.
.
12/21/04 by Rubino
In response to a suggestion to 'think outside the box', I said:
Energy is the force of will: will power, if you will. It was the Will of the Creator that provided the Energy that is found in the Universe and that Energy is still subject to the Creator's Will as expressed in the Laws of Nature. Our wills, being similar to that of the Creator's, can tap into, and utilize, that Energy provided we follow those Laws rather than try to defy them. We also create laws of our own by expressing our will(s). It is also possible that the Creation was not a one shot deal, i.e., The Big Bang, but it is an ongoing process in which our wills provide some creative energy so that we actually participate in co-creating the future.
Is that far enough 'outside box'? I haven't looked yet, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a philosopher out there that has postulated a Monism of Will, as the basic substance of Existence, Being, of 'all that is'.C0a
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail.
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reference: alt.philosophy What is energy?
12/23/04 by Rubino
A body at rest will remain at rest until it is moved by some force.
Can my desire to move my resting body off the couch produce the necessary will power to gather sufficient energy to direct the forces required to do so? Or, will my body remain unmoved until some random force moves it?
With all the forces in the Universe, why is the force of will, the power of will, not taken into account? C1a
If there were no desire, no will, to observe, there would be no observations. Without observations, what difference would it make whether Shrodinger's cat was alive or not?
Indeed, if you did not observe, what difference would it make whether you are alive or not?
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12/23/04 by Rubino
I also have some difficulty with 'ontological mysteries'.
In a murder mystery, there is a body, and we look for a perp. In an 'ontological' mystery, there may be no body, and we might be looking for a perp. that 'is not'.
How can we find a perp. who 'is not' with no evidence that anything was done? C1b
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
01/04/05 by Rubino
Absolutely!
The first one is:
You don't have to. You have a choice.
If you don't obey His Laws, there are consequences. Work with them and enjoy the benefits, some of which have yet to be imagined.
The second one is similar.
To do that, you have to give the will of your neighbor the same importance and respect as you give to your own will.
You don't have to. You have a choice. It's this law that forms the basis of human morality. Following it requires no conscious acknowledgement of the First Law. In this case, unlike the First Law, the consequences are not as immediate. Defying it causes you, and all humanity, to suffer the consequences, rather than to enjoy the benefits of following it.
Christ said something like that.C3a:
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
01/13/05 by Rubino
Whatever is considered to be man's problem, or problems, can also be considered to be his blessing, or blessings, whether they are considered from the perspective of an individual, from that of mankind in general, or even from what we can surmise of the perspective of Fate or the Creator.
It all depends on man's nature.
Without will, there would be no love.
Without will, there would be no purpose.
Without will, there would be no knowledge.
Without will, there would be no problems.
From the perspective of problems, the most fundamental ones are the satisfaction of one's own will, or that of others. Satisfying one's own needs, wants, and desires, is an expression of self-love: satisfying those of others, an expression of love for them. We are usually torn between the two, which suggests the single most fundamental problem:
Whose will shall we serve?
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree? Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
01/26/05 by Zap If you KNOW that reality is subjective. .
.
Do you agree, or disagree? .
01/26/05 by Rubino
If you KNOW that reality is subjective then you are limiting your knowledge to only PART of reality, that small part which is your subjective reality. .
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree? Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
oo/oo/o5
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree? Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
Make a comment, or ask a question via Post 6: Subjectivity
Reference: alt.philosophy Subjective reality
If you have had physical, visual, oral, tangible and irrefutable evidence that reality is subjective.
Where do we go from there?
I mean ........ so what?
What does it mean?
What does it prove?
Why?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
You can have irrefutable evidence of your subjective reality, but there is no physical evidence of it because it is not physical. Your idea of "physical" is not physical. It refers to the other part of reality, which some who are immersed in their own subjective reality would like to deny because they are not happy with their relationship to it.C5a, C5b
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Post 7: topic
Reference: alt.philosophy title
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail