[cite] Little Dragon:[/cite]Perhaps it would be better if we always lived our lives as if we only had a few days left. After all, you could be knocked down by a bus whilst crossing the road, have a completely unexpected heart attack, etc. Life is short when taken in the context of the universe - enjoy each moment now, there may not be another.
Hello ! I'm new to this forum, so I haven't had time to read everything.
But about what you said Little Dragon on page one of this topic, I was thinking this morning, before even joining this very ethical, emotional, and educational forum, about something related to living each day as if it were my last.
I was thinking that maybe it's wrong to think that way because we might do things that might kill us before our lives are meant to be ended...
For example, if I think that maybe I might die tomorrow or even today or even after an hour or a minute, I would try to do a thing that I didn't do in my life before, just for the sake of doing it before I die. I might try drugs, extreme sports, killing people, running naked in the streets, eating till I explode, having sex with anybody, or spending all my money. All these things will eventually kill me earlier that I was meant to be killed (who knows?). What if I got addicted to drugs? What if I got killed in sky diving? What if I went to jail after killing people? What if I got sick from running naked on the streets? What if I really "exploded" or got food-poisoning after eating a lot? What if I got AIDS after having sex with somebody I don't know being HIV positive? And last but not least, what if I spent all my money and couldn't afford to eat or buy shelter?... etc
I'm just a "kid" (17 years old), so correct me if something I said was misleading or even frivolous.
Anyways you will be hearing quite from me at this forum.
And I would like to salute The Abbotts Family, after meeting them for the first time on Trading Spouses this morning on TV, and having the curiosity to meet people with different habits and culture. (oh and I have read all the lies about the two episodes of Trading Spouses so don't worry, I know the realities about this special family).
I was thinking that maybe it's wrong to think that way because we might do things that might kill us before our lives are meant to be ended...
If you indulge yourself in risky behavior because you hold the belief that you may die at any moment, then you may indeed be living a short (and mostly miserable!) life. Rather than holding on to any set of beliefs about life (and death), try going through the day spontaneously reacting to everything around you, without any preconceived notions. Also, try not to hurt others! I know that's a tall order, but it sure beats killing people or eating till you explode! In general, any action that you take because you feel you should because of this or that reason is inferior to an action that "just happens." In general. [/i]
try going through the day spontaneously reacting to everything around you, without any preconceived notions.
You are most certainly right. I didn't really think of it that way before, but I think it's very hard for anyone to really do that (going through the day spontaneously reacting to everything around him) since each person has set goals in his life which he would like to acheive, and so he wouldn't accept the fact that he might die soon, and thus it would be difficult for him to pause a bit from acheiving a goal in life and just enjoy life to its best just because he might die in the same day or the next. Anyways, didn't you tell me that things just happen...
In general, any action that you take because you feel you should because of this or that reason is inferior to an action that "just happens."
...now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you contradicted yourself in telling me that I should try [...] reacting to everything around me then in telling me that any action I take [...] is inferior to an action that just happens ... i'm really confused... :?
Anyways, thanks for replying; I appreciate it a lot !
He, he. Yes, trying to be spontaneous is a bit of a non-sequitur. I love Bukowski's (the writer) gravestone ingraving: "Don't Try." I've tried practicing it--and it works! One thing that I've discovered over the years is that once you apply a concept to itself (self-reference) logic breaks down and you get something paradoxical. But, strangely, the resulting paradox has enormous "poetical" meaning that surpasses logic (or is perhaps a different kind of logic altogether). That's one reason the Taoist writings appeal to me so much--especially Chuangtse--they tend to reveal marvelous paradoxes that open up the universe in a flash of insight, independent of--or maybe parallel to--logic or reason.
Here's a nice little quote for you:
"I think mysticism might be characterized as the study of those propositions which are equivalent to their own negations. The Western point of view is that the class of all such propositions is empty. The Eastern point of view is that this class is empty if and only if it isn't."
--From Raymond Smullyan's "This Book Needs No Title."
My you've been busy, while I've been busy! Just catching up on my reading.
Carl, just a point in reply to your email where you said that accepting the concept of free will means that you have to stand in judgement on your own or others actions. Endless recriminations are not helpful. Although, unfortunately, we (human beings, that is) seem to enjoy trying to blame each other or ourselves for mistakes, rather than dealing with the results and moving on! Perhaps this is because humans, as a general rule, are rather caught up in their own egos or illusory self-images.
I have to say that I disagree with you. The exercising of free will doesn't mean that we have to be sanctimoniously judgemental. If you, of your own free will, make a decision, then you have to accept the consequences. Yes, sometimes it may turn out that, after you've made the decision some new information comes to light that would have changed your decision if you'd known about it in advance. This doesn't mean that you should turn round and say 'that decision was wrong' - you made the best choice with the information available and that's all anyone can do.
You state that absence of free will means non-judgement. Again I disagree. Take for example, the case of a murderer - would you say that he had no free will in his decision to murder another human being? If so, then why should we punish him for a decision over which he had no control?
Zenjew - I agree with your point that free will is often merely fleeting. Although, I believe that if we put our minds to it, free will would become a more stable and lasting thing. I have never said that I believe that every human being always exercises free will, merely that we have the capability to do so and that it does exist
[cite] Little Dragon:[/cite]
1)... I have to say that I disagree with you. ....
2)...Take for example, the case of a murderer - would you say that he had no free will in his decision to murder another human being? If so, then why should we punish him for a decision over which he had no control?
3)...I have never said that I believe that every human being always exercises free will, merely that we have the capability to do so and that it does exist
1) It would be short conversation if you didn't, eh?
