones didn't. I didn't get the research funding, which may have
saved the world from trailer trash mice. No one ever found a mouse
with benevolent ruler genes, or one that could overcome this level of
programming. I have seen very diffeerent chimp leader styles, some
very nasty, some more accommodating. Bonobos use sex and matirarchy
in place of male alpha crap. I've seen a male chimp about to rape his
sister that might get close to an exercise of free will against the
general taboo.

An old book on this stuff is Luke Rheinharts 'Dice Man' where one
roles dice to make decisions of moral import. John Rawls would
explain a lot Lisa wants to know about non-god-bothered morality. I'd
go a bit further than him, as I think once one gives up to religion,
one has lost all morality.

On another tack, say the 10 ton weight drops on me from the sky.
Where did my free will go and what did it count for? Say some of us
disparate hoodlums get together, survive the temptation to kill each
other over god-disagreements, and then introduce practical measures to
curb global warming through cooperative transport, this is so
successful the model overtakes idiot-capitalism and the world starts
to live in peace on a 2-day week, supermarkets disappear, retailing
becomes a thing of the past ... what role for free will in that? This
could all be in the "design", just an unfolding of random potential.
What is free will to shop?

Neil

[Pat]

On 7 Jan, 21:02, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose I am disappointed. My questioning was divided up with one
> part being if one believes in a higher power, the other if one does
> not. Pat I thank you for answering but is it that simple.

Yes.

>Looking in a
> mirror, looking in a mirror how does that actually imply free will.
> Forgive me if I am being a bit thick. Looking in a mirror in a mirror,
> is that implying you already know what your choices are no matter how
> closely you look again and again the outcome is the same you see the
> same answer.

I'm afraid I don't know about the 'mirror in a mirror' thing, as
it wasn't my argument. Perhaps if I couched my argument slightly
differently, it might help. Firstly, there is only one actor in the
system, God. When we act, it is God that acts. In space-time, there
is nothing missing, it contains everything that has passed (our past),
everything that we are doing (our present) and everything that will
ever happen (our future). As everything is already present in the
whole, there is no freedom, per se, to our will, as that which appears
to 'our will' is, in fact, God's will, as ther is no other. Yet,
let's not discount that God, the REAL actor, isn't free to act as HE
deems fit.
So, freewill is pre-determined (our will is predetermined by God)
and
predeterminism is forever free to do as it will. (yet, that God is
free to act according to ITS will).

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 02:11, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree utterly. But there is a real problem for those that want to
> beleive in redemption. The messianic religions hold that to have
> salavation you must freely choose to follow the path of god (whatever
> that is). If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all present   a pan-
> omni being, then god knows who will die a sinner even before they were
> created by him. Indeed he will have created every sinner and saved
> person. So then where is my free choice?

Spot on so far.

> If god has made me, then he has made me the sort of person who thinks
> that god does not exist and he knows that I will die rejecting his
> existence.  

Yup, so far so good.

>His offer of salvation is therefore a lie.

Whoops, fell at the final hurdle. The Christian concept of
salvation does not necessarily stem from God. Their concept of
salvation is borne out of interpreting scriptures in favour of a man's
argument. God, the real one (not the one you rebel against), isn't
interested in savings like these. He's invented conservation of
energy and that applies to all levels of energy throughout the
universe.

> The only conclusion is that either god is a lesser being, or he does
> not exist, or that his "promises" are false.
>

Or, that you've confused (yet again) truth with man's dogma and
can't separate the two. Man's promises (those invented dogmas of
salvation) MAY be false; try not to confuse those with God. God
doesn't really promise, He just acts. And you can always be sure that
it is God that is acting, as there is nothing else.

> > carried away!- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

On Jan 8, 2:02 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose I am disappointed. My questioning was divided up with one
> part being if one believes in a higher power, the other if one does
> not. >

It is just the way it ought to be. Do all you, your faculties and
limbs, are capable of without any thought of any higher authority.
Comes the result, whatever it be, thank the higher authority.

Pat I thank you for answering but is it that simple. Looking in a
> mirror, looking in a mirror how does that actually imply free will. >

I thought Pat's position is that there is no free will ! ?

> Forgive me if I am being a bit thick. >

You are definitely not. In fact, you are one of the best, Restless !

[archytas]

Don't much like your notions of god Pat, but they don't seem to have
done you too much harm.

Neil

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 06:56, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Don't much like your notions of god Pat, but they don't seem to have
> done you too much harm.
>
> Neil
>

Cheers! Time will tell, I suppose. ;-) To me, God is all that
there is and to find fault with that is to find fault with the
universe. I don't know enough about the entirety of the universe
(past, present and future) to judge it properly. God does what He
does for Himself. In that, He is very selfish, but, when you are all
that ther is, how can you be non-selfish? One way would be to fold
yourself in such a way as to appear as 'others'. This is our
universe. God has folded Himself in such a way that the very fibres
of His being (strings) play with one another and form all manner of
diversity. And they play together in all manner of ways possible.
But remember the dictate of 'As above, so below'. When we have a
part of ourselves that attacks another part of ourselves, we call it
an auto-immune reaction. When a part of God attacks another part of
God, we call it murder. But, since auto-immune reactions are, in
fact, just another sequence of energy transference like that involved
in what we call murder, we can see that God is just performing acts
that are possible given energy and the laws that govern it.
Chaz's view and mine aren't that dissimilar in essence; I would
say 'God is amoral', Chaz would opt for 'there is no moral imperative,
thus there is no God'. The difference is threefold: recognition of
what really exists and how and why. One of us has found the link* and
the other has heard and believed that there is no such link.
The God I purport is not the one Chaz nor most atheists rebel
against. It works within the laws of physics to the end that all
things that ARE possible must be performed. This may take a HUGE
number of Big Bang sequences to play out and that may be infinite or
not. But with respect to our small part in the story, the vastness of
possibilities may seem infinite, since we can't physically see beyond
our own Big Bang sequence. What I derive from that is that our
'meaning of life' is just to play our part. Affect what we can to the
best of our abilities and be the best 'us' we can be. I understand
that we derive our own morality and that THAT is HOW God affects His
plan through us.
Having an amoral God doesn't mean we have to be immoral or view
others as immoral if their morality differs from ours. To me, that's
like a liver cell taking issue with a pancreatic cell..."Look at that
bastard over there...making those evil destructive little enzymes and
destroying the continuity of untold molecular integrities. Just who
does he think he is?" And perhaps that's why having an amoral God
leaves me relatively unharmed by that. There's a bigger picture**. I
see that picture and see everyone in it.


* And, yes, for the sake of argument, I will assume my theory is
correct. Space-time has dictated that I cannot empirically
demonstrate it; but that is no one's fault and only a problem for
those who wish to make it one.


** For Chaz: The bigger picture is that there is only one power in
the universe: God. This is not a 'Higher Power'; it is the ONLY
power. It is energy that exists. And the 'set of all energy' is God.

> On Jan 8, 6:28 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2:02 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose I am disappointed. My questioning was divided up with one
> > > part being if one believes in a higher power, the other if one does
> > > not. >
>
> > It is just the way it ought to be. Do all you, your faculties and
> > limbs, are capable of without any thought of any higher authority.
> > Comes the result, whatever it be, thank the higher authority.
>
> > Pat I thank you for answering but is it that simple. Looking in a
>
> > > mirror, looking in a mirror how does that actually imply free will. >
>
> > I thought Pat's position is that there is no free will ! ?
>
> > > Forgive me if I am being a bit thick. >
>

> > You are definitely not. In fact, you are one of the best, Restless !- Hide quoted text -

[Dinesh]

Hello restless

That mirror in mirror was my example I am sorry if I could not express
myself clearly.

Let me put it in another way (you may be aware of this) - a painting
of a painter doing a painting, when you zoom out it is a painting of
a painting of a painting.... of a painter doing a painting. In my
opinion prediction/ predeterminism is preceded by umpteen events of
prediction. Logically prediction/ predeterminism is impossible.

Dinesh

On Jan 8, 2:02 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[restless]

Morning Vam
I thank you for the lovely compliment. I definitely feel overwhelmed
at times with all the depth and insight you and some of the others
possess it can be formidable. But I enjoy reading what you all have to
say immensely. I must say I am absorbing it all like a sponge. Perhaps
one day I will be able to contribute on a deeper level than I do at
the moment. I am looking forward to being able to do so. I especially
appreciate all of you being patient with me. dinesh has made the
analogy of a mirror or painting, I get the analogy I just am not
getting how it pertains to free will. I do understand about prediction
and predetermination if he is associating it with the ability to know
something about the future as in psychic ability if he is referring to
that then I would have to disagree strongly. I know for a fact about
psychic predictions. It runs in my family, many things have happened
that was told in advance about. Sensitivity to our surroundings can be
found in animals as well. I know some can predict an earthquake or a
storm etc by being able to feel from the ground and other ways I do
not know about, just that they know before it happens. But I also know
animals can react to a death before it happens. So if they react then
it goes without saying that we as animals should possess the same
capabilities. I grew up with many superstitions from both my parents
and one was, if a dog howls three times, no more or less, a death in
the family will happen. We lived in Calif, at the time and we owned
samoyeds, pure white sled dogs. My mom bred them. Anyway one night
tonka, a male howled twice, my mom had jumped up and ran out and
stopped tonka from howling the third time so he actually howled 2 and
a half times. The next day we got a call, that my mom's uncle had
shot himself, while supposedly cleaning his rifle and instead of dying
instantly he lay in a coma for two weeks, which left everyone to
wonder if mom hadnt stopped tonka if he would of died right away,. He
lived in Missiouri. Now you can say well that was coincidence, but it
had happened before that tonka howled and the next day my great
grandma had died. So that is two coincidences about the same thing.
Many things like this happened within the family with the people
having dreams and then the dreams coming true after the fact. So I
would have to disagree based on actual experiences with predictions of
the future. You can change the outcome so I do not see how freewill is
factored into that analogy. I really cringe writing this I know people
will dismiss it and think I am a crack pot....

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 08:15, Dinesh <hgdin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello restless
>
> That mirror in mirror was my example I am sorry if I could not express
> myself clearly.
>
> Let me put it in another way (you may be aware of this) - a painting
> of a painter doing a  painting, when you zoom out it is a painting of
> a painting of a painting.... of a painter doing a painting. In my
> opinion prediction/ predeterminism is preceded by umpteen events of
> prediction. Logically prediction/ predeterminism is impossible.
>
> Dinesh
>

Predeterminism is simply cause and effect. And, yes, any given
effect can trace a heritage of causes and causes of causes.
Prediction, though, is an attempt to continue the chain of causes
FORWARD through time. And it is difficult, if not impossible, because
you can't, now, discover all of the causes of ANY future event due to
the complexity of our universe. Perfect prediction requires perfect
understanding of the present with respect to all bodies in motion.
That is far beyond human capacity, so our best science is still rife
with uncertainty. And, with respect to measuring the present, our
best scientists have demonstrated that we cannot avoid a certain
amount of uncertainty due to one of the design features of space-
time.
Since the Big Bang, all the effects from that cause are still
bouncing around and causing new effects across billions of light-years
of space and time. Perfect prediction would require us to perfectly
comprehend the energetic state of the universe. We can't. So, our
responsibility is to do the best we can and work with it to the best
of our abilities.

[restless]

Morning Pat
Thank you, lol. I was way off base but now from your explanation
understand fully what Dinesh meant.

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 09:11, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Morning Pat
> Thank you, lol. I was way off base but now from your explanation
> understand fully what Dinesh meant.
>

LOL!! That's only if I understood what he meant. ;-) I could have
passed on my perfect misunderstanding. But I hope not.

[restless]

Well I very much doubt that happening. Its funny though, you think you
are deciding for yourself about something but in reality that decision
{your decision} was already made. Its like when you decide what road
your going to turn down then something gets in the way preventing you
from going down that road, could be a sense that you should take the
next road or some kind of road block preventing you from doing so. I
feel everything happens for a reason whether we know why or not.
Usually though you eventually find out why later on. I have felt that
we all have our own personal freewill inside our minds. What we choose
to think and feel. We may not have freedom from external sources but
that our mind is ours to do with as we will. We make choices on how we
treat people and what kind of attitude we exhibit towards others. It
feels kinda like the blame game in as much as when we get the mindset
that if we have no freewill then it isnt our fault how we think and
feel. If I have a preset determined course I must follow then how I
treat others is all part of that predetermination.

[Pat]

Well, logically, it can be said that there is no doubt that the two
events were coincidental, as they occurred at the same time. But the
question is one of link. Are the two linked in any way? According to
my theory, everything is ultimately linked.
Nothing occurs without purpose, this is a truth derived from
cause and effect. I think, as we humans remove ourselves more and
more from the real natural world around us, we lose touch with many
aspects of it. The dog, however, is not touched by our technological
advances and social trappings to the same degree as we are and, so, is
more attuned to the REAL world. The REAL world tells us many things
if we choose to pay attention to it. We usually don't. But it's
unfair to think that the dog doesn't or can't.
With respect to the scientific aspects of the dog's discovery of
death, it's not remarkable at all if the dog is nearby. We know that
they can smell and hear many things that we can't. The dog could
easily pick up on the loss of breathing sound. And, as we all relax
when we die, there can be plenty of things to smell shortly
thereafter, as well.
The question of detecting death over greater distances would
require the dog to be FAR more attuned to what we would call the
spiritual aspect of Nature. Which is exactly what they should be if
they're not distracted by our technology and social constructs. The
questions become:
A) How strong was the emotional tie between the dog and the person
that died
and/or
B) How close, emotionally, was the dog to people who HAD close
emotional ties to the person who died.

If the dog is sensitive (and there is no evidence to the
contrary), it might pick up on the loss either way and react. Dogs
are very empathetic. Anyone who has lived with one from a puppy
should know (notice I didn't say 'owned'). A shaman would tell you
that there is no better guide on a trip through the dark night as a
Samoyed. They're not guard dogs, they're guide dogs--leading men
across the wilderness of the unknown. So why would we think that it
wouldn't also be able to guide us on the dark night of our soul (by
pointing out our loss)?

> On Jan 7, 10:28 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2:02 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose I am disappointed. My questioning was divided up with one
> > > part being if one believes in a higher power, the other if one does
> > > not. >
>
> > It is just the way it ought to be. Do all you, your faculties and
> > limbs, are capable of without any thought of any higher authority.
> > Comes the result, whatever it be, thank the higher authority.
>
> > Pat I thank you for answering but is it that simple. Looking in a
>
> > > mirror, looking in a mirror how does that actually imply free will. >
>
> > I thought Pat's position is that there is no free will ! ?
>
> > > Forgive me if I am being a bit thick. >
>

> > You are definitely not. In fact, you are one of the best, Restless !- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

You a crackpot ? No, ma'am, you are the best.

There's just one thing I would suggest you take care of : Change
( your belief system, for instance ) only when you feel true and ready
about the change, not because of someone else's or because someone
wants or expects you to.

I have great regard for most belief systems, the more traditional ones
in particular, even if I may have outgrown it all. A belief system is
wrongly dissected for its correctness or not ; instead, it should be
seen as a support system an individual could grow up in and, one day,
perhaps, outgrow it ... all at her / his own pace !

Have a great day !

> > You are definitely not. In fact, you are one of the best, Restless !- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

Little stories for the weak minded.

On Jan 5, 5:19 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding free will, I recall reading about the following incident in
> the life Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and his pupil, Swami Vivekananda :
>
> The two were debating ' free will ' from their respective positions :
> Ramakrishna, with his knowledge that God alone is not bound by His
> nature, and is therefore the only One with infinite free will ;  and
> Vivekananda, forever the scientifically inclined, stating that there
> is no free will anywhere, in God and the creature.

>
> During the debate, in a fit of intensity, Vivekananda challenged
> Ramakrishna, pointing to a creeper that grew only red - coloured
> flowers :  Will this plant grow white - coloured flowers ?
> Ramakrishna replied : Yes, if God wills.
>
> And, true enough, after a few days, a bunch of white flowers was found
> on the same creeper that, by its nature, was bound to grow only red -
> coloured flowers !
>
> The truth was, Ramakrishna's and God's will was no longer a one - way
> traffic ( from God's nature to the creature ) but had become two - way
> ( such as happens in true love, when the two are established in
> Oneness ). It's incredibly amazing, but true !
>

> Ramakrishna further explained : There is free will with individuals as
> well, but more in the manner of that of a sheep that is tethered to a
> fixed pole with a rope of finite length. The sheep will be free to
> move about but within a finite radius. So are humans situated.
>
> The further secret is : The ' length of the rope ' is flexible ( in
> material, mental and spiritual domains ) ,  and is as ' earned ' by
> the individual through choices and actions made, and resultant
> realisations acquired by the individual, in the respective domains !
>
> We each will awaken into the Truth Infinite, when our single - minded
> desire for It becomes infinite ( or, in pedantic terms, when our time
> is come ) !
>
> On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Jan, 06:38, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>

> >      You're absolutely correct.  Free will is an illusion caused by
> > not being able to predict the future because of the inherent
> > complexity of interconnectedness.  As Einstein's work linked space and
> > time to form a continuum, one thing about a continuum is it MUST
> > contain the entirety of past, present and future.  The continuum is
> > the lot.  There are no missing points in space-time.  So, that means
> > that, as you said, one thing follows on to the next.
> >      The future appears mutable because we never see all that goes
> > into it and we can't remember it.  The future is just as much a part
> > of the continuum as is the past and just as fixed as the past.  The
> > main difference is we have memory access to the past.  The space-time
> > continuum IS the stone in which everything is permanently written.
> > Our future is just waiting for us and there no other way to go.
> >      This is why it can be said that nothing happens outside the will
> > of Allah.  The 'body' of Allah IS that continuum and, as there is
> > nothing else BUT Allah, all things flow according to His deeds, some
> > of which we see as ours.  It is through the geometry of the space-time
> > continuum that Allah easily maintains His Omnipresence, Omnipotence
> > and Omniscience.  When you look at the universe as One (space-time
> > continuum) which is 'All there is', the 3 Os are easier to comprehend.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 10:32, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Little stories for the weak minded.
>

Or meat for the soul. It's not your fault that, spiritually, you're a
vegetarian. ;-)

[Vamadevananda]

If you wish to know why you're the best, just read your own post
( especially the latter half ) !

The human challenge lies in the art of negotiating through that
inscrutable grey vastness between ALL and NOTHING. That's where the
more high - sounding ( read educated and vocally righteous ) and smart
( read intelligent and shallowly witty ) fail to walk the talk, at
being strong and happy as far as one can and giving strength and
happiness to others as much as one may.

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 10:39, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 10:32, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Little stories for the weak minded.
>
> Or meat for the soul.  It's not your fault that, spiritually, you're a
> vegetarian. ;-)
>

And before you misconstrue that, that's not to imply you have no
soul, but, rather that you do not thrive on informations presented in
that form. And, yes, I DO feel as though I have to spell it out to
you.

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 09:31, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I very much doubt that happening. Its funny though, you think you
> are deciding for yourself about something but in reality that decision
> {your decision} was already made.

Yes. It is. But that's the way it is. Truth IS stranger than
fiction.

>Its like when you decide what road
> your going to turn down then something gets in the way preventing you
> from going down that road, could be a sense that you should take the
> next road or some kind of road block preventing you from doing so. I
> feel everything happens for a reason whether we know why or not.

And, of that, you can rest assured.

> Usually though you eventually find out why later on. I have felt that
> we all have our own personal freewill inside our minds. What we choose
> to think and feel. We may not have freedom from external sources but
> that our mind is ours to do with as we will. We make choices on how we
> treat people and what kind of attitude we exhibit towards others. It
> feels kinda like the blame game in as much as when we get the mindset
> that if we have no freewill then it isnt our fault how we think and
> feel. If I have a preset determined course I must follow then how I
> treat others is all part of that predetermination.
>

Yes, but here's the empowering bit. When you understand that
when you decide, it IS God's decision. You are THAT. The choices you
make are the choices that God makes, and exactly when and where and
how He makes them. As there is no difference between that part of you
that decides and that part of God that decides, there can be no
blame. There is no 'Other' to blame.

[chazwin]

On Jan 8, 5:59 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 02:11, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree utterly. But there is a real problem for those that want to
> > beleive in redemption. The messianic religions hold that to have
> > salavation you must freely choose to follow the path of god (whatever
> > that is). If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all present   a pan-
> > omni being, then god knows who will die a sinner even before they were
> > created by him. Indeed he will have created every sinner and saved
> > person. So then where is my free choice?
>
> Spot on so far.
>
> > If god has made me, then he has made me the sort of person who thinks
> > that god does not exist and he knows that I will die rejecting his
> > existence.  
>
> Yup, so far so good.
>
> >His offer of salvation is therefore a lie.
>
>      Whoops, fell at the final hurdle.  The Christian concept of
> salvation does not necessarily stem from God.  Their concept of
> salvation is borne out of interpreting scriptures in favour of a man's
> argument.  God, the real one (not the one you rebel against), isn't
> interested in savings like these.  He's invented conservation of
> energy and that applies to all levels of energy throughout the
> universe.

Another fool who claims to know the mind of god! Please spare us!
None of this answers the position I posed above. It does not come
near. You energy stuff is pure gibberish.
How are we to distinguish between your understading of god and that of
a suicide bomber?

>
> > The only conclusion is that either god is a lesser being, or he does
> > not exist, or that his "promises" are false.
>
>      Or, that you've confused (yet again) truth with man's dogma and
> can't separate the two.  Man's promises (those invented dogmas of
> salvation) MAY be false; try not to confuse those with God.  God
> doesn't really promise, He just acts.  And you can always be sure that
> it is God that is acting, as there is nothing else.

There is nothing at all.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Jan 8, 10:39 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 10:32, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Little stories for the weak minded.
>
> Or meat for the soul.  It's not your fault that, spiritually, you're a
> vegetarian. ;-)

Indeed not my fault that I will be damned in hell forever.

[frantheman]

Right on, Pat. Of course everything is connected to everything else.
And cause and effect combine in complex chains whose results go on
influencing each other right into the wonderful complexity of chaos
theory with myriad Lorenz attractors and butterfly effects.

Is everything predetermined? From the point of view of your monist
panentheist God it may be. But that's not our point of view - it is,
and remains incomprehensible for us. From OUR point of view (and
that's always our starting point), we do have free will - more or
less. Otherwise it would be pointless to discuss issues like
responsibility and morality.

It is of course true that our personal histories and individual
situations limit our freedom to choose and may, in some circumstances,
exclude freedom completely. Neuroses, for example, (and, like caries
bacteria, nearly everyone has them) can make the exercise of free
choice in particular situations difficult, right up to the point where
some people who suffer from compulsive disorders have, in some
explicit situations, no freedom at all. One could, however, argue that
if they are aware of their disorder, then they do have the
responsibility for ensuring, as far as possible, that they do not land
in situations where their actions become determined rather than freely
chosen (if these actions are going to cause harm to themselves or
others). Being adult means taking responsibility for yourself and your
actions (that's the other side of the freedom coin).

Like most things in life, it's not a black or white situation, but all
part of the great grey area which is life. Neuroses (and psychoses -
their evil big brothers) are not just individual, they may also be
communal, societal. Prophets are people who point out their existence
- and generally come to nasty ends as a result.

> > - Show quoted text -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 11:18, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Right on, Pat. Of course everything is connected to everything else.
> And cause and effect combine in complex chains whose results go on
> influencing each other right into the wonderful complexity of chaos
> theory with myriad Lorenz attractors and butterfly effects.
>

Agreed.

> Is everything predetermined? From the point of view of your monist
> panentheist God it may be. But that's not our point of view - it is,
> and remains incomprehensible for us. From OUR point of view (and
> that's always our starting point), we do have free will - more or
> less. Otherwise it would be pointless to discuss issues like
> responsibility and morality.
>

Also agreed. Which is why I've said that my theory offers no
advantages. It doesn't offer salvation, it demands responsibility.
Because we have no access to the future, we are fated to make it up as
we go along. The illusion of that free will is that, as you rightly
said, is completely predetermined from the point of view of the whole
(God), but, as we are trapped in a chronological sequence OF that
whole, our choices appear completely and utterly free to us. There is
no way out of that illusion, as it is a perfect ploy. This is a God
that demands that we save ourselves (from whatever dangers that we
perceive to threaten our existence) by acting responsibly to the best
of our abilities.

> It is of course true that our personal histories and individual
> situations limit our freedom to choose and may, in some circumstances,
> exclude freedom completely. Neuroses, for example, (and, like caries
> bacteria, nearly everyone has them) can make the exercise of free
> choice in particular situations difficult, right up to the point where
> some people who suffer from compulsive disorders have, in some
> explicit situations, no freedom at all. One could, however, argue that
> if they are aware of their disorder, then they do have the
> responsibility for ensuring, as far as possible, that they do not land
> in situations where their actions become determined rather than freely
> chosen (if these actions are going to cause harm to themselves or
> others). Being adult means taking responsibility for yourself and your
> actions (that's the other side of the freedom coin).
>

Exactly. I say that God wants us to act like adults rather than
come to Him as little children. But, that He would want us to come to
Him as little children (in order to be taught to respond like an
adult!) rather than not to come to Him at all.

> Like most things in life, it's not a black or white situation, but all
> part of the great grey area which is life. Neuroses (and psychoses -
> their evil big brothers) are not just individual, they may also be
> communal, societal. Prophets are people who point out their existence
> - and generally come to nasty ends as a result.
>

Whoopsie! I hope that's not reflective on me. I usually find
that modern day prophets point out the ills but then say 'change'
without ever saying HOW to change. The old prophets got killed
because they stated how to change and the audience didn't like the
message, so they killed the messenger. Mt message, if I have one, is
empathy. If we all really cared for one another and acted
accordingly, we could gain so much so quickly. For example, the fact
that I'm unemployed in a world where there are innumerable things to
do is ridiculous. There should be a place I go to, sign up and get
reappointed to an employer who requires my skills. But the employment
agencies are not working together, much less in cooperation with the
Government. The parts are all there but the system is uncoordinated.
It's like connecting up a bunch of body parts and expecting them to
work as a unit. Dr. Frankenstein's society has no 'spark of life' to
make it whole.
Empathy is a unifying force that requires compassion and an
understanding of ourselves, our environment and our relationship TO
that environment and others in it. First we need to cultivate
compassion, then empathy will come. With empathy in our hearts, we
can strive towards a form of humanity of which we would all be proud.
With empathy, we would understand the value of our differences and
utilise them to our best advantage. With empathy and modern
technology, there is no excuse for war nor famine nor unemployment.
We don't lack the technology but humans lack the empathy at the
moment.
But how can the world be driven (safely) to the point where
everyone recognises the requirement for compassion in our actions?
Coming up with a theory that unifies the natural forces is one thing,
coming up with a philosophy to unite mankind on an emotional and
spiritual level is something else.

> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

How about by seeing that I'm not wearing a bomb. You've stepped
back into rudeness again. I don't mind that you don't agree, really.
But that doesn't make me a fool nor my work gibberish nor does it mean
I'm a suicide bomber. For that matter, if I WAS a suicide bomber with
their world view, I wouldn't be calling for compassion and empathy,
now would I?

>
>
> > > The only conclusion is that either god is a lesser being, or he does
> > > not exist, or that his "promises" are false.
>
> >      Or, that you've confused (yet again) truth with man's dogma and
> > can't separate the two.  Man's promises (those invented dogmas of
> > salvation) MAY be false; try not to confuse those with God.  God
> > doesn't really promise, He just acts.  And you can always be sure that
> > it is God that is acting, as there is nothing else.
>
> There is nothing at all.
>

If there is nothing at all, then you do not exist. Is that your
contention?

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 11:12, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 10:39 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jan, 10:32, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Little stories for the weak minded.
>
> > Or meat for the soul.  It's not your fault that, spiritually, you're a
> > vegetarian. ;-)
>
> Indeed not my fault that I will be damned in hell forever.
>

Indeed not. Nor any of us, for that matter. I believe in the
possibility of an afterlife, true, but it's not the typical Heaven and/
or Hell that has grown up from organisations. It would be more like
how we experience our dreams but completely lucidly. And, of course,
in our dreams, sometimes we might dream we're in heaven and sometimes
we might dream we're in hell. If the dream, though, is completely
lucid, we can just leave that hell and go somplace we'd rather be.

[Lonlaz]

Looks like I'm joining this party late, missed a couple of fistfights
already.

The free will question is one of those things that in the past would
drive me insane with trying to find an answer. I don't see any
practical reason to ask the question. Even those who believe
everything is predetermined, either by God or by physics, still make
their choices every day.

In truth, I Believe in free will, although I think there are few times
in people lives where they truely have it. I feel there is a
connection between being a better person and achieving the ability to
exercise free will. One way to achieve free will is to be able to
pull away from the system that you are trapped in, and this requires
an intimate awareness of yourself and of the workings of the world
around you.

The way is to nullfy those forces that push your decisions one way or
another, internal and external. It could be looked at as a form of
meditation.

[Pat]

On 8 Jan, 16:43, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like I'm joining this party late, missed a couple of fistfights
> already.
>

LOL!! Fisticuffs at over fifty paces is a rough art. ;-)

> The free will question is one of those things that in the past would
> drive me insane with trying to find an answer.  I don't see any
> practical reason to ask the question.  Even those who believe
> everything is predetermined, either by God or by physics, still make
> their choices every day.
>

Yup!

> In truth, I Believe in free will, although I think there are few times
> in people lives where they truely have it.  I feel there is a
> connection between being a better person and achieving the ability to
> exercise free will.  One way to achieve free will is to be able to
> pull away from the system that you are trapped in, and this requires
> an intimate awareness of yourself and of the workings of the world
> around you.
>
> The way is to nullfy those forces that push your decisions one way or
> another, internal and external.  It could be looked at as a form of
> meditation.

I'd rephrase that as a form of Yoga, but, yes. This is the idea
behind losing attachment. It is our attachment to the transient that
often keeps us from seeing the bigger picture.

[restless]

morning Pat
the answer is the dog did not know or come into contact with my great
uncle. The other is that my great grandma and great uncle were on
either side of the parents and not at the same time two years apart.
The last is that yes my parents were close to their relatives.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[restless]

Morning Vam
I understand what your saying about finding the meaning on my own
which is what I am attempting to do. I do not have a set ideology yet.
I am having trouble grasping how people would care about morality and
ethics if there is no higher being to answer to. What difference does
it make how I act and treat others when everyone recieves the same
ending. What purpose is there to choose not to be evil or another word
bad. Why would I have a conscience, why set up rules. If laws are set
up to prevent chaos and annilation of the species that still would not
stop people doing heinous acts at every turn, if they know they wont
get caught. What purpose would it serve me to be faithful to a spouse
etc. Cheating, lying, stealing, has no punishment really. If I see
everyone else doing all these things and I dont, yet we all have the
same consequences at the end of the day how does it profit me from not
doing them. Having a soul would be meaningless. I have a problem with
Pats concept of his God in that respect. We all have the same end
there too. I always felt that was the purpose and point of being set
apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. For they do what they are
born to do without regard to consequences there is no fear on the part
of animals they do not ponder their death and what is beyond for there
is no point to wonder. So if all we do is for naught except to leave
to our children if even that comes into the equasion. Basically
everything we do is meaningless. Working and striving for a better
future and attempting to be a better person and pass those qualities
onto our offspring, what for? How does it matter if we are all
connected on another level if all get the same in the end. I suppose
this is baggage I carry from the Bible. I want to believe there is
more than just what we get here on earth because what we get here
seems so pointless in the scheme of things. I feel we are redundant if
all is for naught, a pointless exercise in futility. To say that we
should want to achieve inner peace and strive to be the best we can
seems a waste of energy. I dont know what I am really trying to say
here.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lonlaz]

I understand where you a coming from, you are rebuilding yourself from
zero. This can take years to do. It's not enough to know *a* answer,
you really do have to find out for yourself and come to terms with
something that you can make a part of yourself.

I had, and still have the same questions that you have. This is an
off-topic post, but an obviously important one. We spend so much time
talking about 'reality', and truth that we can be blind to things that
are self-evident. We *are* alive, because of or despite (I'm going
with because of) evolution. You *do* know there are 'good' things and
'bad' things, whether others agree with you, and whether maybe they
aren't the same as the 'good' and 'bad' you were taught as a child.
You also *know* that you need meaning.

If life seems empty and scary without all of these things, don't throw
them away, build around them. Don't let people tell you that they
aren't real.

[archytas]

The world is in madness Francis. I've been wondering what Abdullah
found in his two-year quest. I got quite a lot from his start and
wonder if there is more in his experience he could let us know? I've
noticed that when I've jsut been through something that apparently
needed courage and free decision from me that my actions were actually
very determined as I am not free of a sense of justice and
responsibility to it. In another time frame I choose to be like this.

Neil

[frantheman]

Lisa, like Lonlaz, I too understand where you're coming from, having
been there myself too. There are a couple of questions I would like to
pose, which may help to see things a bit more clearly.

Do we need God to give meaning to life? I don't think so. I believe we
find ourselves as human beings in our world and it's up to us to give
ourselves our own meaning. This is, in one way, much more difficult
than accepting that some "Great Other" has the answers and reveals
them to us in one religion or another. But, in another way, it means
that we take responsibility for ourselves and our world, for our
actions and our conduct. If there is no heaven or hell, no
"rapture" (a very strange concept, that one), no divine sorting things
out in the end, that means that what each individual does REALLY
counts, because that's all we have. And if we individually and
collectively screw up, then our individual lives and the possibility
of human life on this planet goes down the tubes.

Is morality based on fear of divine, eternal punishment or the hope of
divine, eternal reward? That seems to be a fairly low basis for basing
morality on. I would rather see the basis of any morality as being in
our understanding of what it means to be human, what we need to live
happy, fulfilled lives. Laws, the enforcement and breaking of them,
are much shallower things (even if they are necessary sometimes). They
are what a society needs so that people can live together with a
minimum of security, basically, in most modern societies, the
inalienable right to life and the security of property. The root of
most laws can be found in the two age-old prescriptions; you shall not
(arbitrarily) kill, and you shall not (arbitrarily) take for your own
what belongs (whatever that means!) to others. If you do, you'll be
punished.

Do we need God to give a foundation to our sense of justice? The three
great monotheistic religions get a lot of their appeal from this
question. If you see the wicked prosper, if you see the poor and the
weak being oppressed, then, don't worry, God will make sure that, in
the afterlife at least, everyone gets their just desserts. But what if
he doesn't? From my point of view, it's up to US to work for justice,
for fairness here and now. Because if we don't, then it won't happen.
And then, all those who suffered, really suffered in vain. After all,
it wasn't God who stopped the Nazis in the end, it was the allied
forces. And if the civilized, moral people in the world in the 1930s
had been clearer, stronger, better informed and more determined, then
the suffering might possibly have been a lot less. As Edmund Burke,
the 18th. Century British statesman is purported to have said - "The
only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do
nothing." Or, to take another example, from a certain point of view
you could say that God caused the Tsunami of 2004, humans had the
technology to prevent the great loss of life (early warning systems
etc.) but had failed to take the necessary preventative action
beforehand.

For me, the basis for finding meaning in life, for developing
morality, for discerning the ramifications of true justice lies in the
study/contemplation of what it means to be human. We have the capacity
for terrible things, but also the capacity for wonderful greatness.
The ultimate answer that mountain climbers give when asked why they
want to climb a mountain is,"Because it's there." The answer, for me
to the question as to why people continue to strive to do good, is
because that's what humans, at their best, do. It may not be rewarded
with eternal life, but the nobility (to use an old-fashioned word) of
that striving gives me meaning enough (and more) for living.

Francis

[archytas]

God just doesn't get into my equations, a note that will have some
scurrying to project I live my life as an equation automaton with no
feelings. It can feel remarkably good to know yopu will do the right
thing if you can. However, I think this debate is far too dignified
in terms of what makes us do stuff. Thee are times when you have to
crawl to Nazis in order to be able to do anything about them later.
Most people's performance as leaders strongly indicates free will is
screwed very easily by the sniff of power _ I can't really believe
Blair and the rest really want to be such shits.

Neil

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

Pat, I'd read your most recent posts last evening, something I
normally do not do ( when the day ends, all work, including my laptop,
comes to close ).

And I was truly uplifted by your eloquence and clarity, and spent the
night blissfully basking in your unified vision ! It is indeed that
the Goddess of Knowledge and Wisdom has settled upon your mind and
speech ! ! I felt proud of you ! ! !

[Vamadevananda]

Restless, the secret touchstone or talisman lies in your own heart !

I am good because goodness is in the very nature of my self. I treat
others with respect because I respect myself. I make others strong
because it gives me strength. I love others because I am love itself.
I try to give happiness to others because it makes me happy. I speak
the truth because truth is my nature. I try not to hurt people because
I do not wish to hurt myself. I stand with the opposition because I
find it my duty to oppose the untruth, the hurtful and unjust
conduct ... and so on.

If I derive my ethics and values from anywhere external to me, I will
be a ' thing ' driven by the other, and the ethics and values will not
truly be mine.

[Dinesh]

On Jan 8, 1:51 pm, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Morning Vam
> I thank you for the lovely compliment. I definitely feel overwhelmed
> at times with all the depth and insight you and some of the others
> possess it can be formidable. But I enjoy reading what you all have to
> say immensely.

I agree restless. I too am awed at times by the depth, I had initially
joined this group under the name ANANDANAND, I thought since there is
one Vamdevanand another would be ok, but I assume that was one too
many so I left the group. After coming across a lot of silly and
perverted stuff I thought better of it and renamed myself and joined
back. As Neil has pointed out at least these discussions will not do
me any harm.(When one is nearer to the end than the beginning it is
good to keep away from harm)
Vambhai, koi gehera raaz ho to hamein bhi batao (Vam if there is any
deep secret let me/us in on it)

Dinesh

[Pat]

On 9 Jan, 03:33, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat, I'd read your most recent posts last evening, something I
> normally do not do ( when the day ends, all work, including my laptop,
> comes to close ).
>
> And I was truly uplifted by your eloquence and clarity, and spent the
> night blissfully basking in your unified vision !  It is indeed that
> the Goddess of Knowledge and Wisdom has settled upon your mind and
> speech ! !  I felt proud of you ! ! !
>

Funnily enough, I went to bed last night hoping that there would
be one person who might be uplifted. So, it seems that Devi Saraswati
must be with us both. Perhaps this was aided by my having visited
(two days ago, now) a nature reserve (in my local area) that is
situated between the two forks of my local river. It is, essentially,
an island in the river and lies in a direct line between my house and
the stone circle now known as 'The Devil's Quoits', which is the
nearest ancient Celtic place of worship to where I live. I went to
offer thanks to the world for giving me the things I have. It seemed
symbolic to me to go to the place where two flow into one. And, of
course, who is that can be called 'the one who flows'?
The world is far subtler than we think. Thanks, Vam; it's great
to know, so quickly, that prayers are answered. All the best!!

> On Jan 8, 10:22 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8 Jan, 16:43, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Looks like I'm joining this party late, missed a couple of fistfights
> > > already.
>
> > LOL!!  Fisticuffs at over fifty paces is a rough art. ;-)
>
> > > The free will question is one of those things that in the past would
> > > drive me insane with trying to find an answer.  I don't see any
> > > practical reason to ask the question.  Even those who believe
> > > everything is predetermined, either by God or by physics, still make
> > > their choices every day.
>
> > Yup!
>
> > > In truth, I Believe in free will, although I think there are few times
> > > in people lives where they truely have it.  I feel there is a
> > > connection between being a better person and achieving the ability to
> > > exercise free will.  One way to achieve free will is to be able to
> > > pull away from the system that you are trapped in, and this requires
> > > an intimate awareness of yourself and of the workings of the world
> > > around you.
>
> > > The way is to nullfy those forces that push your decisions one way or
> > > another, internal and external.  It could be looked at as a form of
> > > meditation.
>
> >      I'd rephrase that as a form of Yoga, but, yes.  This is the idea
> > behind losing attachment.  It is our attachment to the transient that

> > often keeps us from seeing the bigger picture.- Hide quoted text -

[Sun-Tzu]

As-Salamu alaykum My friend,
I like you have pondered such questions for a great number of my
years,
so i too do not come to my conclusions' lightly,
nether am i burdened by them.

Is free will a Farce? Mere mind and eye candy for the placation of our
very
individuality; This is the very question that has plagued me for a
number a year,
because its roots are many and just as deep.
One can ask are we truly free to begin with, i would ask those would
would ask
such, what is the meaning of freedom?
Can one that's been enslaved the sum total of there lives truly know
what freedom is,
especially when the idea of freedom is enslavement itself?

To go even farther if i may, does a name make you even more of a slave
to
humanity, for that matter does the need to be an individual hinder
your freedom?


I think our choices are our undoing. I do believe that we are set a
path of choices,
that path is liken unto a tree and when a branch on that tree fails to
grow, one sprouts
elsewhere to make do for the lose, so in that explained way i believe
that choice is
unfettered by divine decision, therefore choice will always be free as
long as you
live in your moment and not the moment you have been raised to live
in.

But!!! as i always say give me a few moments i'm sure ill change my
mind.

[Pat]

Movement is one of the signs of life. Therefore, a living mind
must also move and change. A refusal to respect the requirement for
movement and change will force us to stagnate.

[archytas]

OMG a Upanishad uprising is afoot - careful folks, they'll call out
the militia! Member of the 5th Column Utilitarian Rifles myself.
Much more of this uplifting and you guys will get a writ from the
makers of Wonderbra.

Neil

[Lee]

Is free will real or an illusion.

Try choosing to ponder on some other question for a week, and then
come back to the question of free will.

Did you manage not to ponder free will for a whole week? Did your
mind wonder towards the question again? What stratergies did you use
to not think about free will? Did you choose to do all of this or, is
it all a consequence of your life upto and including this point?

When asking is freewill real, you really need to define what you
mean.

