Can causality be infinite?

[samadhi]

Addressing the question of free will is important because it forces one to draw the reality of causality into the inner recesses of one’s being. Instead of keeping causality at a safe distance in the imagination and treating it as though it were a dry academic theory, one needs to let it soak into every pore of one’s being and allow it to work its magic. Only then can the concept spring to life and propel us into the Infinite.

I find this ironic coming from you since it was me advocating surrender as opposed to your intellectual approach.

Constant meditation on causality is the first step towards becoming enlightened. One has to learn how to "see" it in everything in the world, including every aspect of one’s inner life. The more you keep causality in mind and focus your consciousness upon it, the better. Even if maintaining such a focus comes at the expense of other activities and thought-processes, you will be better off in the long run. It will slowly dissolve your delusions about the nature of existence and gradually alter your consciousness, making it far more receptive to wisdom. As I mentioned in the introduction, the path to enlightenment is primarily one of freeing one’s consciousness from an entrenched deluded perspective and re-orientating it so that it slides effortlessly into enlightenment. The concept of causality is the perfect tool for this task, particularly in the initial stages of freeing the mind from entrenched delusion.

There is a difference between "seeing" it and living it. My question was about action, not about how one thinks about it.

Integrating the concept of causality with every aspect of one’s being allows one to see through the illusion of self and makes it possible for us to perceive our true nature, which is God. It helps us to realize the truth that we ultimately lack any kind of existence, that God is the doer of all things, and that life and death is an illusion. This is a truly remarkable knowledge and, for the sake of a saner world, needs to be understood by everyone.

Like I said, it's a path, but one you actually have to walk, not just contemplate. What do you give up when you walk the path of causation? If there is no action involved, then you are not really presenting any path, just rhetoric.

In other words, the primary consequence of immersing oneself in causation-consciousness is the gradual, relentless and permanent altering of everyday perception. If done properly, a full re-orientation of consciousness will occur - "a turning about in the seat of consciousness", as described in Zen - leading to a radically different inner relationship with all things, both externally and internally.

You're very big on new perception but not on action. I am asking you what actions change, not what perceptions change.

This re-orientation process involves the complete piercing of Maya (the illusion of inherent existence) and sets in place the conditions for the thorough undermining of all false thinking. This also includes the undermining of egotism, due to the fact that the ego exists purely within the realm of false thinking.

I am still not hearing any action. Thinking about the world differently but acting the same won't change anything. You need to put your new ideas into action.

From there everything else follows. "Change the mind, change the world", as an old saying goes.

A lot of people change their minds and stay the same. Simply affirming causation is not real change. Real change requires you to live it. You have yet to say how life is any different under causation. You understand that the causation argument implies no more control. Do you think people would give up control because it sounds like a good idea? In fact loss of control is probably the most frightening idea of them all. People stay as far away from it as possible. You yourself seem in no hurry to give it up. That's why I find your enthusiasm for causation to be so curious. Being in control seems as important to you as to the most vociferous free agent.

[Kevin Solway]

I find this ironic coming from you since it was me advocating surrender

Since David is away I'll answer this one.

David is advocating surrender to truth. This has been explained to you but you have a mental block which prevents you from understanding it. Truth is not an intellectual artifact.

Since you clearly live your life according to scripts you don't have the freedom to see truths that are right in front of you. Any stimulus elicits a pre-programmed response that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

What do you give up when you walk the path of causation?

When you walk the path of complete understanding of causation you give up all delusion.

If there is no action involved, then you are not really presenting any path, just rhetoric.

Understanding is itself an action, which automatically leads to further actions.

Action without understanding is deluded action.

I am asking you what actions change

Literally everything changes when your actions are based on understanding as opposed to ignorance. For example, you are able to directly see people's infinite "past lives". You can know what a person looked like before their parents ever met.

I am still not hearing any action.

All of David's words are actions, but you are unable to see them.

A lot of people change their minds and stay the same.

That's not possible. If a person changes their mind they will be different. This is a logical necessity. Most of the time people don't change their mind very much, and so they don't change very much. For example, a person might convert from one religion to another, or change their sexual preferences, or change from one occupation to another, or change where they live. But deep down they haven't changed very much. These changes are only on the surface.

You have yet to say how life is any different under causation.

David has said how life is different, but you have been unable to see it.

You understand that the causation argument implies no more control.

It implies that God alone is the doer of all things. We are the puppets and God pulls the strings.