2) Excellent example :idea: of why civilization would need a myth of free will, if we don't actually have such (as I suspect). If we deemed everyone as being helplessly driven by their nature - needs and fears - like other animals on this planet, we'd have a hard time punishing them. I guess this is why we don't hold young kids and animals responsible as we do adults.
3) For all I know we are having a semantic problem. Life with free will in your eyes may be the same as life without free will in my eyes. :? So, these two questions may answer that possibility...
* Do only humans possess this ability for free will?
* If not, what other animals are capable of free will. Where in the kingdom of life on earth do you draw the free will line?
=================
PS: I woke up last night with the following 'dream'. It faded quickly as I took to pen and paper. So, for what it's worth, here it is...
It is interesting to include the view, 'That Thou Art', (from the Upanishads) in the context of free will. So, from this perspective, who is choosing, 'thou' or 'that'. If 'thou' is, 'that' is also. Need and fear drive 'thou'... need and fear drive 'that'. Fear drives need, [chref=40]Nothing[/chref] drives something, 'that' drives 'thou'. Drives = causes = art... All Art One.[chref=42]The way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad creatures (all)[/chref].
That presents a rather 'fluid' view of reality. Where, in that 'mess' is free will? Free will only becomes distinguishable when 'it' (the 'mess', or uncarved block if you prefer) is cut up and organized. [chref=32] Only when it is cut are there names. As soon as there are names, one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref] Of course, where is the fun in that?
You know Carl, it's possible that our differences really do lie in interpretations rather than actual facts (but only possible mind you - don't get your hopes up!)
There is also another possibility to take into consideration: I'm European, you're American; I'm British, you're American; I'm Welsh, you're American. While we both read the same texts and speak essentially the same language (strange american spellings notwithstanding!), there will always be differences in how we see things (note I don't mean to make any invidious comparisons - merely stating an obvious difference). History, both personal and wider, makes a difference to an individual's world view. Although we endeavour to take a more detached view of our respective societies, we have still been shaped by them.
It may be (perhaps is almost certain) that our views may never match up on this topic, but I'm sure that you know the quote "There are many paths to the summit of the mountain, but from the top the view is always the same". I am sure that, in the end, we will both reach the summit of this mountainous discussion, and find that the view is beautiful. (Although I do hope that you don't expect to reach the summit anytime soon! I have a feeling that we've barely made it past Base Camp!)
PS. How do you remember dreams? I'm always dead to the world - being a working mother does that to you!
[cite] Little Dragon:[/cite]
1)...History, both personal and wider, makes a difference to an individual's world view. Although we endeavour to take a more detached view of our respective societies, we have still been shaped by them.
2) ...Although I do hope that you don't expect to reach the summit anytime soon! I have a feeling that we've barely made it past Base Camp!:
3) ... How do you remember dreams?
Hey, you didn't answer the question(s)!
* Do only humans possess this ability for free will?
* If not, what other animals are capable of free will. Where in the kingdom of life on earth do you draw the free will line?
Mmmmm? Do I detect puzzlement over these question? And, wow, such a quick reply. We usually wait months and months to hear from you. Like an old friend coming to visit.
1) Many folks here would get a kick out of you saying that I'm American. My mother especially! I really don't see any real difference between Europe and America. Heck, I see the only significant difference in how humans see things, paradigm wise, lies between the West (including India) and the far East - though even that pertains to the paradigm, and not the 'reality of humanity'.
The largest difference I've notice lies between individuals, whether they be Swedish, Thai, Japanese, English...(some of the places I live and worked). I found people to have two 'personalities', who they really are, and their social personality they express when they are with their countrymen.
2) Maybe we are at the summit, been there all along, but don't realize it because we are expecting the view to be different that what we are seeing.
3) I don't usually, though I find some of my deepest understandings :idea: bubble up out of sleep.
Hi Carl! Another quick reply for you!! (It's the summer break, workload is lower, no evening marking/lesson prep. to do!)
First to answer this question: "Do only humans possess this ability for free will?" I don't know - perhaps/perhaps not. It may be that something like free will or free will itself only applies in creatures with a large enough brain to be able to plan for the future and remember what is past - so perhaps in the animal kingdom, we could apply this concept to the greater apes and to dolphins and whales. Please note I only say may because as yet we really don't know enough about these species to be able to say one way or another. I have never contended that I consider human beings to be uniquely gifted/cursed in this direction (depending on your viewpoint!). I still maintain that free will exists - just because most people don't exercise it on most occasions doesn't mean it doesn't exist - just that most humans can be pretty daft most of the time.
Second question: "If not, what other animals are capable of free will. Where in the kingdom of life on earth do you draw the free will line?" I believe that I've partially answered this question above. Although at the moment, I'm drawing a tentative line under those creatures with a brain large enough to have the capacity for forward planning etc., does not mean that science may not prove me wrong and extend the understanding of the brain function of many other species that would bring them across my proposed line (note this is a line, not a wall!)
"Mmmmm? Do I detect puzzlement over these question?" - yeh, right! :roll:
"I found people to have two 'personalities', who they really are, and their social personality they express when they are with their countrymen" - there is more of a difference than this - there are fundamental differences between how europeans and americans broadly feel on a number of subjects e.g. capital punishment (not that this precludes different individuals, both american and european being both for and or against the capital punishment policies of their respective governments).
Yes, maybe you're right - we are at the summit, but our views are different because we're standing back to back!
Hey, Little Dragon... Lady, (now that you revealed your gender .. )
This quick back and forth is making me dizzy... er.
[cite] Little Dragon:[/cite]
1) I still maintain that free will exists - just because most people don't exercise it on most occasions doesn't mean it doesn't exist - just that most humans can be pretty daft most of the time.
2) there are fundamental differences between how europeans and americans broadly feel on a number of subjects e.g. capital punishment
3) ...our views are different because we're standing back to back!
1) How about wisdom as just another word for 'free will'. If you concur, then we are just using different names to refer to the same reality.
2) Are you not lumping 'them' all together? Cultural personality is what lies behind the differences we see. People don't reinvent the wheel from birth, they adopt the belief system, the paradigm of their culture. But, the beliefs are based on nothing 'real', they are all relative and change through time and between cultures. The only semi 'real' paradigm is the spiritual one. The essence of what Jesus said is not different in any substantial way to Taoist views or Buddhist view... etc.
But, how many British, American, or Chinese (etc), actually live in accord with this semi 'real' spiritual paradigm? In my personal experience, no nationality has a deeper connection with the spiritual paradigm than any other. We are all the same in that regard. In other words, there are no fewer hypocrites in the West than in the East, in the North than in the South. Human nature is universal, despite the different 'skins' we wear. It all comes back to each person's individual blend of needs and fears, talents and handicaps, circumstances and, well, a portion of mystery for taste.
3) So, who is looking 'forward and ahead' and who is looking 'backward and behind'? :?
[cite] Little Dragon:[/cite] . . . It may be that something like free will or free will itself only applies in creatures with a large enough brain to be able to plan for the future and remember what is past - so perhaps in the animal kingdom, we could apply this concept to the greater apes and to dolphins and whales. . . .
Plan for the future and remember what is past . . . are we talking about "free will" here, or are we talking about intellegence, cognitive ability, rational thought, etc? Because I don't think anyone can deny that humans are best at that sort of thing; followed by apes, dolphins, etc., followed by the so-called "lower" animals, and so on. But that really isn't the issue, is it? The concept of free will (to me) should have little to do with intellegence (i.e., IQ) or being smart versus being daft...
1) How about wisdom as just another word for 'free will'. If you concur, then we are just using different names to refer to the same reality.
Well, this seems a contradiction to me. You say we have no free will but you also say we get wiser as we grow older, but if there is no free will and free will and wisdom are the same, then there is no wisdom. :?
If we have no free will, but we are living more closely in tune with "the way" then our choices or if you prefer, instincts, will conform more closely to nature. Whatever you call it, genetic coding or instinct or free will or wisdom, there is a moment when we either fish or cut bait.
... How about wisdom as just another word for 'free will'....
1)... Well, this seems a contradiction to me. You say we have no free will but you also say we get wiser as we grow older, ....
2)... Whatever you call it, genetic coding or instinct or free will or wisdom, there is a moment when we either fish or cut bait.
1) Wisdom comes to all animals as they age... or at least the one's with larger nervous systems. Free will is a myth based upon the life experience of wisdom. We assume that adult humans (not young children or other animals) can consciously 'choose' wisdom, and act accordingly. This, despite all the evidence that we don't. For example, some people are innately more impulsive by nature than others and so act more 'foolishly' for their age than others - and visa versa! Neither the impulsive natured person or the patient natured person 'chooses' to be the way they are. Yet, we will applaud the 'wise choices' of one and decry the 'foolish choices' of the other as though they choose their innate nature.
So why do we hold so tightly to this myth? We use this 'choice' myth as leverage to judge other people's lives as either superior or inferior to our own. Such judgements peg our position in the social hierarchy. We can relax socially when we know our place. This is one reason why even slaves and untouchables can endure hardship as well as they can. At the instinctive level, knowing where you stand in the 'tribe' is emotionally easier than the chaos and lonely disconnection of social uncertainty.
Furthermore, our faith based belief in free will is rooted in our sense of a separate 'self', i.e., you need to believe there is an 'I' which can 'choose'. The belief in 'I' bolsters the belief in free will, the belief in free will bolsters the belief in 'I'.
The free will myth is also closely connected with humanity's religious beliefs, morality and salvation. All religious belief systems promise salvation of 'I', while at the same time support free will (either explicitly as in Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm or implied as in the Far East), and call upon the 'I' to act righteously. Yet, it is the separate sense of 'I' that leaves us disconnected from Nature ('Eden') in the first place. Affirming the 'I' and beseeching the 'I' to act is ironic given that the only salvation is extinguishing 'I', as Buddha's Third Truth states or as Jesus put in when he said, ".... whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it."
2) Free will is a 'empowering' myth. Instinct is the biological push - needs and fears - that drives life to survive. All animals have instinct. Only humans are presumed to have free will (making this a little pat on our collective backs). If we say all life forms have free will, then free will become synonymous with instinct and that would de-myth the issue (and weaken our superior self image). As I said above, we use the free will myth for social leverage. If we acknowledged that instinct drives us all, we'd loose that social leverage and then what? We'd have to grow up and face ourselves. Ahhhh! :shock: :oops:
Furthermore, our faith based belief in free will is rooted in our sense of a separate 'self', i.e., you need to believe there is an 'I' which can 'choose'.
This I can buy. I look and look and there is no "I", so this makes total sense.
Wisdom comes to all animals as they age.
I have a good example of this. Our puppy (1 year old) is now chosing to come when we call him instead of running away. He has found it is in his best interest to do so. This is the beginning of a wiser Eddie!
Affirming the 'I' and beseeching the 'I' to act is ironic given that the only salvation is extinguishing ...as Jesus put in when he said, ".... whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it."
