Free Will, Determinism, Forgiveness and Love.

[possibility]

Sorry for the confusion, BAA - I'm not actually going anywhere, just caught up with work and family commitments.

I was alluding to my mental shift towards determinism, instead of viewing it as an 'extremist' position, as I have previously.

So yes, please make good on what you said - I am still reading along and processing it all.

 

Josh - I have been immersed in the words of Joseph Campbell all weekend. His discussion with journalist Bill Moyers in The Power of Myth is speaking my language, so thank you for that reference. I like how he describes western religion as mistaking our metaphors for fact.

 

I keep finding determinism insufficient in some way - I just can't seem to articulate what that deficiency is, yet. Maybe it has something to do with that more robust definition of 'free will' that we haven't come up with yet. 

 

I have noticed that determinism helps me to let go of the past from the instant it leaves the present, but doesn't encourage me to learn from the experience. It also helps me to find joy in the present moment, but it doesn't encourage me to hope or to try and realise my own potential.

 

And I keep going back to your suggestion, BAA, that we 'live our lives unto each other equally'. Our interconnectedness is a responsibility each of us recognises, but only when it suits us, it seems.

 

Perhaps BAA's next post might help - I look forward to it...

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for clarifying things, possibility.

 

I'll see about doing justice to the second half of your post.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, possibility said:

I keep finding determinism insufficient in some way - I just can't seem to articulate what that deficiency is, yet. Maybe it has something to do with that more robust definition of 'free will' that we haven't come up with yet. 

 

I have noticed that determinism helps me to let go of the past from the instant it leaves the present, but doesn't encourage me to learn from the experience. It also helps me to find joy in the present moment, but it doesn't encourage me to hope or to try and realise my own potential.

 

I've thought about this too, because I have ideas about what to do and how to pursue certain things. Attain goals, etc. 

 

The way I've been looking at it is to do whatever feels natural. Go after your goals. Allow reality to play out according to your gut instincts. You really have no choice in the matter, it will play out accordingly regardless. It's not as if we could stop it. I almost find myself thinking in terms of, "I hope such and such is part of the unfolding of things, wouldn't that be nice." And it either will or won't, but while we're here experiencing human life we may as well live out the experience. You can take an affirmation attitude and at the same time joyfully participate in the world. There's no reason to shut down...

[Joshpantera]

 

[possibility]

Hi Josh

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this video (I still can't work out how I 'like' a post).

 

I have taken copious notes, and hope to explore it more fully when I get more time.

 

Three points initially:

 

Firstly I think that, on top of the idea of free will being an illusion (yes, I agree with his argument here, keeping in mind that he acknowledges conscious choice as a part of the causal stream), the notion of control also being either false, fragile or fleeting is something that Sam doesn't mention, but perhaps should be considered with respect to blame, responsibility and punishment. The expectation that society, law, government or 'whoever is in control' can be responsible for, or even capable of, protecting us from anyone who intends to harm us doesn't appear to have any convincing evidence for me. Am I alone in thinking this? This can be another anxiety-causing thought, particularly as a parent, because in most cases we would need to rethink the way we raise our children.

 

Secondly, the idea of compassionate intervention that he talks about is what I was searching for - the idea that what we do, as in our conscious thoughts and actions, matters more than if we actually had free will. We can't take credit for our talents, but it matters that we use them. We can't be blamed for our faults, but it matters that we correct them. Also that notion again that we are linked to everything, and his curiosity in reference to the question on love: what is consciousness capable of? being more important than the question of where love came from.

 

Thirdly, Sam's response to the last question, where he describes that overwhelmingly positive subjective experience that transforms how we live our lives, and realising that the only frame of reference we can usually find is a religious one - that is where I found myself. And the desire to explore it in terms of 21st century thinking instead - that is why I am here.

[Joshpantera]

 

Hi Josh

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this video (I still can't work out how I 'like' a post).

 

I have taken copious notes, and hope to explore it more fully when I get more time.

 

Three points initially:

 

Firstly I think that, on top of the idea of free will being an illusion (yes, I agree with his argument here, keeping in mind that he acknowledges conscious choice as a part of the causal stream), the notion of control also being either false, fragile or fleeting is something that Sam doesn't mention, but perhaps should be considered with respect to blame, responsibility and punishment. The expectation that society, law, government or 'whoever is in control' can be responsible for, or even capable of, protecting us from anyone who intends to harm us doesn't appear to have any convincing evidence for me. Am I alone in thinking this? This can be another anxiety-causing thought, particularly as a parent, because in most cases we would need to rethink the way we raise our children....

 

Control is an interesting issue. I've said before that it's an illusion that we all play into. It's up to the environment around us whether we live or die. I was out surfing all weekend. I had eye contact on several sharks, a few of which were bulls. They could have ripped me up right there. Things could have gone bad. But they didn't. They haven't for the last 30 years. As a boy I used to feel slightly on edge going out into the ocean. And with good reason, I was surfing Volusia County Florida which has the highest bite rates in the world, I believe. Particularly at the inlet where I'd surf. And there's Great Whites out there too. Most people have only recently figured that out via social media and shark tagging. There's been GW's down to the Keys, into the Gulf. Everyone knows that now. 

 

The point being that I've willingly entered the food chain for the last 30 years. And I've grown brazen over the years. I have to remind myself at times that anything can happen. In older age I've erred on the side of caution to some degree. And it seems safer on land, but it really isn't. Some one could do something stupid at any time. There's no real safety or security really. I suppose people choose to ignore that fact most or all of the time. 

 

Any psycho could do anything at any time. The government and police can't do a dam thing to keep everyone safe. Safety is illusory, and depends on your personal ability to protect yourself either with fire arms or physical prowess, shall we say. That's the best you can do. And even that's not fool proof. Imagine if we're simply repeating events that happen infinitely. If I get attacked in this infinite replication process, then I get attacked. All this precaution, thinking in the moment, and believing I'll get myself out of anything, and always come out on top would be dependent upon whether that's how reality unfolds over and over again. Whether I conduct myself thinking I have free will or not. 

 

Something more to take in and think about....

[bornagainathiest]

 

Back again, possibility.  And profuse apologies for the delay in getting down to this reply.

 

(snip)

 

I think the Golden Rule (without applying the concepts of determinism or free will) can be effective at some levels, but it only applies if we find value in the relationship between ourselves and the person who hurt us. If it matters to you to receive love and forgiveness from that person, then you would be more willing to love and forgive them according to the Golden Rule. If, on the other hand, that person is a stranger, an outsider, or a faceless name on the Internet, for instance, then the potential love and forgiveness they offer seems to hold less value, and therefore the Golden Rule has less impact on our willingness to forgive.

 

Yes, I see your point.

The further removed/connected we are from people, the more the Golden Rule seems to lose it's potency.  That seems like a fair summation.  

 

 

Also, forgiveness and love may be more difficult to feel like we can freely choose than the Golden Rule suggests, depending on the extent of the injury felt. There would be other factors involved, but let's just look at these two, otherwise I'll be here all day.

 

So the Golden Rule appears to lose its effectiveness relative to the value of the relationship, as well as to the seriousness of the injury - unless you can apply the concept of determinism. Because in addition to employing the Golden Rule, we need to recognise that the actions of others are less a product of intended harm than of a combination of circumstances, life experiences and resulting beliefs and assumptions.

 

That's interesting.

I've sometimes wondered how courts in Fundamentalist Islamic countries deal with the tension between two conflicting concepts.  Believing the person on trial is accountable for their actions vs. Inshallah, where it is believed they are not.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah  

 

And perhaps we're at a similar crossroads here.

If everything is predetermined, then nobody can be held accountable for their actions.  Which is why Biblical Predestination is such a repugnant notion.  How can God hold people guilty of their sin, when he predetermined actions in advance?   Which, if we live in such a predetermined reality, would mean that those who harmed us didn't choose to do so and in the same way, we didn't choose to employ the Golden Rule in forgiving them.

 

 

 

I'm going to share a subjective experience here, relating to forgiveness and love. About three years ago I plunged into a personal crisis that was endangering my 18 year marriage. The crisis had actually been there the whole time, but an unrelated crisis in my husband's family brought it to the fore. While it might have been easier to give up on the marriage, to admit that I didn't think I loved him enough, or to embark on an affair (trust me, I was exploring the options), I chose instead to explore the possibility that this personal crisis was arising from possible misguided beliefs and assumptions I had about sexuality. Because in the midst of a childhood filled with catholic ignorance and readily associating sexuality with shame, I had also been subjected to a handful of incidents that I would describe as mild sexual abuse by my brother over four years beginning in early adolescence. I never told anyone (except my husband much later) and I thought I had emerged unscathed, but there was a hidden impact resonating through all my relationships, that had a lot to do with misguided judgement.

I am not, by nature, a confrontational person, so the process by which I came through this crisis was mostly internal and involved plenty of journaling and learning about sexuality from a broader perspective. The potential to negatively impact my entire family (including my children) was very real, so for that reason I didn't think it was fair to bring it all out in the open and let punishment (legal or otherwise) do its work. But I certainly don't think the Golden Rule would have inspired me to forgive anyone (including myself) at the time.

My process towards forgiveness involved developing awareness, knowledge and understanding - without judgement - of the circumstances and life experiences that contributed firstly to my own beliefs and assumptions in relation to my marriage, to sexual relationships in general and to what happened to me, then those that contributed to my brother's beliefs and assumptions, and resulting thoughts and actions at the time, and finally those that contributed to my parents', even all the way back into their own childhood experiences. The more I discovered and understood about the cause and effect relationships involved, the more it helped me, not to absolve anyone of responsibility, but to see that their individual agency (and mine) in what transpired was much smaller than it first appeared, and that none of us deserved the full extent of the blame I had been attributing. It was an informed compassion for their circumstances (and mine) that allowed me to forgive. I have since written letters of acknowledgement and forgiveness to both my father and brother that I have not mailed (my father has since passed away), and my relationship with my husband has never been stronger or healthier.

 

 

Thank you for sharing that with us, possibility.  

 

 

 

But this means that we also need to apply the concept of free will (as in our ability to choose thoughts and actions based on intellectual reasoning rather than led purely by emotion), regardless of how futile it might appear at the universal (or multi-universal) level. Because we will not stop or prevent cycles of abuse, injury and violence, or the resulting shame and silent oppression, by simply choosing forgiveness and love enforced by the Golden Rule, but by also choosing to develop awareness, seek knowledge and strive for understanding - that is, by combining compassion and reasoning free of judgement, boundaries and limitations.

 

Am I close?

 

Close to my contention that even if we have no free will, we should still believe that we do?

 

No, possibility.  Not close.  You are right on target.  

Even if science eventually shows us that we inhabit a reality where everything is predetermined, this should not be a license for us to live as if we had no free will.  The reason I cite for this conclusion is that science has already shown us something else - something just as important.  Something absolutely vital and relevant to what it means to be human.  Science clearly tells that we have evolved from primate ancestors and that we are highly social animals that thrive on healthy relationships and healthy social interactions.  If we recognize these things, then it naturally follows that we should try to enhance the quality of our social and familial bonds.  

 

Surely, if we stop and/or prevent cycles of abuse, injury and violence, shame and oppression - doesn't this lead to a better quality of human life?

Ditto with developing awareness, seeking knowledge and striving for understanding?  Likewise, choosing forgiveness and love via the Golden Rule?   If doing these things results in stronger social and familial bonds, then surely we've made ourselves (as individuals and as a species) more adaptable, more resilient and more likely to survive?  If that's so, then even if we don't have free will, living as if we did isn't a problem, isn't a contradiction and isn't hypocrisy.  It's a validation of our evolutionary history and a validation of our on-going evolution.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[possibility]

Hi Josh

 

It's interesting that you mention sharks. I live on the west coast of Australia, where fatal shark attacks are the highest in the world, and the debate resurfaces every summer about culling, drum lines, alert systems and 'rogue' sharks. My husband is a regular ocean paddler, so I sympathise with your expression 'entering the food chain'. The shark debate actually came to mind while listening to Sam Harris, especially when he talked about punishing someone, or punishing animals, because 'they deserve it'. The idea that we can blame a shark for biting any human who enters its hunting grounds (disguised as a seal) implies that humans have more right to life, and that sharks are not as deserving of our compassion.

 

I should admit that a compassionate standpoint towards dangerous animals in particular is a relatively new one for me. Until recently I was the type of person who felt entitled to squish or poison a spider that dared to enter my home, simply because it unsettled me. It threatened my security and safety, and so deserved to die. Somewhere in my mind, I was vaguely aware of being misguided, and as I write this I find the idea as ludicrous as the shark culling debate, but at the time I was confident that sound reasoning was backing up my actions, and so I felt justified. Somewhere along this journey, however, I found I could no longer justify this kind of wilful violence. 

 

Given our brain's capacity to process hypothetical situations, are we really confined to only the information we are presented with at the time? Or are we equipped to entertain the possibility that our initial assessment of the situation could be wrong, and therefore to reserve judgement until we have more information? At what point do we decide that someone deserves (or doesn't deserve) our compassion, friendship or connection? To what extent will we go to undo or repair the damage inflicted on our connection with another human being caused by premature or naive judgements that turn out to be wrong? Does the fact that we were not aware of a connection before our encounter with someone factor into our thoughts and behaviour?

 

If I accept that control, free will and the boundaries and limitations we impose on the world are all illusory, then I accept that there is always risk in life, regardless of what precautions I may take. An enormous amount of courage is necessary, therefore, in order to fully accept and embrace the universe for what it is. So when you mentioned in a previous post that your deterministic viewpoint is stress-free, I kept thinking that maybe you're still missing something. Because I find myself asking: at what point and for what reason do you justify the use of firearms or physical prowess to protect a 'self' that does not exist? 

 

Sam Harris says in 'Waking Up' that "Your mind is the basis of everything you experience and of every contribution you make to the lives of others. Given this fact, it makes sense to train it". That's what I've been working on - and I personally find the journey to be ultimately rewarding, but far from stress-free.

 

Our 'automatic' reaction to fear (with the resulting judgements, protective boundaries and limitations we impose on our world in order to avoid fear and pain) is a contributing factor in the instances of hatred, violence, abuse, oppression, despair and the destruction of life in the world. So when I am conscious of my own fear, and if I am to honour my awareness that everything is connected, I am challenged to make a conscious effort in letting go of that fear (with its associated destructiveness) and choosing courage, connecting with compassion instead of blocking or damaging the connection to avoid fear or avoid pain. It isn't easy. I find myself facing big and small fears every day that I cannot avoid except by deluding myself that there are boundaries and limitations that rational thought tells me don't really exist.

 

Because applying the understanding that we are connected to everything leads me to the ultimate conclusion that all life - including sharks, spiders, yourself, and the strangers we meet every day - are equally entitled to compassion, peace, joy and hope from their connections to life (and to us as a part of life), regardless of what we think we know about them and whether or not they are aware and able to reciprocate in kind. 

 

I think that is the real challenge we face, and religion only makes it harder to see the way forward, not easier.

[Joshpantera]

 

If I accept that control, free will and the boundaries and limitations we impose on the world are all illusory, then I accept that there is always risk in life, regardless of what precautions I may take. An enormous amount of courage is necessary, therefore, in order to fully accept and embrace the universe for what it is. So when you mentioned in a previous post that your deterministic viewpoint is stress-free, I kept thinking that maybe you're still missing something. Because I find myself asking: at what point and for what reason do you justify the use of firearms or physical prowess to protect a 'self' that does not exist?

 

It is stress free in that you can simply relax - what will be, will be. That's the context that used the term stress and free. And so how could relaxing by reminding yourself that what will be, will be, be missing something? I haven't missed the notion that I can relax, nor that relaxing can feel stress free. 

 

The fire arms and fighting comment was simply to point out that that's all we have to try and defend ourselves. The government and police can't do it. I know fire arms are a sore subject in Australia, but the point remains. Then, I dug deeper and concluded that even to the extent of thinking I can protect or defend myself, that's mainly illusory because ultimately it depends on how reality unfolds, if we are in fact existing in an infinite replication. I'm only thinking like this because we're looking at how a deterministic existence would go. 

 

To your final question, that's something to consider. Survival instinct is the most obvious answer. And to loose that you'd have to condition yourself not to react to immanent danger. But then what? We're talking about something like Jainism now, and rather than world affirmation, we're looking at world negation. 

 

 

Our 'automatic' reaction to fear (with the resulting judgements, protective boundaries and limitations we impose on our world in order to avoid fear and pain) is a contributing factor in the instances of hatred, violence, abuse, oppression, despair and the destruction of life in the world. So when I am conscious of my own fear, and if I am to honour my awareness that everything is connected, I am challenged to make a conscious effort in letting go of that fear (with its associated destructiveness) and choosing courage, connecting with compassion instead of blocking or damaging the connection to avoid fear or avoid pain. It isn't easy. I find myself facing big and small fears every day that I cannot avoid except by deluding myself that there are boundaries and limitations that rational thought tells me don't really exist.

 

That's true, but fear only used in survival situations is quite different. It's instinctual. Trying to get rid of that seems a little pointless unless, once again, Jainism seems attractive along with a world negation attitude. Let the shark eat you. Don't bother a fly. Refuse to participate in confrontation, etc., etc.

 

 

 

 

Because applying the understanding that we are connected to everything leads me to the ultimate conclusion that all life - including sharks, spiders, yourself, and the strangers we meet every day - are equally entitled to compassion, peace, joy and hope from their connections to life (and to us as a part of life), regardless of what we think we know about them and whether or not they are aware and able to reciprocate in kind. 

 

I think that is the real challenge we face, and religion only makes it harder to see the way forward, not easier.

 

 

Religion does seem to make it harder in terms of getting to the point of unity and interconnection. But again, we're walking a fine line here concerning Jainism and world negation ideas. They don't seem to gel as well with determinism as the affirmation does. Affirming the world just as it is, is where you can let go and relax. You're not really pressed to go out and have to do something. You just go with flow, more or less. Everyone does any ways, often not realizing that it's the flow that they're going with. 

 

In terms of life, it all stops the minute that life stops consuming itself. I'm sure you realize that.  

 

Primitive and native mythologies were oriented to accepting the horror of life which is that life has to consume and destroy itself in order to continue, to perpetuate. And they realized that there's no way around that. We don't consume non-living things, only living things. We have to either lay down and die, or keep consuming other living things. That goes for steaks or radishes. We're always killing and eating. In fact that Ouroboros symbol as my avatar symbolizes that concept. The symbol is found all over the world of a serpent or dragon eating itself and represents life as a self consuming entity. So there's obviously a balance to be recognized. We have to choose how much life we leave undisturbed and how much life we choose to consume and destroy. Obviously we can show compassion to mammals, fish, reptiles and birds. But how much compassion are we to show vegetation? Does vegetation deserve less compassion? If we apply compassion across the board, life ceases on the planet. 

 

The way that native american myths dealt with this problem, is through myths where the Buffalo, for instance, offers himself to the people as a sacrifice and asked that if they do such and such ceremonial tradition, then it's all OK and the horrors of having to kill the Buffalo are curbed by giving the hunter peace of mind and seeing the act of killing as honorable in the grand scheme. And there's examples like that world wide. They had to overcome feelings of compassion for the animals by imagining that animals were willing participants. 

 

Basically, we're here living out the experience of awareness. That will entail all variety of experience, including survival, sex, fighting, you name it. And also the capability of deep contemplation. Affirmation is a very stress free way of living out the experience. Negation seems like a very stressful way of pussy footing around through life, mostly unnecessarily. 

 

Pretty simple really. 

[possibility]

Hi Josh

 

First of all, I do agree with many of the philosophies behind Jainism, including Ahimsa, although I love a good steak and I'm not about to shed my clothes or give away all my possessions just yet. I definitely see the merit in their thinking, but extreme interpretations of Jain philosophies in texts and in doctrines and rituals can certainly lead believers towards negation. The same can be said of Christianity and other religions. The idea that we can live in the world but not be of the world is the balance I guess I'm aiming for, which is also readily misinterpreted within Christianity. I'm not going to label it a negation world view, but I understand how you could interpret it that way.

 

This 'world' you see me negating, I see as an experience of the universe distorted by false boundaries and limitations that we have built around the universe as it is, in order to delude ourselves that we are safe, secure and in control of our environment in a world that makes sense. These limitations include the human constructs of society, religion, culture, language, politics and nationalism. They separate us from each other and obscure our mutual understanding and compassion, thereby contributing to fear, hatred, violence and oppression. 

 

If you imagine human potential in the universe without these obstructions, you will probably envision either anarchy or extraordinary possibilities. I'm not ignorant of the dangers of the former (as evident by my fears), but I can definitely see the potential of the latter. A bit like John Lennon's 'Imagine'. 

 

That doesn't mean I think we should abandon society, language or politics - or even religion for that matter. But we should recognise them as false constructs and as fundamentally flawed in their attempts to present the universe as it is. Once we accept that, we can seek a more accurate experience of the universe and maybe realise the ultimate potential of humanity (could you call this our destiny if it's predetermined?) which I am thinking is not to dominate or control the universe as we once thought, but to... (I'm not sure how to articulate this)... Negotiate a balance? Equilibrium? Eternity of life? I'm still a long way from working this bit out in my head, but I think the key lies in our capacity for awareness, knowledge and understanding of the universe and everything in it, of ourselves and of the interconnectedness of all life. Because if everything is predetermined then perhaps this blueprint is potentially knowable.

 

To your final question, that's something to consider. Survival instinct is the most obvious answer. And to loose that you'd have to condition yourself not to react to immanent danger. But then what? We're talking about something like Jainism now, and rather than world affirmation, we're looking at world negation. 

 

Our 'automatic' reaction to fear (with the resulting judgements, protective boundaries and limitations we impose on our world in order to avoid fear and pain) is a contributing factor in the instances of hatred, violence, abuse, oppression, despair and the destruction of life in the world. So when I am conscious of my own fear, and if I am to honour my awareness that everything is connected, I am challenged to make a conscious effort in letting go of that fear (with its associated destructiveness) and choosing courage, connecting with compassion instead of blocking or damaging the connection to avoid fear or avoid pain. It isn't easy. I find myself facing big and small fears every day that I cannot avoid except by deluding myself that there are boundaries and limitations that rational thought tells me don't really exist.

 

That's true, but fear only used in survival situations is quite different. It's instinctual. Trying to get rid of that seems a little pointless unless, once again, Jainism seems attractive along with a world negation attitude. Let the shark eat you. Don't bother a fly. Refuse to participate in confrontation, etc., etc.

 

There is plenty of evidence to show that humans are not bound by survival instinct to the same extent as other animals. Rational thought and knowledge, as well as irrational beliefs and assumptions, all have the capacity to override our physiological responses to stimuli as the main contributing factor in our actions and words. Instinct is then an excuse we use to absolve ourselves of responsibility for impulsive reactions that we cannot take back. Survival instinct is a factor, sure, but it's not as overwhelming as we might like to believe. Once we have grown strong and healthy, reached maturity and had the opportunity to procreate, the only other thing our instincts are chasing is dominance. So I'm not actually saying 'let the shark eat you' - I'm saying accept the fact that you have entered a shark's hunting grounds, that they have just as much right to seek food as you do, and that you closely resemble what they know to be food. Accept that your response is one of fear based on a mix of survival and dominance 'instincts' that you are not actually compelled to act on. Then negotiate your own survival from that level of awareness and respect. The problem I have is with the lynch mob mentality that arises after someone gets attacked by a shark, as if it must be the shark's fault. The truth is that the human has more control over their actions than the shark does, limited though it may seem in such an intense situation.

 

I think maybe our understanding of compassion is a little different, because I have to disagree with your statement that "If we apply compassion across the board, life ceases on our planet". Compassion means to 'suffer with'. It isn't the self-negating, guilt-ridden concept that Christianity or Catholicism often makes it out to be. Compassion is a recognition of our interconnectedness and responsibility toward each other: that our lives are intertwined whether or not we acknowledge it, and that we depend on the peace, joy and hope in each connection to fulfil our unique potential. It also means that, when we become aware of conflict damaging a connection, we have a responsibility to make repairs and restore that peace, joy and hope. I think that's what these primitive mythologies you mentioned were trying to make sense of. 

 

So it isn't such a stretch to have compassion for vegetation. Just because a tree has no paw to touch us or legs to follow us, doesn't mean we have no connection with it as a living thing. Just because it cannot make noise and has no eyes to shed tears, doesn't mean it can't communicate a lack of peace, joy or hope in how we treat it directly or indirectly - we just need to be more aware of the signs. 

 

And just because we have compassion for a plant or an animal, doesn't mean we're not allowed to kill it for food.  I don't think it's about imagining them as willing participants, or about treating them as humans. I think it's more about recognising that the potential of a plant or animal is the opportunity, at minimum, to grow healthy and strong, to reach maturity and to procreate. Whatever we can do to balance our actions in enabling this minimum potential in every living thing is what we should be 'really pressed to go out and have to do'. You did mention that "we have to choose how much life we leave undisturbed, and how much life we choose to consume and destroy" - does this mean you concede that we do in fact 'have to do something', or that you agree with BAA's contention that "even if we have no free will, we should still act as if we do"? 

 

We are a long way from enabling this opportunity for life fulfilment even across our own species, so we can really only 'go with the flow' in varying ignorance of the fact that we are connected to all life. This kind of delusion might not be as damaging as fundamental Christianity, but it isn't helping us to achieve peace, joy or hope on a global scale, either. The world we have created for ourselves is a far cry from what we can achieve if we understand and apply this interconnection across the board - with knowledge, not with religion. 

 

It is stress free in that you can simply relax - what will be, will be. That's the context that used the term stress and free. And so how could relaxing by reminding yourself that what will be, will be, be missing something? I haven't missed the notion that I can relax, nor that relaxing can feel stress free. 

 

I'm still struggling with your application of determinism (can you tell?), so please help me out if I'm interpreting this wrong. I agree that reminding yourself what will be, will be, is very relaxing. But it also appears to absolve everyone, particularly yourself, of responsibility towards the connection. Go with the flow... do whatever feels natural, allow reality to play out according to your gut instincts - this is an extreme determinist position that doesn't sit well with me. It sounds like choosing to be blissfully ignorant of indirect consequences, of our interconnectedness and our responsibility towards each other. There's no denying that it's an attractive way to live, but it is still delusional, and therefore potentially destructive.

 

So I'm thinking that determinism explains only half the story at best, and these negation/restoration/affirmation labels are yet another false construct that attempts (without success) an accurate understanding of the universe as it is. Use them if you want to, but personally I'm past the point of fitting things neatly into boxes so we can feel like our world makes sense.

 

I am learning to balance my fear of the universe as it is with experiences of genuine peace, joy and hope in my connections with the lives around me - human, animal and plant alike. As for survival, sex, fighting - I continue to actively enjoy the first two, at least, but I recognise that they are not essential to fulfilling my human potential, despite the momentary experiences of joy they bring. Because it is our connection that endures. It always has been.

[Joshpantera]

 

That doesn't mean I think we should abandon society, language or politics - or even religion for that matter. But we should recognise them as false constructs and as fundamentally flawed in their attempts to present the universe as it is. Once we accept that, we can seek a more accurate experience of the universe and maybe realise the ultimate potential of humanity (could you call this our destiny if it's predetermined?) which I am thinking is not to dominate or control the universe as we once thought, but to... (I'm not sure how to articulate this)... Negotiate a balance? Equilibrium? Eternity of life?

 

This all looks agreeable to me. Going on the assumption that there's something we ought to do. 

 

 

I'm still a long way from working this bit out in my head, but I think the key lies in our capacity for awareness, knowledge and understanding of the universe and everything in it, of ourselves and of the interconnectedness of all life. Because if everything is predetermined then perhaps this blueprint is potentially knowable.

 

And this seems like an interesting direction for inquiry. Could we gain knowledge of the blue print of replication, even if the replications are too far away to come into contact with? That seems like a good direction for sci-fi in any event. 