Do you think people would give up control because it sounds like a good idea?

People surrender to God only if they value truth.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

David is advocating surrender to truth. This has been explained to you but you have a mental block which prevents you from understanding it. Truth is not an intellectual artifact.

I asked you before what constitutes "surrender to truth". You had no answer. Until you give an answer, you are in no position to lecture anyone about it.

Since you clearly live your life according to scripts you don't have the freedom to see truths that are right in front of you. Any stimulus elicits a pre-programmed response that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Here you are blaming again. If you believed in causation, you wouldn't see my position as a matter of having a personal character flaw but simply cause and effect, equally valid as your position and arrived at in the same manner. You betray your own belief.

sam: What do you give up when you walk the path of causation?

Kevin: When you walk the path of complete understanding of causation you give up all delusion.

"Giving up delusion" isn't an action. Why can't you understand this? People can give up lying or stealing or a thousand other things but delusion is just a catch-all concept without significance until it is defined.

sam: If there is no action involved, then you are not really presenting any path, just rhetoric.

Kevin: Understanding is itself an action, which automatically leads to further actions. Action without understanding is deluded action.

Until you take your belief out of the intellectual realm, it remains rhetoric.

sam: I am asking you what actions change.

Kevin: Literally everything changes when your actions are based on understanding as opposed to ignorance. For example, you are able to directly see people's infinite "past lives". You can know what a person looked like before their parents ever met.

Are you telling me a belief in causation leads to psychic powers? Are you going to demonstrate your powers for us? I didn't think so.

sam: I am still not hearing any action.

Kevin: All of David's words are actions, but you are unable to see them.

It's a simple question, Kevin. If a belief in causation does not lead one to act in a way that is different from a belief in free agency, your belief is of no utility. You have yet to name a single action that is a result of your belief. And to hide that fact, you are blaming me for asking the question.

sam: A lot of people change their minds and stay the same.

Kevin: That's not possible. If a person changes their mind they will be different. This is a logical necessity. Most of the time people don't change their mind very much, and so they don't change very much. For example, a person might convert from one religion to another, or change their sexual preferences, or change from one occupation to another, or change where they live. But deep down they haven't changed very much. These changes are only on the surface.

Well, then you should be able to tell me of an action that changes. So far you haven't. I'm waiting.

sam: You have yet to say how life is any different under causation.

Kevin: David has said how life is different, but you have been unable to see it.

David mentioned what surrender to truth means to him (not lying, thinking about life and death, not indulging emotions, refraining from the expression of dogmatic viewpoints, and pondering one's humanity). He did not say what actions change under a belief in causation. Neither have you.

sam: You understand that the causation argument implies no more control.

Kevin: It implies that God alone is the doer of all things. We are the puppets and God pulls the strings.

Right. So what does that tell you about your actions? Do they remain the same or do they change?

sam: Do you think people would give up control because it sounds like a good idea?

Kevin: People surrender to God only if they value truth.

Yet you have refused to say what surrender means to you. You purport to value truth yet can't name a single action it implies other than the acquisiton psychic powers (which is just the opposite of surrender). This is not only sad, it's downright pathetic.

[Kevin Solway]

I asked you before what constitutes "surrender to truth".

This has been answered for you many times. It means living truthfully as opposed to living ignorantly. It means not lying, not indulging in emotions, etc. All these things are actions, since they are acted out.

Here you are blaming again.

Speaking the truth is not "blaming".

"Giving up delusion" isn't an action.

Since it is something you do, it is an action.

People can give up lying or stealing or a thousand other things but delusion is just a catch-all concept without significance until it is defined.

Since we define it, it has significance. The delusion we are speaking is delusion as to the nature of existence.

Are you telling me a belief in causation leads to psychic powers?

The wisdom that arises from understanding causation could be called a psychic power.

Are you going to demonstrate your powers for us? I didn't think so.

They are always on display for those who are able to see them.

You have yet to name a single action that is a result of your belief.

I have named all my actions as actions that result from my belief, but you are unable to hear this.

God alone is the doer of all things. We are the puppets and God pulls the strings.

So what does that tell you about your actions?

My actions are God's actions.

Do they remain the same or do they change?

They change. My actions of five minutes ago are different to my actions now, but God is always the doer. God can make you act wisely and God can make you act ignorantly.