I think this is a result of men getting in there and altering Jesus's message so that the religion worked to control people. Wouldn't it be wonderful to know what his message was before it was polluted?
My brain does not seem to want to accept that there may be/is no free will. What might help is to remember to be more murky, the way Joe does. Squint and blur the vision.
hi all,
after having gone through all the post there is only one thing i can summarise on it. whether its free will , force will its always have one will that is the destined will.all our will have been destined without our realisation
and that is why it cause us so much problem in searching for our will.so once its destined then we dont have to argue about it as it bring us no benefit at all.so just live as you are and learn the good wisdom rather than
arguing things that not benefit us at all.
force will its always have one will that is the destined will.all our will have been destined without our realisation
So you are saying that everything that happens in our lives is pre-destined, already determined? Then why bother trying to cultivating virtue (as you said in another post)? What's the point if we can't change what has already been determined?
hi Lynn,
well i do hope you can understand what i am going to reply here as my answer is just a brief one only. the reason why i said we need to cultivate good virtue is that we can actually reduce or exchanging our suffering cause
from our previous life karma effect.and for your info our happening is already pre destined but because of our good virtue then the cause of effect
have been changing. so this good virtue is actually effecting the cause of karma and therefor our happening will change and if you just continue
your usual life without doing any good virtue then whatever happening
is already pre determined.this is not a mere said statement but its already
happen from my experience and others experience where i have done some
practical fact finding.i can teach you a way and you can see the result yourself if you want it.i do hope you can understand what i am writing here.
It sounds to me, then, that 'good virtue' is totally self-centered, that the motivation to be good is so that you get something in return. So isn't the goodness of that good virtue questionable?
hi Lynn,
yes, we need to do something to get something and thats the
meaning of action and reaction. this is the law of karma or another meaning is the cause and effect.so normally we dont question why you do good but we will question why you do bad isnt it?so the good is always better then the bad dont you agree.so the good virtue is questionable in terms of the effect
and most of us also like to know why you do so good and this is definitely
help us to survive in this world which are full of suffering and with this
knowledge of good virtue effect then we can counter our suffering and as well find our true path to enlightenment. i have stated earlier that cultivating good virtue have been accepted by most religion in this world,
why?because this is one the universal law or the sacred script that taught us to cultivate good deeds and this is also one explanation where i have preached that we are actually have different religion but only one true destiny to achieve.so dont analise my last statement as this is going to be a lenghty discussion if you started it.
yes, we need to do something to get something and thats the
meaning of action and reaction.
In Christianity, there is something called grace where you get something for nothing. Do you believe in anything like that? I like the idea of it.
Regarding all religions preaching the value of goodness, isn't this just because that's what works for society? The idea that we will be rewarded in the future for being good today is how we are kept in line, kept cooperating, obeying. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm sure it's very wise, but I don't believe that it's our divine destiny. I don't think it means a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things.
Mr. Preacherman, this is a Taoist web site, where good and bad are the same, issue forth from the same source, only differ in name. You are not going to convince me of your beliefs and I will not win you over to mine, so let's just live and let live. Whatever works, is what I say.
Just catching up with the discussion (before going on holiday) and have caught your discussion about altruism/good virtue etc. May I recommend a book to you (which you should have no difficulty getting hold of in the US) "The Altruism Question" by C D Batson, which looks at all the work of the author from the mid 70's until 1990 (he is still publishing work in this area). My dissertation that I completed from my Masters also deals with altruism & empathy. If you would like to read it the address is: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/laurence.bunnage/ then click on Sian Bunnage and page down to my research interests section and click on the title of my dissertation.
The debate about the existence of altruism is a very long running one. Two of the main arguments against 'pure' altruism are the kinship theory, where we'll do nice things for people who're related to us and the reciprocal theory, where we do nice things for others in the hope of them reciprocating at some time in the future. A simple example causes problems for both these views - you're walking along a riverbank and you see someone in difficulties in the water; without thought you take off your shoes, dive in and save them. The fact is that you probably don't know the person, nor are related to them, and the likelihood of them being able to reciprocate in a similar way at some point in the future is fairly unlikely.
Another argument against 'pure' altruism is that of negative-state relief. Simply put, we see someone in trouble, it makes us feel bad and we do something nice for them in order to make ourselves feel better.
Hope this adds some grist to the mill. And now having swep in and added my two penn'orth, I'll swep out again.
hi Lynn,
you have just raised a statement with so much doubt on it but do you really know why you get something for doing nothing.this is very interesting
indeed but how many can answer it.well i will try to answer that for you and
please take note that my answer doesnt represent christianity as a whole and its just one of my wisdom.in my part of practice i also preached that we can get something for doing nothing and that is why i have said earlier
that our life have been pre destined and the moment you get something for doing nothing also depends on your karma effect as the karma said
you are going to be a millionaire in your late 40 but how are you going to be a millionaire with just a sweeper job by the roadside?so there comes a lottery that you buy where it will strike or there are still other oppurtunity
that will come without you realise.in chritianity its grace but in my
practice its called your time has come to be a millionaire and there is no one
or nobody can stop you from getting it .so in layman terms its your luck has come.i dont intend to convince anyone as i am not in the position to do it
as all are up to you all to decide but my motive is to pass down my nature wisdom and taught you all to have more confidence in your daily life rather
than facing the darkness in future.
Hi Lynn,
I think this is a bit off topic, but reading this thread got me thinking about predetermination etc., which I am rather indifferent to as I tend to approach things with a more post modern perspective (not entirely though, as I find post modernism to be very cynical and altogether a bit depressing)...
I think this has been touched on already, but the question I have, is if "God knew his people in advance" (Romans 8:29), why is there a need for evangelicalism etc. Why, if christianity is a religion based on faith, is there the need to preach and convert others, when they could rest in the knowledge that God knows exactly what will happen to each and every one of us anyway? Are they acting as tools of God, as he has decided, or are they contradicting his plans? OR, was that written to encourage good works, altruism and all those warm fuzzy things, rather than to be read literally as a prerequisite for salvation? And if they are tools of God, and seeing how many over-zealous evangelicalists and missionaries turn people away from the religion, why would he choose that method?
I vaguely remember reading in the bible that "faith without works is nothing" or something along those lines, I know that Christianity is not about resting on your lorrels with the happy knowledge that because you believe you're going to heaven, but I'm wondering how christians reconcile their idea of predetermination with some of these 'works'.
I don't mean this as a missionary-bash session, so please don't read it as such, just a thought to ponder.
On a different note, with regards to altruism, I think it's a blend of psychological and sociological issues, and very much depends on the level of risk involved. I agree with wisdom preacher that it certainly holds an element of ridding yourself of a bad feeling, and so, altruism is selfish... but I think it's more than that. Partly holding elements of self-elevation in society, species preservation, and as little dragon said, reciprocal. If we lost this belief in the altruistic nature of society, there would be a lot more nervous people about. I'm unconvinced about pure altruism, because I think there are so many contributing factors in every action we do, that to strip the motivations for them to one, is unrealistic, so I don't think any action could be 'pure'.
Not sure if this is restating parts of this conversation already, apologies if I am.
My how time flies! We say, [chref=8]in action it is timeliness that matters.[/chref] So, is this a timely reply to your post? Maybe in 'Taoland', eh?
[cite] alexis:[/cite]1) ...but the question I have, is if "God knew his people in advance" (Romans 8:29), why is there a need for evangelicalism etc. Why, if Christianity is a religion based on faith, is there the need to preach and convert others,
2) ...If we lost this belief in the altruistic nature of society, there would be a lot more nervous people about.
1) Tribal instinct drives us to convert others to our 'truth', whether that 'truth' be religious, political, or just some personal agenda we have. We're social animals driven to interact socially. Why else would I be typing here?
2) You hit the nail on the head. We [chref=16]hold firmly[/chref] to our beliefs, whatever they are, to shield us from the [chref=25]void[/chref], and that foreboding sense of death it imparts.
Comments
Hello ! I'm new to this forum, so I haven't had time to read everything.
But about what you said Little Dragon on page one of this topic, I was thinking this morning, before even joining this very ethical, emotional, and educational forum, about something related to living each day as if it were my last.
I was thinking that maybe it's wrong to think that way because we might do things that might kill us before our lives are meant to be ended...
For example, if I think that maybe I might die tomorrow or even today or even after an hour or a minute, I would try to do a thing that I didn't do in my life before, just for the sake of doing it before I die. I might try drugs, extreme sports, killing people, running naked in the streets, eating till I explode, having sex with anybody, or spending all my money. All these things will eventually kill me earlier that I was meant to be killed (who knows?). What if I got addicted to drugs? What if I got killed in sky diving? What if I went to jail after killing people? What if I got sick from running naked on the streets? What if I really "exploded" or got food-poisoning after eating a lot? What if I got AIDS after having sex with somebody I don't know being HIV positive? And last but not least, what if I spent all my money and couldn't afford to eat or buy shelter?... etc
I'm just a "kid" (17 years old), so correct me if something I said was misleading or even frivolous.
Anyways you will be hearing quite from me at this forum.
And I would like to salute The Abbotts Family, after meeting them for the first time on Trading Spouses this morning on TV, and having the curiosity to meet people with different habits and culture. (oh and I have read all the lies about the two episodes of Trading Spouses so don't worry, I know the realities about this special family).
A special Hello to Luke, by the way.
If you indulge yourself in risky behavior because you hold the belief that you may die at any moment, then you may indeed be living a short (and mostly miserable!) life. Rather than holding on to any set of beliefs about life (and death), try going through the day spontaneously reacting to everything around you, without any preconceived notions. Also, try not to hurt others! I know that's a tall order, but it sure beats killing people or eating till you explode! In general, any action that you take because you feel you should because of this or that reason is inferior to an action that "just happens." In general. [/i]
You are most certainly right. I didn't really think of it that way before, but I think it's very hard for anyone to really do that (going through the day spontaneously reacting to everything around him) since each person has set goals in his life which he would like to acheive, and so he wouldn't accept the fact that he might die soon, and thus it would be difficult for him to pause a bit from acheiving a goal in life and just enjoy life to its best just because he might die in the same day or the next. Anyways, didn't you tell me that things just happen...
...now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you contradicted yourself in telling me that I should try [...] reacting to everything around me then in telling me that any action I take [...] is inferior to an action that just happens ... i'm really confused... :?
Anyways, thanks for replying; I appreciate it a lot !
reply
Here's a nice little quote for you:
"I think mysticism might be characterized as the study of those propositions which are equivalent to their own negations. The Western point of view is that the class of all such propositions is empty. The Eastern point of view is that this class is empty if and only if it isn't."
--From Raymond Smullyan's "This Book Needs No Title."
My you've been busy, while I've been busy! Just catching up on my reading.
Carl, just a point in reply to your email where you said that accepting the concept of free will means that you have to stand in judgement on your own or others actions. Endless recriminations are not helpful. Although, unfortunately, we (human beings, that is) seem to enjoy trying to blame each other or ourselves for mistakes, rather than dealing with the results and moving on! Perhaps this is because humans, as a general rule, are rather caught up in their own egos or illusory self-images.
I have to say that I disagree with you.
You state that absence of free will means non-judgement. Again I disagree. Take for example, the case of a murderer - would you say that he had no free will in his decision to murder another human being? If so, then why should we punish him for a decision over which he had no control?
Zenjew - I agree with your point that free will is often merely fleeting. Although, I believe that if we put our minds to it, free will would become a more stable and lasting thing. I have never said that I believe that every human being always exercises free will, merely that we have the capability to do so and that it does exist
1) It would be short conversation if you didn't, eh?
2) Excellent example :idea: of why civilization would need a myth of free will, if we don't actually have such (as I suspect). If we deemed everyone as being helplessly driven by their nature - needs and fears - like other animals on this planet, we'd have a hard time punishing them. I guess this is why we don't hold young kids and animals responsible as we do adults.
3) For all I know we are having a semantic problem. Life with free will in your eyes may be the same as life without free will in my eyes. :? So, these two questions may answer that possibility...
* Do only humans possess this ability for free will?
* If not, what other animals are capable of free will. Where in the kingdom of life on earth do you draw the free will line?
=================
PS: I woke up last night with the following 'dream'. It faded quickly as I took to pen and paper. So, for what it's worth, here it is...
It is interesting to include the view, 'That Thou Art', (from the Upanishads) in the context of free will. So, from this perspective, who is choosing, 'thou' or 'that'. If 'thou' is, 'that' is also. Need and fear drive 'thou'... need and fear drive 'that'. Fear drives need, [chref=40]Nothing[/chref] drives something, 'that' drives 'thou'. Drives = causes = art... All Art One.[chref=42]The way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad creatures (all)[/chref].
That presents a rather 'fluid' view of reality. Where, in that 'mess' is free will? Free will only becomes distinguishable when 'it' (the 'mess', or uncarved block if you prefer) is cut up and organized. [chref=32] Only when it is cut are there names. As soon as there are names, one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref] Of course, where is the fun in that?
There is also another possibility to take into consideration: I'm European, you're American; I'm British, you're American; I'm Welsh, you're American. While we both read the same texts and speak essentially the same language (strange american spellings notwithstanding!), there will always be differences in how we see things (note I don't mean to make any invidious comparisons - merely stating an obvious difference). History, both personal and wider, makes a difference to an individual's world view. Although we endeavour to take a more detached view of our respective societies, we have still been shaped by them.
It may be (perhaps is almost certain) that our views may never match up on this topic, but I'm sure that you know the quote "There are many paths to the summit of the mountain, but from the top the view is always the same". I am sure that, in the end, we will both reach the summit of this mountainous discussion, and find that the view is beautiful. (Although I do hope that you don't expect to reach the summit anytime soon! I have a feeling that we've barely made it past Base Camp!)
PS. How do you remember dreams? I'm always dead to the world - being a working mother does that to you!
Hey, you didn't answer the question(s)!
* Do only humans possess this ability for free will?
* If not, what other animals are capable of free will. Where in the kingdom of life on earth do you draw the free will line?
Mmmmm? Do I detect puzzlement over these question? And, wow, such a quick reply. We usually wait months and months to hear from you. Like an old friend coming to visit.
1) Many folks here would get a kick out of you saying that I'm American. My mother especially!
The largest difference I've notice lies between individuals, whether they be Swedish, Thai, Japanese, English...(some of the places I live and worked). I found people to have two 'personalities', who they really are, and their social personality they express when they are with their countrymen.
2) Maybe we are at the summit, been there all along, but don't realize it because we are expecting the view to be different that what we are seeing.
3) I don't usually, though I find some of my deepest understandings :idea: bubble up out of sleep.
First to answer this question: "Do only humans possess this ability for free will?" I don't know - perhaps/perhaps not. It may be that something like free will or free will itself only applies in creatures with a large enough brain to be able to plan for the future and remember what is past - so perhaps in the animal kingdom, we could apply this concept to the greater apes and to dolphins and whales. Please note I only say may because as yet we really don't know enough about these species to be able to say one way or another. I have never contended that I consider human beings to be uniquely gifted/cursed in this direction (depending on your viewpoint!). I still maintain that free will exists - just because most people don't exercise it on most occasions doesn't mean it doesn't exist - just that most humans can be pretty daft most of the time.
Second question: "If not, what other animals are capable of free will. Where in the kingdom of life on earth do you draw the free will line?" I believe that I've partially answered this question above. Although at the moment, I'm drawing a tentative line under those creatures with a brain large enough to have the capacity for forward planning etc., does not mean that science may not prove me wrong and extend the understanding of the brain function of many other species that would bring them across my proposed line (note this is a line, not a wall!)
"Mmmmm? Do I detect puzzlement over these question?" - yeh, right! :roll:
"I found people to have two 'personalities', who they really are, and their social personality they express when they are with their countrymen" - there is more of a difference than this - there are fundamental differences between how europeans and americans broadly feel on a number of subjects e.g. capital punishment (not that this precludes different individuals, both american and european being both for and or against the capital punishment policies of their respective governments).
Yes, maybe you're right - we are at the summit, but our views are different because we're standing back to back!
This quick back and forth is making me dizzy... er.
1) How about wisdom as just another word for 'free will'. If you concur, then we are just using different names to refer to the same reality.
