.
.
12/28/04 by Rubino
That's backwards. The "Force of Will" is not a metaphor for gravity and electromagnetism. Gravity and electromagnetism are metaphors for the Force of Will.C2a
The ability, or inability, to quantify and correlate with changing states of matter do not cause those changing states of matter.C2b It is the Will, and the Laws governed by that Will, that cause change. Given all the energy, or all of the forces in the Universe, nothing would happen if they were not directed by some Law, some Will.C2c
Just as:
the law of the kingdom is the expressed will of the king, or,
the law of the household is the expressed will of the head of that household, or,
the laws of any society are the expressed collective will of some, or all, of its members, or,
the command of a lover is the expressed will of the person loved,
so too are the Laws of Nature the expressed Will of the Creator of the Universe.C2d
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question vis e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12/28/04 by Rubino
I don't see how, "from the point of view of physics, human actions are best regarded as spontaneous changes in a system." If the changes are "spontaneous", then, either there are no rules, or the rules that were followed were not the rules expected to be followed.C2e If there are no rules, it would not be possible to explain anything since explanation requires the discovery and elucidation of the rules that govern any particular behavior. There must be rules, whether the rulemaker is acknowledged or not.C2f In the case of human activity, the human will can create new rules, or choose to follow a different set of rules than expected. That's spontaneous. Rule 1: If something is done, someone did it. Rule 2: If something is there, someone put it there.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
center>OR
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12/28/04 by Rubino
Rules 1 and 2 above also apply to the relationship of murder mysteries and 'ontological' ones. Given any set of circumstances in an ontological mystery is the equivalent of having a body in a murder mystery. If there was nothing there, nothing could be observed. There would be no mystery. If something that comprises a set of circumstances, or anything observable, is found anywhere, then there is also a perp. and a mystery until it's solved. Who dunnit?
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
center>OR
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12/30/04 by Rubino
You acknowledge that "will (or desire) can be a cause of action." That's as good a starting point as any. A will that could not act would be useless, meaningless -- not a will at all. If a will could not "desire", it would have no reason to act. When a human will begins its existence, it either has no desires, or it has only the desire to act. In either case, it must act, because that is its nature, and its primary purpose is to satisfy its nature. That first purpose is imposed on it by its creation. At that point it has no desires, or purpose, of its own. It can act, it must act, but it has no direction of its own, no knowledge of desires, no purpose of its own.
Poor thing!
It can act, but cannot direct its actions. It can only act at random until it creates a desire to choose, i.e., a preference for some actions over others. How it might do that is a discussion for another time, but clearly it does learn enough from its random actions to create desires, which become goals, and purposes; but, that's not enough. If that's all it could do, it would have been better not to have been born.
It must also have the ability to create, or direct, the necessary energy, or forces, to satisfy desires, to achieve its goals and purposes. A will that could not do that would be useless, meaningless, not a will at all. Again, how it might do that is a discussion for another time, but clearly it can. I have the desire to respond to your comments and the ability to control the necessary energy, and forces, that enable me to do so.
It is also quite clear that I, (i.e. my will), did not create all of the energy and forces that enable me to communicate with you. It is equally clear that I do have the ability to direct the existing energy and forces that enable me to do so.
The best, and the simplest, anaogy, or metaphor, to explain this somewhat miraculous ability is to consider a similarity between my will and the Will of te Creator which enables me to associate my will with the Energy, or Forces, He created sufficiently to be able to direct those forces of nature for my purpose.
All knowledge can be considered a metaphor for 'what is'. All our knowledge of energy, and forces, such as gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear or mental forces are analogies, or metaphors, for the Realities they represent regardless of what perspective is used to consider them: e.g., common sense, semantic, physical, metaphysical, ontological, etc.
You present a number of other interesting considerations that will be difficult to deal with in this context if you don't understand, and accept, what I have presented so far. I will therefore conclude at this time by re-iterating my view that you are looking at the relationship of metaphor and Reality backwards. 'What is' precedes knowledge of 'what is': Will precedes will. Since they are similar, one can be viewed as a metaphor for the other. I can understand your perspective. Can you understand mine? Which perspective is more comprehensive?