[brokenhead]

Again, a small point that I believe I have made elsewhere on these forums, but I believe it to be of merit:

The word "infinite" is used quite frequently at GF and in the writings of QRS. Often, the term "eternal" is used for something which is infinite in a temporal sense.

I have a vague discomfort at the use of "infinite." Georg Cantor established unequivocally that "infinity" is not one thing. In fact, one infinite set can have more members than another infinite set. For instance, there are an infinite number of Natural numbers (0,1,2,3,...) And there are an infinite number of Real numbers. Nevertheless, using the notion of one-to-one correspondence, Cantor proved that there are more Real numbers. He raised the issue of an "infinity of infinities," which caused him great difficulty with many of his peers until his death just over a century ago.

Not everyone was comfortable that some infinities are thus "larger" than others. However, set theory is now well established and is crucial in just about every area of modern mathematics.

Just as talk of an eternal God or infinite spirit gives people the heebie-jeebies, so does the use of the term "infinite" when applied in philosophy such as to cause and effect give me doubts. It seems like hand-waving. Philosophy often cloaks itself in the mantle of serious thought, and indeed, David and Kevin seem to imply that there could be no more serious and diligent thinkers than they. It seems to me that what they are doing is making claims and saying, "A little serious thought should show you that we are correct." And in fact, it does. It's just when you try to give it more than a "little" thought, the conclusions are anything but rock-solid.

It reminds me of a skit I once saw on Johnny Carson. He was dressed in a workout suit and introduced himself as "Jack LaStrain," obviously poking fun at 70-year-old fitness guru, Jack LaLanne. He says, "I'll prove to you how fit I am. I'll do a hundred push-ups!" He gets down on the floor and begins. "One! Two!" he counts, then immediately jumps up and says, "And ninety-eight more just like that."

That seems to be what goes on here. Physical laws themselves break down and have to be reformulated at the horizon of man's physical dimensions. The very large and very small prove to be quite different in character from the man-sized macroscopic.

To postulate, therefore, what went on at the beginning of time based on what we observe to be cause and effect close to here and now, requires no less a leap of faith than postulating a Creator God, or Consciousness as Primal. That it is being held up as somehow more rigorous thinking is handwaving worthy of Christian Fundamentalists such as the "God Hates Fags" folks.

And ninety-eight more just like that.

[Kevin Solway]

Georg Cantor established unequivocally that "infinity" is not one thing.

He's talking about something completely different to what we are talking about. Totally unrelated.

[brokenhead]

They change. My actions of five minutes ago are different to my actions now, but God is always the doer. God can make you act wisely and God can make you act ignorantly.

Again, you are confusing the Totality with God, who is a person with intelligence. And you are also making the mistake of negating your own personhood and your own intelligence. Your will and God's will are not the same unless you choose it to be so. He never does, or else he would not have given you your will in the first place. He is more like a parent who is saying, "Fight nice, kids." He has placed the Law of Karma into effect. You ignore it at your own peril.

You are the doer of your actions, you sophistries notwithstanding, Kevin, unless you surrender your will to God's will. I do not claim to be able to ascertain for certain whether other people have surrendered their wills to God's. But I believe a person's acts speak volumes.

Logically, if it were true that God is always the doer, then it would necessarily be true for everybody else. Do you agree? But then people do things at cross purposes all the time. People often unwittingly do things to their own detriment. And sometimes it's not even unwitting. You are calling all of these actions - indeed, all actions - as manifestations of God's will. I call that absurd on the face of it.

[brokenhead]

Georg Cantor established unequivocally that "infinity" is not one thing.

He's talking about something completely different to what we are talking about. Totally unrelated.

This is precisely what his early critics maintained. To say it is totally unrelated does not make it so, Kevin. Cantor was attemting to clarify the very concept of infinity. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why your use of the term infinity and Cantor's are "totally" unrelated? Or at least link me to where you have explained it somewhere else?

[Kevin Solway]

They change. My actions of five minutes ago are different to my actions now, but God is always the doer. God can make you act wisely and God can make you act ignorantly.

Again, you are confusing the Totality with God, who is a person with intelligence.

Not the God I'm talking about. My God is not an intelligent being, but is the All.

And you are also making the mistake of negating your own personhood and your own intelligence.

To the contrary, I'm affirming what they really are.

Your will and God's will are not the same unless you choose it to be so.

You're talking about something completely different — a fantasy being — which is not relevant to what I'm talking about.