2) Are you not lumping 'them' all together? Cultural personality is what lies behind the differences we see. People don't reinvent the wheel from birth, they adopt the belief system, the paradigm of their culture. But, the beliefs are based on nothing 'real', they are all relative and change through time and between cultures. The only semi 'real' paradigm is the spiritual one. The essence of what Jesus said is not different in any substantial way to Taoist views or Buddhist view... etc.
But, how many British, American, or Chinese (etc), actually live in accord with this semi 'real' spiritual paradigm? In my personal experience, no nationality has a deeper connection with the spiritual paradigm than any other. We are all the same in that regard. In other words, there are no fewer hypocrites in the West than in the East, in the North than in the South. Human nature is universal, despite the different 'skins' we wear. It all comes back to each person's individual blend of needs and fears, talents and handicaps, circumstances and, well, a portion of mystery for taste.
3) So, who is looking 'forward and ahead' and who is looking 'backward and behind'? :?
Well, this seems a contradiction to me. You say we have no free will but you also say we get wiser as we grow older, but if there is no free will and free will and wisdom are the same, then there is no wisdom. :?
If we have no free will, but we are living more closely in tune with "the way" then our choices or if you prefer, instincts, will conform more closely to nature. Whatever you call it, genetic coding or instinct or free will or wisdom, there is a moment when we either fish or cut bait.
1) Wisdom comes to all animals as they age... or at least the one's with larger nervous systems. Free will is a myth based upon the life experience of wisdom. We assume that adult humans (not young children or other animals) can consciously 'choose' wisdom, and act accordingly. This, despite all the evidence that we don't. For example, some people are innately more impulsive by nature than others and so act more 'foolishly' for their age than others - and visa versa! Neither the impulsive natured person or the patient natured person 'chooses' to be the way they are. Yet, we will applaud the 'wise choices' of one and decry the 'foolish choices' of the other as though they choose their innate nature.
So why do we hold so tightly to this myth? We use this 'choice' myth as leverage to judge other people's lives as either superior or inferior to our own. Such judgements peg our position in the social hierarchy. We can relax socially when we know our place. This is one reason why even slaves and untouchables can endure hardship as well as they can. At the instinctive level, knowing where you stand in the 'tribe' is emotionally easier than the chaos and lonely disconnection of social uncertainty.
Furthermore, our faith based belief in free will is rooted in our sense of a separate 'self', i.e., you need to believe there is an 'I' which can 'choose'. The belief in 'I' bolsters the belief in free will, the belief in free will bolsters the belief in 'I'.
The free will myth is also closely connected with humanity's religious beliefs, morality and salvation. All religious belief systems promise salvation of 'I', while at the same time support free will (either explicitly as in Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm or implied as in the Far East), and call upon the 'I' to act righteously. Yet, it is the separate sense of 'I' that leaves us disconnected from Nature ('Eden') in the first place. Affirming the 'I' and beseeching the 'I' to act is ironic given that the only salvation is extinguishing 'I', as Buddha's Third Truth states or as Jesus put in when he said, ".... whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it."
2) Free will is a 'empowering' myth. Instinct is the biological push - needs and fears - that drives life to survive. All animals have instinct. Only humans are presumed to have free will (making this a little pat on our collective backs). If we say all life forms have free will, then free will become synonymous with instinct and that would de-myth the issue (and weaken our superior self image). As I said above, we use the free will myth for social leverage. If we acknowledged that instinct drives us all, we'd loose that social leverage and then what? We'd have to grow up and face ourselves. Ahhhh! :shock:
This I can buy. I look and look and there is no "I", so this makes total sense.
I have a good example of this. Our puppy (1 year old) is now chosing to come when we call him instead of running away. He has found it is in his best interest to do so. This is the beginning of a wiser Eddie!
I think this is a result of men getting in there and altering Jesus's message so that the religion worked to control people. Wouldn't it be wonderful to know what his message was before it was polluted?
My brain does not seem to want to accept that there may be/is no free will. What might help is to remember to be more murky, the way Joe does. Squint and blur the vision.
after having gone through all the post there is only one thing i can summarise on it. whether its free will , force will its always have one will that is the destined will.all our will have been destined without our realisation
and that is why it cause us so much problem in searching for our will.so once its destined then we dont have to argue about it as it bring us no benefit at all.so just live as you are and learn the good wisdom rather than
arguing things that not benefit us at all.
So you are saying that everything that happens in our lives is pre-destined, already determined? Then why bother trying to cultivating virtue (as you said in another post)? What's the point if we can't change what has already been determined?
Am I understanding you correctly?
well i do hope you can understand what i am going to reply here as my answer is just a brief one only. the reason why i said we need to cultivate good virtue is that we can actually reduce or exchanging our suffering cause
from our previous life karma effect.and for your info our happening is already pre destined but because of our good virtue then the cause of effect
have been changing. so this good virtue is actually effecting the cause of karma and therefor our happening will change and if you just continue
your usual life without doing any good virtue then whatever happening
is already pre determined.this is not a mere said statement but its already
happen from my experience and others experience where i have done some
practical fact finding.i can teach you a way and you can see the result yourself if you want it.i do hope you can understand what i am writing here.
yes, we need to do something to get something and thats the
meaning of action and reaction. this is the law of karma or another meaning is the cause and effect.so normally we dont question why you do good but we will question why you do bad isnt it?so the good is always better then the bad dont you agree.so the good virtue is questionable in terms of the effect
and most of us also like to know why you do so good and this is definitely
help us to survive in this world which are full of suffering and with this
knowledge of good virtue effect then we can counter our suffering and as well find our true path to enlightenment. i have stated earlier that cultivating good virtue have been accepted by most religion in this world,
why?because this is one the universal law or the sacred script that taught us to cultivate good deeds and this is also one explanation where i have preached that we are actually have different religion but only one true destiny to achieve.so dont analise my last statement as this is going to be a lenghty discussion if you started it.