Free will, yes of course it is real. choose to do something and then
before you actually get to doing it, choose to not do it; then do it
anyway.

You have control over what direction your thoughts go in, and so you
have control over what actions you take. Is this not free will?

On 9 Jan, 10:14, Sun-Tzu <cakoehle...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dale Spear]

Lee, would that be like deciding to not like
chocolate? Now, I suppose that I just decide to not
like chocolate anymore. But, I don't want to not like
chocolate, so how do I begin? Just decide, I guess.
But I don't want to .......

--- Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Lee]

[Lee]

Naaaa I get ya meaning. There are indeed somethings that we seem to
have no choice in, and I guess that our genetics has a hand to play in
that.

There is a difference though in not being able to decide not to like
chocolate, and deciding whether or not to eat that bar.

Like I say, the problem with free will comes in the defining of the
phrase. If you mean the 'freedom' to do as I 'will' then you are
certainly free to choose whether or not to eat that chocolate bar,
even if you are not free to choose to dislike it.

On 9 Jan, 14:56, Dale Spear <dsp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Lonlaz]

Heh, this is precisely how I decided to like beer. I decided that it
would be slightly easier for my 'social life' if I drank beer. I
didn't like beer, at all. I drank beer regularly for 6 months, now I
love beer, in fact, I'm a bit of a beer snob.

A person could talk themselves into NOT liking something even easier,
people do that with themselves everyday, mostly stuff that they can't
have anyway.

[Globoin]

The attitude of the actor makes that actor free or not: a wonderful
maxim from a number of movies. Well, why not? If the set of
variables that cause us to be what and where we are in our mortal view
of this space-time continuum thing, has set for us a pre-destined
response then we are not free. Ok, I can go with that - but I don't
believe that it is true. It is equally valid to argue that the net of
the experiences in our lives creates in us the opportunity to choose.
Agency can not exist without opposition as well as the freedom to
choose. I doubt that any of us really can conceive what it would be
like to be self-aware and have no ability to choose our actions.
Rather scary - all we can do is CHOOSE to give our ability to act away
or to retain it. If we choose to retain it - then we are free.

I do write from the perspective of a Christian who believes that God's
'tweaking' of the universe effects man in a very intentional and
deliberate way - I do not believe that this pre-destines because the
entire purpose of life is to learn to act and the consequences -
natural being divide from divine consequences. The hampster-wheel or
mouse maze theory of existence stands up to a scienticif model but not
to faith.

[Pat]

On 9 Jan, 15:26, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, this is precisely how I decided to like beer.  I decided that it
> would be slightly easier for my 'social life' if I drank beer.  I
> didn't like beer, at all.  I drank beer regularly for 6 months, now I
> love beer, in fact, I'm a bit of a beer snob.
>

I bet you like your beer cold, though. Over here, in the UK,
that doesn't work. Beer is room temperature...maybe cool, but rarely
cold. And you DO get more flavour out of it. Careful, though. As
you have quite a bit of 'Native American' in you from your Mexican
heritage, you may have the 'type-A Alcoholic' gene. If so, then your
brain would, in the presence of alcohol, produce the same chemicals
that others would if they took heroin. This is how 'fire water'
helped destroy the Native Americans. Pehaps mescal and it's
derivitives might suit you better.

> >       ___________________________________________________________________________­_________

> > Be a better friend, newshound, and

> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ- Hide quoted text -

[Lonlaz]

Pat wrote:
> On 9 Jan, 15:26, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heh, this is precisely how I decided to like beer. �I decided that it
> > would be slightly easier for my 'social life' if I drank beer. �I
> > didn't like beer, at all. �I drank beer regularly for 6 months, now I
> > love beer, in fact, I'm a bit of a beer snob.
> >
>
> I bet you like your beer cold, though. Over here, in the UK,
> that doesn't work. Beer is room temperature...maybe cool, but rarely
> cold. And you DO get more flavour out of it. Careful, though. As
> you have quite a bit of 'Native American' in you from your Mexican
> heritage, you may have the 'type-A Alcoholic' gene. If so, then your
> brain would, in the presence of alcohol, produce the same chemicals
> that others would if they took heroin. This is how 'fire water'
> helped destroy the Native Americans. Pehaps mescal and it's
> derivitives might suit you better.

I don't automatically prefer my beer cold, but there's not many other
ways to have it here when you order a pint. I did try to drink a
Guinness at home cold from the bottle, that was horrible, and it's one
of my favorite beers. Now I'm sure to let it warm up and breath in a
glass.

Nah, I'm not genetically predisposed to alchoholism. I tend to cut
myself off before anyone else. I'm pretty sensitive to being
'chemically imbalanced', no matter what the 'chemical' is.

What's the brew of choice over there? I've had a few products of
England, I'm a fan of Boddington's, myself. Hmm, I'm remembering the
name Bluebird as something I was fond of as well.

[Pat]

Over here, there's quite a variety. There are breweries dotted
all over the place, offering up their wares. Here in Witney, our
local brewery is 'The Wychwood Brewery'. In fact, I walked past it
for the very first time today. The smell was absolutely gorgeous.
The waft of hops and grain so heavy you could feel full from just the
scent of it. They specialise in all kinds of ales, dark to light, and
are the UK's largest manufacturer of organic beers. Hobgoblin (a ruby
ale) and Brakspear (a double dropped bitter) are their main products.
But they also make Black Wych (a dark ale, about 80%, if Guinness'
standard is put at 100%), Wychcraft, Circle Master (a pale ale),
Goliath, BeeWyched (a honeyed ale, so it's kind of mead-like),
Fiddler's Elbow (a strong ale) and Green Goblin (their cider).
That just the rundown on my local brewery. And there are over
600 breweries in the UK. I love the variety and, because of it, have
found it difficult to find a true favourite. I do like Hobgoblin but,
so far, the beer that has appealed to me the most has been Courage's
Best Bitter. The whole Courage line is pretty good, though. Their
'Director's Bitter' and 'Director's Winter Warmer' are really
flavourful and reasonably strong for ales.
But, then, I grew up in a beer town, St. Louis, home of Anheuser
Busch. I never did like Budweiser; and Busch, as they say, was like
making love in a canoe. Their best lager, by far, is Michelob. But
their best beer, in my opinion, is Michelob Dark; unfortunately, I've
never seen a bottle of it in this country. That said, it's no great
loss. When I was back in the States, my favourite beer was Heineken
Dark, which, as fate would have it, you ALSO can't find a bottle of in
this country. Regular old Heineken, the lager, yes, but not the dark
variety. And that IS a loss. But there are plenty of alternatives,
that's for sure.

[Lonlaz]

That sounds awesome. We are lucky to live in a town that has a great
local brewery, Empyrean Ales. I'm partial to their Third Stone Brown
Ale and Dark Side Vanilla Porter. There aren't near enough
microbreweries here, but the beer industry is slowly rebounding.

Empyrean Ales has a free monthly tour where they have 'samples' (20oz
glasses) of their current seasonal brews, and smaller samples of beers
on whatever their theme is. Monday night was 'High Octane Winter
Beer', I discovered something I need to follow up on, a beer from
Belgium called Duval. You European guys have it good, could make a
beer run to Germany if you like.

Honestly, I've never had Heineken, or Heineken Dark. I'll have to see
if they have it around here.

[frantheman]

If you ever visit Amsterdam, you can do a tour of the Heineken
brewery, with generous samples of the product. I remember (most of)
it, with fondness, from my drinking days!

[Pat]

On 10 Jan, 00:11, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> If you ever visit Amsterdam, you can do a tour of the Heineken
> brewery, with generous samples of the product. I remember (most of)
> it, with fondness, from my drinking days!
>

LOL!! There are many pleasurable times to be had in Amsterdam,
I'm sure. My problem with drinking is that, when I do, which isn't
very often, I binge. I think there were two times that I drank
alcohol in 2007 and I can't really tell you more than that. ;-)

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/7/08, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If god has made me, then he has made me the sort of person who thinks
that god does not exist and he knows that I will die rejecting his
existence.  His offer of salvation is therefore a lie.
The only conclusion is that either god is a lesser being, or he does
not exist, or that his "promises" are false.

There is another conclusion...

 

It is not God's offer that is providing the issue...

You can't judge the truth by the man who proclaims to know it.  You can only judge the man

by the truth as you understand it.   

 

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/8/08, Dinesh <hgdi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me put it in another way (you may be aware of this) - a painting
of a painter doing a  painting, when you zoom out it is a painting of
a painting of a painting.... of a painter doing a painting. In my
opinion prediction/ predeterminism is preceded by umpteen events of
prediction. Logically prediction/ predeterminism is impossible.


That conclusion seems illogical to me.  There seems to be something missing between the analogy and the conclusion.  Could you elaborate or possibly explain it in a different way.

Thanks

Salaams

 

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/8/08, Lonlaz <lonla...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Even those who believe
everything is predetermined, either by God or by physics, still make
their choices every day.

I agree that we all make choices everyday.  But the thing is that there are no free-standing choices.  I don't think I have the words necessary for the depth of what I'm trying to say. 

One way to achieve free will is to be able to
pull away from the system that you are trapped in, and this requires
an intimate awareness of yourself and of the workings of the world
around you.

 

But what you know about yourself, how you understand yourself, and any choice you make regarding any system that you are a part of... all these things are relative to every change that you have ever experienced.  Every cause is an effect and every effect is a cause.  A drop of water sliding down a wall will follow the same path every time if all things are equal.  The mind is no different, and is governed by the same principle.  If you could go back in time a couple of days, and choose not to post a message.  Your choice to do things differently would be conditioned by what has happened here.  Any time one chooses to go against what he/she wants to do, even that is based upon something.

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/8/08, Vamadevananda <atewa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pat, I'd read your most recent posts last evening, something I
normally do not do ( when the day ends, all work, including my laptop,
comes to close ).

And I was truly uplifted by your eloquence and clarity, and spent the
night blissfully basking in your unified vision !  It is indeed that
the Goddess of Knowledge and Wisdom has settled upon your mind and
speech ! !  I felt proud of you ! ! !

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed everyone's responses.  This kind of unfolded discussion is what makes this group special.

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/9/08, Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    Movement is one of the signs of life.  Therefore, a living mind
must also move and change.  A refusal to respect the requirement for
movement and change will force us to stagnate.

Good thought Pat.  And movement is a synonomous with finiteness.

 

[archytas]

The Boddingtons' story could well be a classic in lack of free will.
In my youth this was a fine beer, brewed in Manchester at the
Strangeways Brewery near the prison. It was truly the cream of
Manchester, though by the time it was advertised as such was being
brewed in Wales. Boddies was clear (usually - it was occasionally
hazed), ljght straw-coloured and went down a treat, nurtured by
landlords who racked, tapped and vented. It was also cheaper than big
brewers' muck. Now it's clapped out, dark, pasturised muck, thanks to
Whitbread. No number of micro-breweries is going to replace what
Boddies once was. No one I drink with wanted any of this to happen,
yet it did.

Neil

On Jan 4, 6:38 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> salaams everybody!
> I hope the new year has started well for everyone.
> I noticed some discussions recently concerning the idea of free will.
> I believe it is one that we should delve deeply into.  I am not one
> given to arbirtary or inherited beliefs.  I spent two years meditating
> on free will.  The idea presented itself as an obstacle on my
> spiritual journey.  I had inherently believed in it but belief is not
> the same thing as understanding.  The conclusion that I arrived at
> troubled me deeply but after a long period of time I could find no way
> out of the well of truth that I had climbed down into.
> There is no thing free-standing.  Everything has a relative
> existence.  Every'thing' is in perpetual motion.  Every'thing' is
> absolutely predicated.
> After a lengthy period of meditation, I had moved from watching the
> paths of things outside of myself to the movements of my own mind.
> They were analogous.  Planets, stars, the leaves in the trees, the
> flight of a hawk... every movement, every change absolutely predicated
> and in perpetual motion.  Every thought, emotion, choices... there was
> no thing free-standing... only perpetual rivers of change, all
> connected and unfolding as if one sublime thought.  I went 'down' in
> my mind to 'the smallest'... I went 'out' in my mind to the largest.
> That doesn't mean that we are free from responsibility in our
> choices.  Because we do have choices.  I am simply saying that those
> choices are wholly predicated.  Choices can be predicated upon 'fear
> of consequence'.  And in a universe established upon balance, I would
> have to say that even our own selves must balance out.
> Now, you guys know me and can trust that I truly believe what I say I
> believe.  But you know I am not asking for my ideas to be written in
> stone.  I would love for these things to be debated.  Let's get
> carried away!

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/10/08, Abdullah Abd' Badi <aswat.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/7/08, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com > wrote:

If god has made me, then he has made me the sort of person who thinks
that god does not exist and he knows that I will die rejecting his
existence.  His offer of salvation is therefore a lie.
The only conclusion is that either god is a lesser being, or he does
not exist, or that his "promises" are false.

Don't get me wrong, though.  I believe in punishment and reward in the afterlife.  I just believe that it is perfectly measure.  I mean, there are people living the good life, now... and there are those suffering unimaginable hardship.  The universe is built upon balance.  There is a big difference between everlasting and eternal.  One ends when time ends, and the other is synonomous with timelessness.

 

[Vamadevananda]

That * something * is introduced by the presence of alternates, to
choose from !

On Jan 10, 11:26 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/8/08, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Even those who believe
> > everything is predetermined, either by God or by physics, still make
> > their choices every day.
>
> > I agree that we all make choices everyday.  But the thing is that there
> > are no free-standing choices.  I don't think I have the words necessary for
> > the depth of what I'm trying to say.
>
> One way to achieve free will is to be able to
>
> > pull away from the system that you are trapped in, and this requires
> > an intimate awareness of yourself and of the workings of the world
> > around you.
>
> But what you know about yourself, how you understand yourself, and any
> choice you make regarding any system that you are a part of... all these
> things are relative to every change that you have ever experienced.  Every
> cause is an effect and every effect is a cause.  A drop of water sliding

> down a wall will follow the same path every time *if all things are equal*.

> The mind is no different, and is governed by the same principle.  If you
> could go back in time a couple of days, and choose not to post a message.
> Your choice to do things differently would be conditioned by what has
> happened here.  Any time one chooses to go against what he/she wants to do,

> even that is based upon *something*.

[Dinesh]

I don't know if I will be able to elaborate but let me try.

In a certain given situation you have choices of decisions let me take
a very simple example, I am standing at a junction of roads I have two
roads in front of me
1. Road 1 going to a place A
2. Road 2 going to a place B
I am not aware as to where the roads lead, I want only to go to a
place where I can live happily. I select road 1 and consequently reach
A.(actually place B is where I can live happily)

I was at liberty to choose from the 2 roads that is free will, that I
wanted to live happily is my WISH, that both roads lead to respective
places is fact, or in my case a variable of which I had no knowledge.
(I hope the example is not too silly)

Dinesh

On Jan 10, 11:09 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On Jan 10, 1:56 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That * something * is introduced by the presence of alternates, to
> choose from !
>

Yes, but which of those that is chosen in any particular situation is
fully and absolutely determined. All things being equal you will take
that exact position. All things being equal you would write that
exact sentence.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing, Vam? I apologize, I may have
misunderstood.

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/10/08, Dinesh <hgdi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know if I will be able to elaborate but let me try.

In a certain given situation you have choices of decisions let me take
a very simple example, I am standing at a junction of roads I have two
roads in front of me
1. Road 1 going to a place A
2. Road 2 going to a place B
I am not aware as to where the roads lead, I want only to go to a
place where I can live happily. I select road 1 and consequently reach
A.(actually place B is where I can live happily)

I was at liberty to choose from the 2 roads that is free will, that I
wanted to live happily is my WISH, that both roads lead to respective
places is fact, or in my case a variable of which I had no knowledge.
(I hope the example is not too silly)

Dinesh

Even without knowing where the two roads lead.  Even without being aware of any preference between the two.  Even without having any preference.  The choice you make flows out of the perpetual flow of your experience.  I am only saying that the choice between the two roads is predicated upon something.  Even if it is some infinitesimally small tendency towards the left or right, or an almost unrecognizable breeze blowing across your face.

[archytas]

Abdullah - many saalams and congratulations on starting this excellent
thread and your contributions to it, with which I almost entirely
agree. I would guess the 'cosmic' level of the questions has no
answer.

Neil

On Jan 10, 7:16 am, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/10/08, Dinesh <hgdin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't know if I will be able to elaborate but let me try.
>
> > In a certain given situation you have choices of decisions let me take
> > a very simple example, I am standing at a junction of roads I have two
> > roads in front of me
> > 1. Road 1 going to a place A
> > 2. Road 2 going to a place B
> > I am not aware as to where the roads lead, I want only to go to a
> > place where I can live happily. I select road 1 and consequently reach
> > A.(actually place B is where I can live happily)
>
> > I was at liberty to choose from the 2 roads that is free will, that I
> > wanted to live happily is my WISH, that both roads lead to respective
> > places is fact, or in my case a variable of which I had no knowledge.
> > (I hope the example is not too silly)
>
> > Dinesh
>
> > Even without knowing where the two roads lead.  Even without being aware
> > of any preference between the two.  Even without having any preference.  The
> > choice you make flows out of the perpetual flow of your experience.  I am

> > only saying that the choice between the two roads is predicated upon *
> > something*.  Even if it is some infinitesimally small tendency towards the
> > left or right, or an almost unrecognizable breeze blowing across your face.- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

I absolutely disagree with you, Abdullah.