Logically, if it were true that God is always the doer, then it would necessarily be true for everybody else. Do you agree?

Yes, the God of which I speak is always alone the doer of all things, but few have eyes to see and ears to hear this. They are as though sleeping, and unwakened to the truth.

[Kevin Solway]

Cantor was attempting to clarify the very concept of infinity.

The difference between Cantor's infinite and the one of which we speak is that Cantor's is an intellectual construct — which is very useful for certain purposes — whereas ours is a natural reality. It is like the difference between numbers and Nature itself.

[brokenhead]

Not the God I'm talking about. My God is not an intelligent being, but is the All.

Your God contains all instances of life and therefore all instances of intelligence, both known and unknown to you. I agree with you God is not a "being" as in the "Supreme Being." The "Supreme Being" is the sum total of God as humans have created him. God is not a being as you and I are beings. This is because he is not a creature, as you and I are creatures.

If your God is the All - which we agree does not make him a being - how do you then proceed to claim he is also not intelligent?

Your view of God and mine are fundamentally different, because I view consciousness as primal. My God is most definitely not the All. My God is the source of the All, an entity which has divested Itself of everything exept Its primacy.

[brokenhead]

Cantor was attempting to clarify the very concept of infinity.

The difference between Cantor's infinite and the one of which we speak is that Cantor's is an intellectual construct — which is very useful for certain purposes — whereas ours is a natural reality. It is like the difference between numbers and Nature itself.

Doesn't nature include numbers?

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: I asked you before what constitutes "surrender to truth".

Kevin: This has been answered for you many times. It means living truthfully as opposed to living ignorantly. It means not lying, not indulging in emotions, etc. All these things are actions, since they are acted out.

Great. You don't lie, you don't throw tantrums. This is surrender to you? Causation to you means not lying or throwing a tantrum? How profound ...

sam: Here you are blaming again.

Kevin: Speaking the truth is not "blaming".

Implying that our differences are caused by a personal defect of mine is blaming me.

sam: "Giving up delusion" isn't an action.

Kevin: Since it is something you do, it is an action.

"Delusion" a catch-all concept without any signficance until it's defined. You haven't done that.

sam: People can give up lying or stealing or a thousand other things but delusion is just a catch-all concept without significance until it is defined.

Kevin: Since we define it, it has significance. The delusion we are speaking is delusion as to the nature of existence.

Ah, so subscribe to an idea (Kevin's in particular) about the nature of existence and you've given up delusion. Puhleeze.

sam: Are you telling me a belief in causation leads to psychic powers?

Kevin: The wisdom that arises from understanding causation could be called a psychic power.

<chuckles> Aren't you embarassed by this kind of nonsense?

sam: Are you going to demonstrate your powers for us? I didn't think so.

Kevin: They are always on display for those who are able to see them.

Riiiiight. If we don't see your majesty, something must be wrong with us. Why didn't I think of that?

sam: You have yet to name a single action that is a result of your belief.

Kevin: I have named all my actions as actions that result from my belief, but you are unable to hear this.

Not lying, not throwing tantrums. This is what causation means to you? Are you serious?

Kevin: God alone is the doer of all things. We are the puppets and God pulls the strings.

sam: So what does that tell you about your actions?

Kevin: My actions are God's actions.

<sigh> You're pretty thick, aren't you? But if that's the direction you want to go in, okay. My actions are God's actions too. So why do you criticize them?

sam: Do they remain the same or do they change?

Kevin: They change. My actions of five minutes ago are different to my actions now, but God is always the doer. God can make you act wisely and God can make you act ignorantly.

<sigh> More thickness. Are the actions of someone who believes himself or herself to be a free agent the same or different then someone who believes in causation? And no more ignorant answers, okay? You're not that dumb.

[Kevin Solway]

You don't lie, you don't throw tantrums. This is surrender to you?

Along with countless other deluded things you don't do when you've surrendered to truth.

Causation to you means not lying or throwing a tantrum? How profound ...

I am speaking of the wisdom that arises from understanding causation, not "causation".

My actions are God's actions too. So why do you criticize them?

Because they are deluded. That should be obvious. God causes me to uncover and destroy delusions.

Are the actions of someone who believes himself or herself to be a free agent the same or different then someone who believes in causation?

Different, since their actions are based on different awareness and different understanding. A wise person's actions are not the same as the actions of a fool, no matter what they do. Even a simple act like drinking a glass of water is an entirely different action for the wise person than it is for the fool, and has different effects.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: You don't lie, you don't throw tantrums. This is surrender to you?

Kevin: Along with countless other deluded things you don't do when you've surrendered to truth.

Let's put aside what "surrender to truth" implies for the moment. Let's stick with causation since for you it is also a truth. You realize you have agreed with me that refraining from divisive emotions is a surrender to causation. You have also said you don't blame people. Essentially you have agreed with what I've said about surrender and causation and yet have said that I don't see the truths right in front of me. So are we seeing the same truths or not and if we are, why are you arguing with me?

sam: My actions are God's actions too. So why do you criticize them?

Kevin: Because they are deluded. That should be obvious. God causes me to uncover and destroy delusions.

So if God's actions can be deluded, why the reference to God at all?

sam: Are the actions of someone who believes himself or herself to be a free agent the same or different then someone who believes in causation?

Kevin: Different, since their actions are based on different awareness and different understanding. A wise person's actions are not the same as the actions of a fool, no matter what they do. Even a simple act like drinking a glass of water is an entirely different action for the wise person than it is for the fool, and has different effects.

How does the act of drinking water differ under your belief in causation versus someone else's belief in free agency?

[Kevin Solway]

So if God's actions can be deluded, why the reference to God at all?

Because the truth of causation is the most important truth of all.

How does the act of drinking water differ under your belief in causation versus someone else's belief in free agency?

The wise person, who understands causation, acts wisely and their actions have good effects. By contrast, the foolish person, who believes in free agency, acts foolishly and their actions have bad effects. As Jesus says, a bad tree does not bear good fruit.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: So if God's actions can be deluded, why the reference to God at all?

Kevin: Because the truth of causation is the most important truth of all.

You missed the point. If everyone's actions are God's actions, why bring God into it? Why not simply talk about what those actions are rather than appealing to a deity for justification?

sam: How does the act of drinking water differ under your belief in causation versus someone else's belief in free agency?

Kevin: The wise person, who understands causation, acts wisely and their actions have good effects. By contrast, the foolish person, who believes in free agency, acts foolishly and their actions have bad effects. As Jesus says, a bad tree does not bear good fruit.

You didn't answer the question. Why did you bring up drinking water if you didn't want to talk about it?

And you skipped over this question: You realize you have agreed with me that refraining from divisive emotions is a surrender to causation. You have also said you don't blame people. Essentially you have agreed with what I've said about surrender and causation and yet have said that I don't see the truths right in front of me. So are we seeing the same truths or not and if we are, why are you arguing with me?

[Kevin Solway]

If everyone's actions are God's actions, why bring God into it?

Because truth is important.

The wise person, who understands causation, acts wisely and their actions have good effects. By contrast, the foolish person, who believes in free agency, acts foolishly and their actions have bad effects. As Jesus says, a bad tree does not bear good fruit.

You didn't answer the question.

Why did you bring up drinking water if you didn't want to talk about it?

It doesn't matter what the action is — drinking water, going for a walk, reading a book. The answer is the same.

And you skipped over this question: You realize you have agreed with me that refraining from divisive emotions is a surrender to causation . . .

I think it is very unlikely that I would agree with you on any matter of importance. I have certainly not agreed that "refraining from divisive emotions is a surrender to causation", since I don't agree with any kind of emotions, including unifying emotions.

[Peter L]

Sam is either twiddling you people on his thumb or there are far greater issues at play here.

Good luck

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: If everyone's actions are God's actions, why bring God into it?

Kevin: Because truth is important.

But what's its relevance?

Kevin: The wise person, who understands causation, acts wisely and their actions have good effects. By contrast, the foolish person, who believes in free agency, acts foolishly and their actions have bad effects. As Jesus says, a bad tree does not bear good fruit.

sam: You didn't answer the question. Why did you bring up drinking water if you didn't want to talk about it?

Kevin: It doesn't matter what the action is — drinking water, going for a walk, reading a book. The answer is the same.

But what is the difference in those actions that is derived from a belief in causation versus a belief in free agency? You still haven't said. Let me guess. You are just spouting off and have no intention of telling us.

sam: And you skipped over this question: You realize you have agreed with me that refraining from divisive emotions is a surrender to causation . . .

Kevin: I think it is very unlikely that I would agree with you on any matter of importance. I have certainly not agreed that "refraining from divisive emotions is a surrender to causation", since I don't agree with any kind of emotions, including unifying emotions.

This is what you said: "It means living truthfully as opposed to living ignorantly. ... not indulging in emotions ..."

This is what I said: (from the commentary thread in the Crucible) "... not indulging in emotions like anger, jealousy, self-pity and self-importance that revolve around an ego trying to control."

So you see no basis for your agreement there?

[Kevin Solway]

Re: God being the cause of all actions

But what's its relevance?

We are speaking of causation, and God is the cause of all actions.

But what is the difference in those actions that is derived from a belief in causation versus a belief in free agency?

Again, the difference is that their consequences are different. Do you not understand this?

So you see no basis for your agreement there?

Definitely not, since you are only speaking about a subset of emotions.

[brokenhead]

So if God's actions can be deluded, why the reference to God at all?

Because the truth of causation is the most important truth of all.

How does the act of drinking water differ under your belief in causation versus someone else's belief in free agency?

The wise person, who understands causation, acts wisely and their actions have good effects. By contrast, the foolish person, who believes in free agency, acts foolishly and their actions have bad effects. As Jesus says, a bad tree does not bear good fruit.

A person who does not understand causation is merely one type of fool. All fools act foolishly.

Christ did not say that the "bad tree" was a person who does not understand causation. However, I believe you are correct about the person who believes in "free agency" causing bad effects. The concept of "free agency" was one of the core notions of the Lucifer Manifesto, the idea being that if you act according to your will, then your are by definition doing "the right thing." Believing in this dictum, which is none other than Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," naturally circumvents man's natural desire to discover the right thing. It means man will follow his desire rather than considering consequences, acting contrary to rather than in concert with the Tao. It means, in Christian terminology, not surrendering one's will to that of the Universal Father, but rather elevating one's own.

It also means a person will not think before he speaks, as he does not understand that there can be different causes for speaking, and he listens to his own causes instead of that which will cause him to say something appropriate, or else remain silent, rather than to say something inappropriate. Such a person does not understand cause and effect. Such a person does not understand that uttering a thing based on selfish causes has negative effects in the world and causes bad things to happen. People who listen to their own motivation actually think themselves unimportant and seek to raise their own importance. This is invariably self-defeating behavior and has the opposite effect. But they cannot see this because they do not understand causation. On the other hand, a wise person understands his own significance as it is, neither imagining it to be too high or too low, and knows his actions can indeed have a profound effect for good or evil.

That we can choose "free agency" or not does make us free agents of a sort as it implies choice. The wise person understands what effects potential actions can have, as each potential action is invariably a potential cause, and he will choose which cause to follow. In retrospect, we say his actions are caused, as they must be. But beforehand, both wise men and fools have choices as to which potentials to transform into actualities.

[divine focus]

About "surrendering to truth:"

It is difficult to talk about what this actually means, but I'd say that at this point it's worth more to talk about what it actually involves than about what it doesn't involve. New models or new concepts may be necessary to get across what we actually mean in terms of action, not simply ceasing of actions. There is always action, so what exactly is this new action of surrender. One- and two-sentence replies are not very clarifying.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

Re: God being the cause of all actions

sam: But what's its relevance?

Kevin: We are speaking of causation, and God is the cause of all actions.

So there must be no difference between actions that arise under a belief in causation versus those that arise under a belief in free will. If it's all God, the beliefs are equivalent.

sam: But what is the difference in those actions that is derived from a belief in causation versus a belief in free agency?

Kevin: Again, the difference is that their consequences are different. Do you not understand this?

What is the consequence of drinking water under a belief in causation versus a belief in free will?

sam: So you see no basis for your agreement there?

Kevin: Definitely not, since you are only speaking about a subset of emotions.

Nevertheless, we agree on those emotions, don't we?



df,

There is always action, so what exactly is this new action of surrender. One- and two-sentence replies are not very clarifying.

I appreciate your input. Kevin however seems determined to stick with the QRS shuffle.

[Kevin Solway]

If it's all God, the beliefs are equivalent.

God does different things, and different things are different.

What is the consequence of drinking water under a belief in causation versus a belief in free will?

Do you understand how belief in free will is a delusion? If you don't understand this then you won't understand how the consequences will be different.

Nevertheless, we agree on those emotions, don't we?

Not for the same reason. If you had the same reasons as I do then you wouldn't be speaking only of a subset of emotions.