In Christianity, there is something called grace where you get something for nothing. Do you believe in anything like that? I like the idea of it.
Regarding all religions preaching the value of goodness, isn't this just because that's what works for society? The idea that we will be rewarded in the future for being good today is how we are kept in line, kept cooperating, obeying. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm sure it's very wise, but I don't believe that it's our divine destiny. I don't think it means a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things.
Mr. Preacherman, this is a Taoist web site, where good and bad are the same, issue forth from the same source, only differ in name. You are not going to convince me of your beliefs and I will not win you over to mine, so let's just live and let live. Whatever works, is what I say.
Just catching up with the discussion (before going on holiday) and have caught your discussion about altruism/good virtue etc. May I recommend a book to you (which you should have no difficulty getting hold of in the US) "The Altruism Question" by C D Batson, which looks at all the work of the author from the mid 70's until 1990 (he is still publishing work in this area). My dissertation that I completed from my Masters also deals with altruism & empathy. If you would like to read it the address is: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/laurence.bunnage/ then click on Sian Bunnage and page down to my research interests section and click on the title of my dissertation.
The debate about the existence of altruism is a very long running one. Two of the main arguments against 'pure' altruism are the kinship theory, where we'll do nice things for people who're related to us and the reciprocal theory, where we do nice things for others in the hope of them reciprocating at some time in the future. A simple example causes problems for both these views - you're walking along a riverbank and you see someone in difficulties in the water; without thought you take off your shoes, dive in and save them. The fact is that you probably don't know the person, nor are related to them, and the likelihood of them being able to reciprocate in a similar way at some point in the future is fairly unlikely.
Another argument against 'pure' altruism is that of negative-state relief. Simply put, we see someone in trouble, it makes us feel bad and we do something nice for them in order to make ourselves feel better.
Hope this adds some grist to the mill. And now having swep in and added my two penn'orth, I'll swep out again.
you have just raised a statement with so much doubt on it but do you really know why you get something for doing nothing.this is very interesting
indeed but how many can answer it.well i will try to answer that for you and
please take note that my answer doesnt represent christianity as a whole and its just one of my wisdom.in my part of practice i also preached that we can get something for doing nothing and that is why i have said earlier
that our life have been pre destined and the moment you get something for doing nothing also depends on your karma effect as the karma said
you are going to be a millionaire in your late 40 but how are you going to be a millionaire with just a sweeper job by the roadside?so there comes a lottery that you buy where it will strike or there are still other oppurtunity
that will come without you realise.in chritianity its grace but in my
practice its called your time has come to be a millionaire and there is no one
or nobody can stop you from getting it .so in layman terms its your luck has come.i dont intend to convince anyone as i am not in the position to do it
as all are up to you all to decide but my motive is to pass down my nature wisdom and taught you all to have more confidence in your daily life rather
than facing the darkness in future.
I think this is a bit off topic, but reading this thread got me thinking about predetermination etc., which I am rather indifferent to as I tend to approach things with a more post modern perspective (not entirely though, as I find post modernism to be very cynical and altogether a bit depressing)...
I think this has been touched on already, but the question I have, is if "God knew his people in advance" (Romans 8:29), why is there a need for evangelicalism etc. Why, if christianity is a religion based on faith, is there the need to preach and convert others, when they could rest in the knowledge that God knows exactly what will happen to each and every one of us anyway? Are they acting as tools of God, as he has decided, or are they contradicting his plans? OR, was that written to encourage good works, altruism and all those warm fuzzy things, rather than to be read literally as a prerequisite for salvation? And if they are tools of God, and seeing how many over-zealous evangelicalists and missionaries turn people away from the religion, why would he choose that method?
I vaguely remember reading in the bible that "faith without works is nothing" or something along those lines, I know that Christianity is not about resting on your lorrels with the happy knowledge that because you believe you're going to heaven, but I'm wondering how christians reconcile their idea of predetermination with some of these 'works'.
I don't mean this as a missionary-bash session, so please don't read it as such, just a thought to ponder.
On a different note, with regards to altruism, I think it's a blend of psychological and sociological issues, and very much depends on the level of risk involved. I agree with wisdom preacher that it certainly holds an element of ridding yourself of a bad feeling, and so, altruism is selfish... but I think it's more than that. Partly holding elements of self-elevation in society, species preservation, and as little dragon said, reciprocal. If we lost this belief in the altruistic nature of society, there would be a lot more nervous people about. I'm unconvinced about pure altruism, because I think there are so many contributing factors in every action we do, that to strip the motivations for them to one, is unrealistic, so I don't think any action could be 'pure'.
Not sure if this is restating parts of this conversation already, apologies if I am.
My how time flies! We say, [chref=8]in action it is timeliness that matters.[/chref] So, is this a timely reply to your post? Maybe in 'Taoland', eh?
1) Tribal instinct drives us to convert others to our 'truth', whether that 'truth' be religious, political, or just some personal agenda we have. We're social animals driven to interact socially. Why else would I be typing here?
2) You hit the nail on the head. We [chref=16]hold firmly[/chref] to our beliefs, whatever they are, to shield us from the [chref=25]void[/chref], and that foreboding sense of death it imparts.