In fact, I'll stick my neck out and say that you've got it all wrong,
if you are proposing a deterministic ( read, simplistic ) picture of
details in the gross as it pertains to the individual self.

Let me try to explain : I am sitting before my laptop. I am absolutely
free to turn my head to left, right, front or up. Or, to get up and
walk out to the balcony. What I am not entirely free is in choosing
the consequences of my action. I will see the ceiling, if I were to
look up, not the sky !

A rock has no free will. Plants barely have it. Animals have various
degrees of it, but still little. Humans have a great measure of free
will, depending upon what the individual has earned in that context.
It is not unlike the man who has earned some money ; the more he has,
the more freedom he has in the material domain. The more strength he
has, the more freedom he has at doing things. The more sensitivity he
has, the more freedom he has at experiencing. The more knowledge he
has, the more freedom he has at exercising his options or choices. The
more spiritual wealth he has, the more freedom he has at being
blissful and liberated !

What is pre - determined is that each individual will revert back and
merge with God. However, the path the individual will take depends on
the choices he makes ( and the unlived consequences he accumulates ).

Hope you do not strike at my extended neck !

On Jan 10, 12:10 pm, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[archytas]

Make the cut clean and quick Abdullah! Or perhaps hestitate in free
will and rest the axe? Life would not be so good without our friend,
perhaps? And he might haunt us if he turns out to have been wrong
about rejoining his god.

Neil

> > misunderstood.- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

Ahhhh beer!

My tipple of choice is a lovely Jamaican stout called Dragon. 99p a
bottle from the offy next door! Ahhh sweet nectar of the Gods!

On 9 Jan, 21:44, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lee]

Fiddlers Elbow is a gorgeous drop of beer. Fantastic to drink in a
music pub especially when they have a loud blues band playing. You
send your mate to the bar, and as he turns around and signals you with
that international sign(the tipping of the hand towards the mouth)
'what do you want to drink?' you can signal back 'fiddlers elbow' it's
very easy.

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/10/08, Vamadevananda <atewa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me try to explain : I am sitting before my laptop. I am absolutely
free to turn my head to left, right, front or up. Or, to get up and
walk out to the balcony.

 

Before you turn your head to the left, to the right, etc... there must first come the thought....

before that thought there was another thought that it is fully connected from.  As if all thoughts are really one continuous motion with twists and turns.  There are cycles of certain thoughts, concepts, ideas, etc. and the outside world also plays its continuous part.  The words I - am - sitting - before - my - laptop - I - am... one after another and each contributes to the next.  Change something right now in your mind to spite me Vam :)haha:) you cannot escape it.  But please keep trying to convince me.  I do not believe this simply because I want to believe it.  It caused me great pain when it finally settled upon me.  This type of response is what I was hoping for.

 

 

A rock has no free will. Plants barely have it. Animals have various
degrees of it, but still little. Humans have a great measure of free
will, depending upon what the individual has earned in that context.

 

No free will, just greater degrees of complexity that generate the illusion.

What is pre - determined is that each individual will revert back and
merge with God. However, the path the individual will take depends on
the choices he makes ( and the unlived consequences he accumulates ).

 

Absolutely agree.  I just believe that all choices are predicated.

Hope you do not strike at my extended neck !

Maybe a playful pat on the back! :)

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 1/10/08, archytas <nwt...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Abdullah - many saalams and congratulations on starting this excellent
thread and your contributions to it, with which I almost entirely
agree.  I would guess the 'cosmic' level of the questions has no
answer.

Thanks Neil.  I'm very interested in what you mean by the cosmic level.  It could just be that I'm wearing down after a night at work.  But please explain.

 

salaams

 

[Pat]

On 10 Jan, 11:42, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/10/08, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me try to explain : I am sitting before my laptop. I am absolutely
> > free to turn my head to left, right, front or up. Or, to get up and
> > walk out to the balcony.
>
> Before you turn your head to the left, to the right, etc... there must first
> come the thought....
> before that thought there was another thought that it is fully connected
> from.  As if all thoughts are really one continuous motion with twists and
> turns.  There are cycles of certain thoughts, concepts, ideas, etc. and the
> outside world also plays its continuous part.  The words I - am - sitting -
> before - my - laptop - I - am... one after another and each contributes to

> the next.  *Change* something right now in your mind to spite me Vam

> :)haha:) you cannot escape it.  But please keep trying to convince me.  I do
> not believe this simply because I want to believe it.  It caused me great
> pain when it finally settled upon me.  This type of response is what I was
> hoping for.
>
> A rock has no free will. Plants barely have it. Animals have various
>
> > degrees of it, but still little. Humans have a great measure of free
> > will, depending upon what the individual has earned in that context.
>
> No free will, just greater degrees of complexity that generate the illusion.
>

Sorry, Vam, but I have to agree with Abdullah, here. The physics
behind space-time (by virtue of it being a continuum) don't allow for
'actual' free will, but only the illusory kind about which Abdullah
speaks. Of course, the illusion is inescapable, which makes it
incredibly compelling. ;-)

> What is pre - determined is that each individual will revert back and
>
> > merge with God. However, the path the individual will take depends on
> > the choices he makes ( and the unlived consequences he accumulates ).
>
> Absolutely agree.  I just believe that all choices are predicated.
>
> Hope you do not strike at my extended neck !
>
>
>
>
>

> > Maybe a playful pat on the back! :)- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 10 Jan, 10:07, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Fiddlers Elbow is a gorgeous drop of beer.  Fantastic to drink in a
> music pub especially when they have a loud blues  band playing.  You
> send your mate to the bar, and as he turns around and signals you with
> that international sign(the tipping of the hand towards the mouth)
> 'what do you want to drink?' you can signal back 'fiddlers elbow' it's
> very easy.
>

LOL!! It seems to me that Bishop's Finger might easily be
signalled as well. ;-)

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

Hahahah but what is the internationally reconised sign for Bishop?

[Pat]

On 10 Jan, 13:05, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Hahahah but what is the internationally reconised sign for Bishop?
>

I was thinking of a man crossing himself and then holding up his
middle finger. Of course, that COULD mean "holy f*ck"; but, in
context of ordering a beer, there should be little confusion. ;-)

[Lee]

Umm or it could mean, fuck off and buy your own beer!

[Lonlaz]

Pat, it depends on the point of view. When I read about the physical
model of the "block universe" where everything has been done, and we
just can't see it because of our dimentional restrictions.

Now I've been hearing about a quantum version, where a universe exists
for each thing that may have gone differently. I find this
comforting, where I can choose which universe I end up in.

[Lonlaz]

This is true, if you are perfectly rational and believe in total cause
and effect. I am not perfectly rational, I choose to enhance my
illusion of free will by telling myself a fairy tale.

I believe that we all have this little 'spark' of God stuff, and as we
pull away from the oh so depressing world of cause and effect, our
spark grows and thus our free will. Paradoxically, as this happens,
it happens that we get closer to performing God's will, because we are
God ourselves.

Abdullah Abd' Badi wrote:
>
> But what you know about yourself, how you understand yourself, and any
> choice you make regarding any system that you are a part of... all these
> things are relative to every change that you have ever experienced. Every
> cause is an effect and every effect is a cause. A drop of water sliding

> down a wall will follow the same path every time *if all things are equal*.

> The mind is no different, and is governed by the same principle. If you
> could go back in time a couple of days, and choose not to post a message.
> Your choice to do things differently would be conditioned by what has
> happened here. Any time one chooses to go against what he/she wants to do,

> even that is based upon *something*.
>
> >
> >

[Pat]

On 10 Jan, 14:18, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Umm or it could mean, fuck off and buy your own beer!
>

There are a few other brands that could have interesting hand signals:

Arrogant Bastard Ale
Beartown Bear Ass
Beer Down Nut Brown
Brains
Brewster's Hophead
Eddie McStiff's Canyon Cream ale
Old Jock Ale
Red Ass Ale
Ringwood Fortyniner
Skinner's Cornish Knocker Ale
White Horse Village Idiot
Willie's Brown Ale


to name a few.

Any spring to your mind?