 

 

So I'm not actually saying 'let the shark eat you' - I'm saying accept the fact that you have entered a shark's hunting grounds, that they have just as much right to seek food as you do, and that you closely resemble what they know to be food. Accept that your response is one of fear based on a mix of survival and dominance 'instincts' that you are not actually compelled to act on. Then negotiate your own survival from that level of awareness and respect. The problem I have is with the lynch mob mentality that arises after someone gets attacked by a shark, as if it must be the shark's fault. The truth is that the human has more control over their actions than the shark does, limited though it may seem in such an intense situation.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. That's where, for instance, if I'm sitting on my board like a sitting duck target, which is what I am out in the ocean, my gut instinct is to kick the shit out of a shark that comes up for a bump / taste, is a survival oriented instinct. I don't freeze up, I become counter aggressive and wrapped up in the second to second consciousness of survival. And that's fine and well because the end result is not rallying a shark cull, but living to surf another day and if anything, teaching the shark a lesson about bumping surfers. Surfers / prey have the ability to fight back. The shark will realize that, as it can with seals, with the predatory consciousness it is experiencing. They learn from encounters with prey. There's a balance taking place between predator and prey. And I'm well within reason in terms of naturalism and conservation from this stand point. It's the over reaction of culling, that breeches reason here and I agree with you. Mainly because if western Australia is that unsafe, either (1) don't take the risk of entering the ocean food chain, or (2) move to another location which is much lower in risk. It's tourism and surfing tourism that likely drives the force of the shark cull. It's financial decision making at the expense of the natural order. But as I'll go into, even that is questionable in terms of what exactly we do or need not do to the natural order. 

 

 

And just because we have compassion for a plant or an animal, doesn't mean we're not allowed to kill it for food.  I don't think it's about imagining them as willing participants, or about treating them as humans. I think it's more about recognising that the potential of a plant or animal is the opportunity, at minimum, to grow healthy and strong, to reach maturity and to procreate. Whatever we can do to balance our actions in enabling this minimum potential in every living thing is what we should be 'really pressed to go out and have to do'. You did mention that "we have to choose how much life we leave undisturbed, and how much life we choose to consume and destroy" - does this mean you concede that we do in fact 'have to do something', or that you agree with BAA's contention that "even if we have no free will, we should still act as if we do"? 

 

Obviously our choices seem predetermined for a number reasons, not limited only to infinite replication. We think we're making them in the moment, but we're actually always legging behind, as Harris discussed in the video. I agree with BAA in that we likely have to proceed as if they are free will choices, even if they're not - just for peace of mind. It's just fun to toy around with looking at things without the "free will" goggles on to see what it looks it. And perhaps saying yes, to whatever the implications entail.  

 

Either way, though, the point here is that we're consuming and destroying entities. We're an aspect of the earth itself, and the space it exists within the material of our bodies, which in total is a consuming and destroying life aspect of the earth itself. Without consuming and destroying, eating food, we wind down and cease the experience of life. And the earth tends to always balance itself out with all this consuming and destroying taking place, one way or another. 

 

 

I'm still struggling with your application of determinism (can you tell?), so please help me out if I'm interpreting this wrong. I agree that reminding yourself what will be, will be, is very relaxing. But it also appears to absolve everyone, particularly yourself, of responsibility towards the connection. Go with the flow... do whatever feels natural, allow reality to play out according to your gut instincts - this is an extreme determinist position that doesn't sit well with me. It sounds like choosing to be blissfully ignorant of indirect consequences, of our interconnectedness and our responsibility towards each other. There's no denying that it's an attractive way to live, but it is still delusional, and therefore potentially destructive.

 

What else are you going to do but go with the flow? Are you going to change the flow? If so, how are you going to do that?

 

Now you've jumped over to world restoration ideas, not exactly, but in the general direction of thinking there's something that needs to be done. Which is the basis for the zoroastrian, jewish and then christian concepts of trying to restore the world to perfection. The discourse from affirmation is that you'll not change the world. That task is like a dog chasing it's own tail around in circles. It may pay off to consider the previous questions. Your ideas have not been precisely Jain, or precisely Zorastrian, but they're similar in that they go in negation and now restoration directions, as those mythologies have done. And that's where the conflict is at. I'm sticking to an affirmation based world view in the face of these negation and restoration oriented directions you've raised. That's rubbed you wrong. But let's move along though. 

 

 

So I'm thinking that determinism explains only half the story at best, and these negation/restoration/affirmation labels are yet another false construct that attempts (without success) an accurate understanding of the universe as it is. Use them if you want to, but personally I'm past the point of fitting things neatly into boxes so we can feel like our world makes sense.

 

That must be because you're having thoughts that are close to, but not exactly, negation and restoration. For instance, you don't think that the world was created perfect and needs to be restored to it's perfect condition, like the zoroastrians and judeo-christians. But at the same time you feel like the world needs to be worked at in some ideal direction. And that's the real meat of the restoration ideas. I'm just using these terms in the way that some one would use a term like "agnostic" simply to refer to some case of "not knowing." I'm agnostic when it comes to the historical existence of Jesus. The context is clear in such an instance. I don't know if he ever really existed as one fixed man. The context that I used "restoration" and "negation" may not have been that clear. But that's the context in which I was using the terms - as needing to fix up the world, or needing to reject it.  

 

 

I am learning to balance my fear of the universe as it is with experiences of genuine peace, joy and hope in my connections with the lives around me - human, animal and plant alike. As for survival, sex, fighting - I continue to actively enjoy the first two, at least, but I recognise that they are not essential to fulfilling my human potential, despite the momentary experiences of joy they bring. Because it is our connection that endures. It always has been.

 

At the bottom of it all, what are we? 

 

When you say that it is our connection that endures, I can take that to mean we are existence itself. That which 'connects everything' into unity, wholeness, and that which never began and will never end. That's a nice and neat little package, wouldn't you say? 

 

Regardless of our perceived births and deaths, we've been the fabric and structure of existence itself all along, to loosely quote Alan Watts. Again, what has died? The existence, or connecting factor underlying the rising and falling of perceivable forms and images in space and time, never really went anywhere. The consumed and the consumer, were interconnected and whole all the while. Like the image of the tail biting serpent entails. The emotional attachments and concerns speak directly to our perception of an interconnected unity as NOT really interconnected. Why negate the world? Well, if you cast aside the interconnected vision of reality, you may think in those terms of Jain - like thoughts. Why restore the world? Well, if you cast aside the interconnected vision of reality, then you may think there's something that needs to be done, as christians do. 

 

What if there really isn't? What if it's going along exactly as it ought to be? And will always balance itself regardless of our interceding efforts? 

 

Then you simply affirm the world, as it is. You trust, in a way, that things are as they ought to be, and will always be so. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[possibility]

Obviously our choices seemed predetermined for a number reasons, not limited only to infinite replication. We think we're making them in the moment, but we're actually always legging behind, as Harris discussed in the video. I agree with BAA in that we likely have to proceed as if they are free will choices, even if they're not. It's just fun to toy around with looking at things without the "free will" goggles on. 

Either way, though, the point here is that we're consuming and destroying entities. We're an aspect of the earth itself, and the space it exists within, which is a consuming and destroying life aspect of the earth itself. Without consuming and destroy, we wind down and cease the experience of life. 

Do you acknowledge, though, that we are not only about consuming and destroying? That as humans we have the capacity to actively participate in the creation of life at every level? Our technological advancement, and our ability to imagine something that doesn't exist and then to bring it into being, living or non-living, for no other reason than that we can, is what sets us apart from other animals. Have you ever wondered why? Have you really taken a good look at 'the flow', at the progression of the universe and life on earth from as far back as we can confirm, and imagined where it is going? Have you wondered how it would have unfolded if humans didn't utilise our capacity to imagine and create, but only consumed and destroyed just like every other animal, with no regard for our interconnection beyond physiological or even social needs?

 

What else are you going to do but go with the flow? Are you going to change the flow? If so, how are you going to do that? Now you've jumped over to world restoration, not exactly, but in that general direction of thinking there's something that needs done. Which is the basis for the zoroastrian, jewish and then christian concepts of trying to restore the world to perfection. The discourse from affirmation is that you'll not change it. It's a dog chasing it's own tail around in circles. It may pay off to consider the previous questions. Your ideas have not been precisely Jain, or precisely Zorastrian, but they're similar in that they go in negation and now restoration directions. And that's where the conflict is at. I'm sticking to affirmation in the face of these negation and restoration oriented directions. That's rubbed you wrong. Let's move along though. 

I'll point out here that I'm not thinking I'm going to change the flow. But I do believe that I can actively, consciously participate in it. I achieve that by developing awareness, seeking knowledge and striving to understand the universe and the general direction of the flow, and then choosing my thoughts and actions in harmony with where I believe it is going, rather than actively or ignorantly resisting it. The flow, as I currently understand it, is working towards achieving a balance between the consuming/destroying and the creating. We have finally reached the point in our understanding of the universe that acknowledges there is no God to do the creating - so that leaves humans to work towards achieving that balance. Nothing else exists with this creative capacity. So far we're doing a pretty lousy job of it, but not because we aren't capable. It's because too many of us are living in a false world of our own construction, that tells us something or someone else is going to take care of that. That I'm safe and secure in the world just as it. We fail to see that it is our creativity, and our awareness of that creativity and of the universe as it is, that enables us to actively participate in progress towards the 'natural' (including man-made) harmony and balance of life in the universe. 

 

When you go down the path of affirmation, to avoid delusion you would need to affirm everything about the universe as it is. I would like to see you actively affirm your ex-wife, for starters. Then you can go ahead and affirm the existence of Christians who raise their children to believe that they, and their friends and their uncle Josh, will burn for eternity in a fiery pit if they don't actively and vocally proclaim their belief in an invisible man in the sky and their love for an invisible 2,000 year old 'friend' who gives them permission to judge or hate anyone not thinking or acting like they do. If you can continue to declare that you don't have to do anything, that the world is perfect just the way it is when someone like that crosses your path, then I will accept your affirmation world view as non-delusional.

 

An affirmation world view holds up only until a shark bumps you on your surfboard, and then you clearly feel the need to do something to change the flow, to "teach the shark a lesson about bumping surfers". You can justify your actions as much as you want, but in that moment you have to admit that your affirmation world view has gone up in a puff of smoke, because your world in that moment is not perfect. Something needs to change. And then suddenly you are contributing to the anger and violence in the world in your desperate bid to restore your world view to the perfection you believed it to be only a moment ago. If you look at your life, you might see that other reactions of anger and violence (through words or actions) are not restricted to survival situations, but might coincide with a threat to your view of the world as perfect as it is, and not needing us to do anything. Do you see the falseness of this construct yet? Do you see the potential destructiveness? 

 

When you say that it is our connection that endures, I can take that to mean we are existence itself. That which 'connects everything' into unity, wholeness, and that which never began and will never end. That's a nice and neat little package, wouldn't you say?

Regardless of our perceived births and deaths, we've been the fabric and structure of existence itself all along, to loosely quote Alan Watts. Again, what has died? The existence, or connecting factor underlying the rising and falling of perceivable forms and images in space and time, never really went anywhere. The consumed and the consumer, were interconnected and whole all the while. Like the image of the tail biting serpent entails. The emotional attachments speak directly to our perception of an interconnected unity as NOT really interconnected. Why negate the world? Well, if you cast aside the interconnected vision of reality, you may think in those terms of Jain - like thoughts. Why restore the world? Well, if you cast aside the interconnected vision of reality, then you may think there's something that needs to be done, as christians do.  

What if there really isn't? What if it's going along exactly as it ought to be?

Why do you keep casting aside this interconnected vision of reality? Do you not see it that way? I was following you, up until you mentioned "emotional attachments", then I lost your train of thought.

 

Our emotional attachments begin at the physiological level. I am physically attracted to my husband, which reinforces my feeling of a connection to him, and therefore my emotional attachment. I have biological kinship with my parents, my brother and sisters, which reinforce my feeling of a connection to them, decreasing in emotional attachment the further away from my own genetic code and social circle I believe them to be. My children are my genetic progeny, which reinforces my feeling of a connection to them as probably the strongest emotional attachment of all. From there my feeling or awareness of a connection decreases according to the social, cultural, political and religious constructs that might form my world view. I can feel less connected to a Catholic family living in Lebanon than I do to the Lebanese family that runs my favourite pizza shop. 

 

In the universe as it is, though, I know that the connection still exists equally at all of these levels. As you say, it is our perception or awareness of that interconnection based on physiological, social, cultural or religious feeling that keeps us from an accurate experience of the universe. The moment that emotional attachment or feeling changes or disappears, our perception of the connection changes - if that feeling is all we see of the connection, then there is potential for damage. The connection remains, whether you acknowledge it or not, but it can be obscured now by fear, pain, anger, regret or despair. In our avoidance of this fear or pain, we deny the connection in our mind. 

 

Marriage, therefore, for better or worse, demonstrates our awareness of a lasting connection between two people that goes beyond biology, emotional attachment or feeling connected on a physiological, social or ideological level. It is a small-scale model for our universal connection with everyone else. But that's another discussion, I think.

[possibility]

 

I've sometimes wondered how courts in Fundamentalist Islamic countries deal with the tension between two conflicting concepts.  Believing the person on trial is accountable for their actions vs. Inshallah, where it is believed they are not. 

 

I would imagine they deal with it the same way they deal with most tensions between beliefs and actual experience in fundamentalist religion - delusion and denial is my guess.

 

Thank you for your comments, BAA and Josh. These discussions are really helping me to make sense of things. 

 

And apologies, Josh, for the low blow in my previous post. I notice other people can edit their own post after it goes up, but I don't seem to have that luxury. My reference to your ex-wife was uncalled for. I had no right to poke that particular wound in driving my point home. I'm sorry.

[Joshpantera]

 

Do you acknowledge, though, that we are not only about consuming and destroying? 

 

Of course, but that's besides the point I was making. It doesn't matter to the point I was making that we also have a spiritual dimension in edition to animal instincts, we're consuming and destroying entities regardless of our spiritual capabilities and higher levels of intelligence. Looking toward the higher levels doesn't some how trump the point being made, clearly.

 

What does interconnection have to do with this? 

 

All of the consuming and destroying is being done by the same thing, looking at itself as "other." 