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the'back' button to return to where were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01/06/05 by Rubino
To tooly:
I apprececiate your response. It is refreshing to see extensions, and refinements, of ideas that are presented, rather than the usual criticisms, attacks, and dismissals. I particularly like your introduction of the concept of 'conscience', which I will try to extend and refine further.
I tried to present a formulation that no Christian can legitimately argue against since it is a paraphrase of the summary of 'the greatest laws' that Christ, Himself, gave. Nor can any 'non-atheist' legitimately argue against it since it does not specify any particular concept of God, or religion, even those that only acknowledge a 'non-personal' God, such as Nature. Even atheists should have a difficult time trying to deny the existence of Forces of Nature that are beyond human control, but that do control human destiny, whether they are considered from a moral perspective, or not. In other words, attempts to deny, or defy, the Laws of Nature are either inneffective, or produce undesirable results, while following those Laws opens up the possibility of controlling the Forces involved to satisfy our own purposes. Thus, one OUGHT to follow them. Not to do so is unreasonable: i.e., contrary to the intended purpose, or reason, for doing anything).
That's half the story of conscience.
Up to this point, a 'mechanism' is described that can produce a 'sense' of 'ought', but there is no guidance on how that mechanism should be directed, especially with respect to human relations. That's where the second Law comes into play.
Christ's formulation of that Law is an extension, and refinement of the age old, and ubiquitous, idea of the 'golden rule', which could easily be derived intuitively. The change from 'Do unto others' to 'Love others' may seem small, but is actually a momentous one. The concept of 'Love' introduces such high levels of conscience that, in Christian theology, only Christ, as God, could achieve them. Even those who are acknowledged as the most moral among us, i.e., the saints, could not do so. To my knowledge, Christ was the first to formulate the idea of the 'golden rule' in terms of 'love', and the essential difference between the two formulations is the change in focus.
For example:
If I like the house cold, but my family likes it warm, then: Keeping it cold is consistent with the 'Do unto others' formulation (focus on self), but not with the 'Love them' formulation (focus on others).
The inclusion of the phrase 'as thyself' is also interesting and important. It retains the knowledge of satisfying one's own will (self-love, love of activities, and things) as the standard by which we can understand the satisfaction of another's will as an expression of our love for them, since that's how our love for self is understood. As we are, or were, loved, so shall we love.
That's the other half of conscience.
Conscience, seen as the union, or combination, of these two 'halves' suggests attributes that enable it to act as the arbiter of the Absolute Laws of Morality (Laws 1 & 2) in any relative context. The conscience of any individual is independent of any religion, society, culture, or lack thereof. Though it usually must function in one or more of these contexts (or others that might be enumerated), it can also function in isolation from such contexts.
The individual always has available sufficient knowledge of the First Law [i.e., the Will of God, as expressed through the Laws of Nature within his/her own physical being (and understood as instinct, intuition, or some other metaphor)], as well as the knowledge of the Second Law [Love as the most fundamental yearning, as the satisfaction of will], to be able to distinguish right from wrong. To restate that in another way: The Moral Absolutes are accessible to our understanding because they are part of our being. We are responsible for how we apply them relative to any context, and we are responsible for our relative understanding of those Moral Absolutes.
PS
As I was about to post this response, I noticed your other comments on love. I found them interesting, understandable, and not too long. 'I've been there, done that'. God acts in strange ways. So does Love. God, as Love, closes the circle. Without love, there is no meaning: not in life, philosophy, or any other human endeavor.
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01/14/05 by Rubino
Ah, Terry,
I'm surprised at you. You asked a general question in the most general way it could be posed. I answered it in general terms, following an introductory comment to indicate various contexts from which it could be considered. You did not understand my answer. You did not even address it. Instead you attacked my statement of contexts from such a narrow perspective that it eviscerates the general context of your own question.
I could be gentle, but you didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to suggest an answer to your own question, and I have a gut feeling that you are in need of some 'tough love'. I will therefore treat your testimony regarding what I said as that of a hostile witness, and point out some of its glaring faults. I will do that within the narrow context of your own statements.
Your opening thanks for my thoughts is both patronizing and disingenuous. You give no indication of any appreciation for what I said, since you misconstrue, and mis-state it. That's sloppy thinking ar best, at worst, it's underhanded sophistry to demonstrate how clever you think you are.
How can I say that? How dare I?
Here's the evidence: I said CAN be considered a blessing, your first question changed that to WOULD be, and your second question to MUST be. And why did you choose my lovely wife to be raped and murdered, instead of some despicable person who might deserve such a fate?
Both of your questions are, therefore, irrelevant to what I said since they do not address anything that I actually said, even though they purport to do so.
As silly as the questions are, especially silly since they are presented in such a loaded, narrow, and hypothetical, context, they do have some relevance to the topic on hand. They can be answered in a number of ways that are consistent with what I actually said. There are zillions of stories in this naked world. I'll tell you some.
The rape and murder of my wife was not only a blessing to her, but also to me, to the perpetrator, and to all mankind. It not only was not a problem, but it was also a solution to many other more important problems.
Here's the story:
My wife was a nymphomaniac, dying of AIDS, whose strongest desire, since her abstinence from sex, was to commit suicide. She didn't have the courage to do it, and pleaded with me to assist her. What a dilemma! Not only was it unbearable for me to have to endure her suffering, but it also made my life rather miserable too. Still, I could not bring myself to kill her, or to help her kill herself. The large insurance policy, which would have been voided by such action, had nothing to do with my reluctance to assist her.
Yes. My wife's rape and murder was a blessing to her. She died happy. She had the sex she craved, and was spared the prolonged deterioration from AIDS and a slow death.
It was a blessing to me, my children, and others who were close to her, though we grieved losing her. The insurance money didn't hurt either. I would give half of it to have her back.
As strange as it might seem, it also turned out to be a blessing for the perpetrator and for mankind. Having contracted AIDS, and facing imminent death himself, he contemplated the error of his ways, and found a Higher Power. He is now at peace with himself for the first time in his life.
Fortunately, he was a medical researcher, and he dedicated his life to finding a cure, which he did. It's still in the early testing stage, but it appears that the mechanism that he discovered will work on all viral diseases. What a blessing for the world. You'll be reading about it soon.
And from your narrow perspective, all you saw was a problem. Open your mind. Use your imagination.
Now that I have dispensed with the hypotheticals, I can get back to the main topic with my general, most fundamental answer to your original question: Whose will shall we serve?
Will you try to satisfy the wishes of some of us in this newsgroup to conduct serious, intellectually honest discussion (i.e., the Will of Fate, or God, for us to gain the knowledge we need to fulfill our purpose in life)?
Will you try to follow the wishes of others who wish to make a mockery of everything that's said (i.e., The will of the Devil to cause confusion to thwart God's Will)?
Will you try to satisfy your own ego by trying to show how clever you are?
Will you try to satisfy your own needs by picking our brains so that you can show off elsewhere?
Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge tooly's three word answer to your question: "separation from God". If understood correctly, it is the simplest, most accurate, most general, and most profound answer. I noticed that you did not respond to it, and I am curious about what your response might be. I am also curious about why you keep posting general questions without presenting any position of your own.
.
.
.
.
Do yoou agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01/15/05 by Rubino
You quit too easy, and miss the point.
Examine what was said.
You did not touch any sensitive point with me. I have a thick skin. I welcome any RELEVANT attacks by you, or anyone else, on anything I say, or have said, on this newsgroup, no matter how vitriolic they may be. That is, if you believe what you say, and are willing to defend it.
Quick conclusions, and 'speed reading', are good for reading newspapers and novels, but not for reading philosophy. If you don't have the time to think seriously about what you read, so that you can see beyond the words to their combined meanings, your wasting your time with philosophy. In philosophy, words are used to get at hidden meanings that can expand one's understanding. That requires careful thought.
Are you taking the blame for any misunderstanding because you realize that you misunderstood what I said, or because you can't cope?
What you intend, what you say, and how that will be understood, are not the same. Trying to understand the differences is an inherent problem in philosophy.
Serious inquiries are rarely simple. Finding a foundational base requires serious study. Seeking an easy way is usually the most difficult way.
I did not attack you personally. I attacked what you said. It's frequently difficult to understand the difference.
Whether you respond, or not, is your choice, but you will not learn much beyond what you already know if you restrict yourself to 'warm and fuzzy' discourse.
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01/26/05 by Rubino
Since our world is both subjective AND objective, it is correct to say that it is not one or the other.C5c
What they have in common is the self identity of every thinking individual.C5d
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
center>OR
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
01/27/05 by Rubino
Yes. It is limited to this life as we know it. What follows may be timeless.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree? Make a comment, or ask a question via >a href="mailto:tri-3@webtv.net"> e-mail
Hit the back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
01/27/05 by Rubino
Your first responseC5c is simply a re-iteration of your previous one.C5a
Repetition does not make it more correct. You insist on 'either'/'or' and reject 'both' by asserting that "they can not be included in a model that regards them both."
That ignores the 'model' I presented of 'every thinking individual'.
Your second responseC5d acknowledges that "self-ibentity" includes both, i.e., "a different way of saying" (BOTH) "subjective and object".
Every object has an identity, but only 'THINKING individuals' have consciousness. Non-thinking entities have no subjective reality associated with them.
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01/29/05 by Rubino
To Bernard Curry, who said to JJ:C5eC5f
We both pointed out similar flaws in JJ's position,C5c so you might wonder why I am now going to take issue with what you said. The primary reason for doing so here is that you introduced some complicating, off topic, factors that allowed JJ to weasel out of facing his flaws by focusing on yours.
I would be the first to agree that language is our tool whose purpose is to communicate. How you say something is not as important as the meaning you are trying to convey. Most of the time, we overlook glaring faults in the presentation of an idea, IF we understand and accept the meaning.
For example:
At appropriate times, I have made the proclamation: "It is better to candle one light than it is to dark the curseness."
Most people understood the point I was making: i.e., I communicated.
It generally doesn't work that way in philosophy where the tendency is to exaggerate and attack the slightest flaw, and, more importantly, where the slightest flaw might be the reflection of a much larger misconception. Also, given the psychological investment most people have in their ideas and beliefs, the slightest flaw in any criticism is easily ignored, and provides the justification for discarding everything else: i.e., the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. The cherished misconceptions are saved.
Your post raises some points which are off topic but interesting from a linguistic perspective. JJ poked fun at your term anthropomorphy by mispelling it as anthropmUrphy and calling it an unusaul name for a beer.C5g But the word is a good one. The terms 'anthropo' and 'morphic' have a number of combining forms, and anthropomorphy is easily understood. No one should misunderstand it the way it is used. If you didn't note that it is your word, no one would have noticed.
More important is your misconception of some of the meaning of the term, which JJ legitimately corrected. In some contexts, the term anthropomorphic is equivalent to 'subjective', which is the topic of this thread. Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics, or, an attempt to describe, or understand, what is observed in human terms. That's what comprises subjective understanding.
For example:
'Sympathy' is a human quality. One tuning fork cannot have sympathy for another. But if the vibrations of one cause vibrations in the other, they are called 'sympathetic vibrations'. An anthropomorphic perspective of the subjective interpretation of what is being observed.
Your use of the term 'proactive' reminds me of one of my brothers' amusements. He has a PhD in Psychology and he used to make up words and include them in official reports and communications. (One of his favorites was 'phenarious'). Since the words actually had no meaning at all, they didn't add or detract any meaning. The amusing part is that no one questioned them.
Though the word 'proactive' is not found in my dictionary, a case can be made for its legitimacy as a combined form of the prefix 'pro'. That would yield a meaning of "a favorable action", or "a positive action", or something similar, which added an unnecessary distraction to what you said. The simpler term 'action', without the prefix, would make your point more forcefully, and with greater clarity.
I noticed you addressed some additional thoughts to me. I will try to comment on them when I have a chance to read them more carefully. First, I want to consider responding to JJ's last response to me. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, he's already 'escaped' by starting new threads. It may be a phenarious effort, but I'll probably try anyway.
.
.
00/00/05 by Rubino Home Page