 

 

Have you wondered how it would have unfolded if humans didn't utilise our capacity to imagine and create, but only consumed and destroyed just like every other animal, with no regard for our interconnection beyond physiological or even social needs?

 

Do you see how the above doesn't really apply to the point I was making? 

 

We operate with higher levels of intelligence, of course, and yet we're still consuming and destroying entities that can't be any other way, regardless of our intelligence. You seem resistant to the point itself. Let's see why. 

 

 

'll point out here that I'm not thinking I'm going to change the flow. But I do believe that I can actively, consciously participate in it. I achieve that by developing awareness, seeking knowledge and striving to understand the universe and the general direction of the flow, and then choosing my thoughts and actions in harmony with where I believe it is going, rather than actively or ignorantly resisting it. The flow, as I currently understand it, is working towards achieving a balance between the consuming/destroying and the creating. We have finally reached the point in our understanding of the universe that acknowledges there is no God to do the creating - so that leaves humans to work towards achieving that balance. Nothing else exists with this creative capacity. So far we're doing a pretty lousy job of it, but not because we aren't capable. It's because too many of us are living in a false world of our own construction, that tells us something or someone else is going to take care of that. That I'm safe and secure in the world just as it. We fail to see that it is our creativity, and our awareness of that creativity and of the universe as it is, that enables us to actively participate in progress towards the 'natural' (including man-made) harmony and balance of life in the universe. 

 

The flow that I understand, is a flow that operates completely on it's own with or without human existence. Life has been persistent, very persistent. There's a flow of life and it's tough, tough to stop. Imagine all of the things that could have or should have ended life, but didn't. If we're talking a replicated universe, that's probably why there's a strong flow in the direction of persistent life, and regardless of human existence. And the intelligent life is part of that flow, but not the thrust of it. This would seem to be something that plays out over and over again. Whether intelligent life destroys the earth or saves it, I guess depends on how reality is determined to unfold in that heavily deterministic scenario. It's interesting to contrast ideas against deterministic replication. What's obvious here is that the heavy duty deterministic views, put a damper on people trying to rally everyone to a cause. It seems that those who want to rally a cause sort of depend on everyone thinking that they have the free will to actually change anything in ways that weren't predetermined to begin with. So determinism, at first glance, may seem like a party pooper. 

 

And again, the general affirmation attitude of saying yes to life, is in accord with as heavy a deterministic universe we can imagine. 

 

 

When you go down the path of affirmation, to avoid delusion you would need to affirm everything about the universe as it is. I would like to see you actively affirm your ex-wife, for starters.

 

I've come into a situation where I've been shown the mind set that my ex-wife was in, an unhappy one. Frustrated. And what goes into that from a female point of view. And I have actually seen this now from what would have been very similar to my ex-wife's perspective. And I've told the other women who's experiencing something very similar, that now seeing it from another point of view, I can release what has happened much more easily. I can actually say that the horrors of what happened was a case of reality balancing itself out, as ugly as it was. The light in the darkness, the positive in the negative - is that we were both unhappy and more or less settled. All of the shit that went down was reality shifting around and rearranging. I wound up in a nice situation, recently. Real nice. There's some reprieve on the horizon. And it's the sort of reprieve that'll get me rethinking everything and letting go of attachments to certain negativity that I've previously held on to - even in the face of my familiarity with the deeper philosophical depths. 

 

 

Then you can go ahead and affirm the existence of Christians who raise their children to believe that they, and their friends and their uncle Josh, will burn for eternity in a fiery pit if they don't actively and vocally proclaim their belief in an invisible man in the sky and their love for an invisible 2,000 year old 'friend' who gives them permission to judge or hate anyone not thinking or acting like they do. If you can continue to declare that you don't have to do anything, that the world is perfect just the way it is when someone like that crosses your path, then I will accept your affirmation world view as non-delusional.

 

The simple answer, is that you affirm the world as it is, first and foremost, then your participation in the world thereafter consists of seeing what's happening for what it is, rather than thinking that it's something that it isn't. The above will only die off on it's own accord, considering that it will die off. And because of the factors in play. It's dying generation to generation. It's loosing ground due to the internet, basically. Because of very open conversations like the ones we have around here. And what ever happens, is just what happens as the natural unfolding of reality. I can't very well claim that christians are exempt from world affirmation, nor Hitler or anything else you view as dramatic that you may raise. And that's why I've not claimed that christians or any one else is excluded from affirmation. They have every right to exist, and to be affirmed in that respect. I say to the debates. The natural flow of existence, in the deep sense, chooses to keep me in the game so to speak. Do I choose that, or has it been chosen for me? And whether or not anything continues or ceases is entirely up to the unfolding of reality, perhaps to the extent of a replication process that gives us all of the players in the game, and the outcome of that game. Affirmation goes deep down. Seems like a bottomless pit, really. 

 

 

An affirmation world view holds up only until a shark bumps you on your surfboard, and then you clearly feel the need to do something to change the flow, to "teach the shark a lesson about bumping surfers". You can justify your actions as much as you want, but in that moment you have to admit that your affirmation world view has gone up in a puff of smoke, because your world in that moment is not perfect. Something needs to change. And then suddenly you are contributing to the anger and violence in the world in your desperate bid to restore your world view to the perfection you believed it to be only a moment ago. If you look at your life, you might see that other reactions of anger and violence (through words or actions) are not restricted to survival situations, but might coincide with a threat to your view of the world as perfect as it is, and not needing us to do anything. Do you see the falseness of this construct yet? Do you see the potential destructiveness? 

 

What do you think, considering every other answer I've given you so far? 

 

Affirmation can include, going off to war. Saying yes to life in what ever way. Participating in it. It's not about with drawing from life and it's circumstances. That's negation. I was talking about instinct, the instinctual reaction to fight off something trying to eat or kill you. The affirmation part is your participation in the game. So how does that participation in the game, saying yes to it, not involve going with the flow? The flow pulls me out to sea. Predators are there. I say yes to it, anyways. As the flow continues, I may come face to face with a predator, I say yes to that as well. I would say I choose for myself, but we're way past that now, a deterministic universe chooses my actions in the face of danger and there's a lag time between choice and conscious action, which comes out, naturally, as defensive and / or aggressive. And an outcome will follow. The flow continues. The whole time it's been nothing but going with the flow, which could at any point end badly. There's no rule saying the flow will always be pleasurable. But going with the flow anyways. Not stressed about it. Having fun. Accepting out comes and moving forward. 

 

'Saying yes to life.' 

 

This is a staple part of Joseph's Campbell's discourse, but of course excluding the part about modern cosmological theory. I've just put it up against the established philosophy of affirmation. And your resistance exemplifies the sort of resistance that is found in world mythology between diverse cultures. Your issues with affirmation, the way you try and bring it down, are identical to the way in which a christian will respond to things like eastern mysticism, pantheism. They'll get lost in the fact that you can not very well rally a call against the forces of perceived darkness, from an enlightened point of view. And then they become frustrated, and lash out trying to dominant the eastern affirmation or pantheistic view. 

 

I'm talking about letting go of it all, before picking back up and moving forward. 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 When you say that it is our connection that endures, I can take that to mean we are existence itself. That which 'connects everything' into unity, wholeness, and that which never began and will never end. That's a nice and neat little package, wouldn't you say? Regardless of our perceived births and deaths, we've been the fabric and structure of existence itself all along, to loosely quote Alan Watts. Again, what has died? The existence, or connecting factor underlying the rising and falling of perceivable forms and images in space and time, never really went anywhere. The consumed and the consumer, were interconnected and whole all the while. Like the image of the tail biting serpent entails. The emotional attachments speak directly to our perception of an interconnected unity as NOT really interconnected. Why negate the world? Well, if you cast aside the interconnected vision of reality, you may think in those terms of Jain - like thoughts. Why restore the world? Well, if you cast aside the interconnected vision of reality, then you may think there's something that needs to be done, as christians do.  

What if there really isn't? What if it's going along exactly as it ought to be?

Why do you keep casting aside this interconnected vision of reality? Do you not see it that way? I was following you, up until you mentioned "emotional attachments", then I lost your train of thought.

 

Our emotional attachments begin at the physiological level. I am physically attracted to my husband, which reinforces my feeling of a connection to him, and therefore my emotional attachment. I have biological kinship with my parents, my brother and sisters, which reinforce my feeling of a connection to them, decreasing in emotional attachment the further away from my own genetic code and social circle I believe them to be. My children are my genetic progeny, which reinforces my feeling of a connection to them as probably the strongest emotional attachment of all. From there my feeling or awareness of a connection decreases according to the social, cultural, political and religious constructs that might form my world view. I can feel less connected to a Catholic family living in Lebanon than I do to the Lebanese family that runs my favourite pizza shop. 

 

In the universe as it is, though, I know that the connection still exists equally at all of these levels. As you say, it is our perception or awareness of that interconnection based on physiological, social, cultural or religious feeling that keeps us from an accurate experience of the universe. The moment that emotional attachment or feeling changes or disappears, our perception of the connection changes - if that feeling is all we see of the connection, then there is potential for damage. The connection remains, whether you acknowledge it or not, but it can be obscured now by fear, pain, anger, regret or despair. In our avoidance of this fear or pain, we deny the connection in our mind. 

 

Marriage, therefore, for better or worse, demonstrates our awareness of a lasting connection between two people that goes beyond biology, emotional attachment or feeling connected on a physiological, social or ideological level. It is a small-scale model for our universal connection with everyone else. But that's another discussion, I think.

 

All of the above is me talking about conclusions drawn from primal, or fundamental level interconnection - such as existence itself interconnecting everything in existence, as unified and as one whole. This is pantheist philosophy. The eastern concept of ripples on the surface of a pond is a good one. Still the surface, and what appears to be discrete and separate are then dissolved into one substance. Into one undifferentiated whole. While rippled it appeared as this or that "form" or "image," but stilled, this or that "form" or "image" was illusory in terms of it's separateness or discreteness. It was all the while, at the very bottom, simply the substance of existence itself, interacting with itself, and experiencing in all of the emotions involved in the interaction.

 

The appearance of living and dying, all appearances being illusory in that specific way. Nothing actually sprung to life out of nowhere, and nothing actually died into into absolute nothingness. That's the direct connection to what is essentially eternal. If we're to try and pin point a rational idea about what an eternal soul means, in myth, I'd say that it's the part of everything which is simply the everlasting fabric and structure of existence itself, which can have no beginning or end. Our connection to that, is the only logical eternal connection I can see. And we all have it, that direct connection to the eternal, regardless of any and all efforts made on our part. 

 

Again, seeing the eternal shinning through even the most dark, horrific, and vulgar, as well as the most light, beautiful, and proper is high level enlightenment. How many people struggle to attain that honest of an admission? 

 

 

And apologies, Josh, for the low blow in my previous post. I notice other people can edit their own post after it goes up, but I don't seem to have that luxury. My reference to your ex-wife was uncalled for. I had no right to poke that particular wound in driving my point home. I'm sorry.

 

I don't find it offensive. And perhaps we ought to be bringing potentially hard hitting scenarios like that because it seems relevant to the insight, and perhaps embracing a deterministic universe as it is. 

 

If you want to dive deep like that, then let's go ahead and put molestation on the chopping block too. 

 

Exactly what molested what? 

 

These deeper realizations don't fair well in terms of scaring people not to do things that we find offensive, and in some way the deeper insight seems like it can be used to excuse just about anything. I think that's why the ancient mysteries were concealed and kept under disciple and control. The deeper mysteries seem to have the ability to both raise up, and also completely unravel our moral sensibilities, at the same time. Because everything's interconnected and whole we can love our neighbor, as ourselves because "I and other are one." But at the same time, and also because everything's interconnected and whole, it doesn't really matter if you love or hate your neighbor in the grand scheme - regardless, it boils down the same way when the ripples on the surface of the pond have been stilled. The love and hate were more or less illusory. Different looking ripples, same exact pond the whole time expressing itself through the ripples. 

 

Down here, at this level of fundamental interconnection, is where I was addressing our "emotional attachments." 

 

And you'll find that when we're emotional about something, it's because we've disengaged the 'consciousness' of fundamental underlying interconnection (FUI). If we put those FUI googles on, even the most horrific things also dissolve into the still pond. We were the thing we feared  and hated all along. We were the thing we loved all along. This is very clear in Sanskrit, "tat tvam asi." Thou art that. That's what identifying with the totality entails. And it's our perceptions of reality that keep us seeing in terms of discrete and isolated "things," out there. It looks as if we're here and everything else is out there and not all simply the fabric of existence (still pond) underlying the existence of everything perceived (surface ripples). 

 

Beneath all of those perceptions of separateness is the realm of existence itself, interacting with itself, all the time, and necessarily eternally. And that's where things like a cosmological model about infinite replication and things of that nature falls under. That's from where determinism proceeds out of the eternal expanse. I had a lovely time with a women, it was essentially existence itself interacting through the both of us. I also had a terrible time with a woman, down right evil in perception, and that too was essentially existence itself interacting through us. Experiences were experienced. Emotions were involved in the experiences. Some felt favorable, others felt unfavorable. We were in some way a medium for consciousness to experience as it all unfolded. 

 

Who am I to judge what's really going on here below the surface level? 

 

Finally, after all of that philosophy, have we come to a very sensible application for, "judge not others, lest you be judged."

 

And it pretty much works across the board for all of the sayings attributed to christianity, which were in fact never original to christianity, but are the products of mythological imagination and idealistic goal setting taking in by christianity. But we've only reached something this potentially sensible after having faced the "dark side" of interconnection on the way down here, and saying yes to it, before moving forward. At least I've said yes to it all. I'm not sure if you still feel so resistant to doing so? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ablemate]

After reading through this thread just had to add something to the mix.

 

I was meditating on free will and asking for guidance.

The following then formulated in my head.

Free will is love or no love on a scale from all of one to all of the other.

The astral plane is a no free will place with only love.

When this free will reality was created a no love reality had to be created to provide balance.

So we have to decide how much love we have in our life. Obviously events happen. We can choose to interact or not, to love or not love. 

At the moment the Not love reality is having a bigger effect on life in this reality but we can change that. We have to change that or not love will win.