Comments on the wisdom of the infinite by David Quinn

[Jehu]

So there is no straight answer on “free will” to be expected I take it.

If by “free will”, you mean the ability to act completely independent of any extrinsic cause, then the straight answer is that there is but one will which is absolutely free.

Are you saying that in enlightenment one transforms into a mouthpiece of the Absolute?

There is no other into which one transforms, there is only the awakening to ones real nature, and the exercise of one’s own true will.

[Sapius]

If by “free will”, you mean the ability to act completely independent of any extrinsic cause, then the straight answer is that there is but one will which is absolutely free.

An “extrinsic” to existence (‘Being’ in your books) could not possibly (logically) exist to begin with, so “it” (which presumably you think of it [Being] - as) being completely independent or otherwise of absolutely anything at all makes no sense already, except in ones imagination, which is apparently FREE to imagine any impossible or illogical scenario at all, irrelevant of it being imagined as being caused or uncaused.

On the other hand, I’m sure you are not talking about the one will that can go scot-free after raining super-heated brimstone on its top most creation, but even then, I think that too would be subject to causality otherwise no interaction wouold be possible, and as far as I can see, individually caused point of views (things, say like us) can perfectly participate in freely causing diverse and previously non-existent effects, without actually violating the law of causality, unless one thinks of causality as in a purely billiard ball type cause and effect, which would then logically leave absolute no room for diversity at all, contrary to what is experienced and is logically possible. In my opinion, not all experiences lie, for then, which ultimate conclusion is free from experience being at its foundation, and justify some truth as ultimately or absolutely free of experiences? In fact, in my opinion, existence is just that, purely experiencing.

As far as I can see, an individual (which does not mean absolutely independant) thing cannot operate or interact with its environment coherently if causality itself does not provide some sort of freedom of choice or movement, which is merely a process that compliments existence, not rule like a God, otherwise evolving of anything in any which innovatively diversified direction would be impossible or illogical to say the least, which existence is not by any stretch of imagination. Causality has to work differently in different pockets of existence, depending on the simplicity or sophistication of a thing involved, which it helplessly assists as in its inherent nature from within, as well as from without (for two individual things are never the same), otherwise any logically consistent interactions would be rendered meaningless and impossible.

I think we have been holding on to the wrong end of the stick… understandably enough.

There is no other into which one transforms, there is only the awakening to ones real nature, and the exercise of one’s own true will.

Well, how many such awakened ones have you come across?
And what is it that actually awakens?

[divine focus]

SECOND EDIT; having read the Larkin dedate I see DQ claims enlightenment. I would be interested to know the view on degrees of enlightenment; is enlightenment all or nothing (therefore DQ has all, and presumably is beyond error and/or improvement?) or is it by degree, in which case DQ may accept the possibility of error, or the possibility of improvement.-

No error.

[Jehu]

An “extrinsic” to existence (‘Being’ in your books) could not possibly (logically) exist to begin with, so “it” (which presumably you think of it [Being] - as) being completely independent or otherwise of absolutely anything at all makes no sense already, except in ones imagination, which is apparently FREE to imagine any impossible or illogical scenario at all, irrelevant of it being imagined as being caused or uncaused.

That which is free of any extrinsic cause cannot possibly be imagined, for any imaginary thing is causally dependent upon the mind that imagines it, and so has an extrinsic cause; that is to say, a cause that is apart from the thing itself. Further, I have never said that the Absolute is independent of any cause, but only that its causes (relative beings) are intrinsic or self-contained.

In my opinion, not all experiences lie, for then, which ultimate conclusion is free from experience being at its foundation, and justify some truth as ultimately or absolutely free of experiences? In fact, in my opinion, existence is just that, purely experiencing.

Our experiences do not lie, we simply misinterpret them. Being necessarily comprises both modes of being (i.e., the absolute and relative), but we mistakenly attribute reality to that which is not real - phenomena, while denying the reality of that which is real – cognizance; which is held to be merely epiphenomenal. The awakened ones are privy to the very same experiences, they simply do not interpret those experience in the same way as do the unawakened.

Causality has to work differently in different pockets of existence, depending on the simplicity or sophistication of a thing involved, which it helplessly assists as in its inherent nature from within, as well as from without (for two individual things are never the same), otherwise any logically consistent interactions would be rendered meaningless and impossible.

There is but a single inviolable law of causality which governs the evolution of all relative entities, and it is the same law which governs the evolution of our thoughts. It is for this reason that the evolution of the Universe is rational and predictable. Unfortunately, those who hold the Absolute to synonymous with God, fall into the error of thinking that the Absolute is a sentient being, something like ourselves, but this is not the case. We sentient beings are the embodiment of the Absolute, and our experiences are its experiences.

[Anders Schlander]

A and B.

there is 4 possibilities.
'Either you choose A, you choose B, you choose neither, - or both. A, B, nothing, all. It's all a choice, wether you fancy it or not, you cannot escape making a choice. A choice depends on making a choice between that, and something else, so the abandoned thing, so to speak, must be dualistic >with< the choice. The quality of the choice must be contrasted against what the other lacks.

In the same way, if cause and effect exists, cause must be opposed in any way shape or form to the effect, otherwise there would not be any effect, and thus, no cause. you can't have a cause without effect, and thus not effect without cause.

It's simple since a cause could only be concieved of if there was an effect from which it was derived. How can u find a cause to the sun burning, if you can't see the sun burning?.




the two differs in some quality. If no difference in any way existed between two objects, they would be the exact same (this includes two objects, exactly the same, and also exactly occupying the same space, fusing them one, that is, no difference whatsoever.

In this scenario, say, a triangle(perhaps the entire universe is one triangle) has the effect of being a triangle. It must be caused to be a triangle because it has a constrast which shapes a triangle exactly. Thus, anything we can concieve of, is caused. An object is only as big as what it is not. A triangle is only as big as the contrast that sorrounds it.


If the universe was entirely the same everywhere, no light with no mass in it, and nothing else was around, would you say that it could end? because, in order to end as the black empty universe, there would have to be something that wasn't completely black and empty. It would mean that black and empty was a quality that ceased to show in a part of the universe. If there is no contrast in the universe in any way, the universe is infinitely the same, infinitely small, and infinitely big. there would be no way to tell, it would all be the same.

cause and effect operates on differences.The entirely empty universe, that which does not exist, and yet exists infinitely is free from cause and effect. Because cause and effect can only operate on constrast, seeing as without contrasts, there is no cause and effect, we can conclude that whenever there is contrast, cause and effect can operate. However, just because it can doesn't mean ive proven it will. Im not sure how to go about this, really. it seems strangely confusing to me, and yet, it also seems like choice, contrast and duality, is one of the same as cause effect is a duality. That is why it seems to me, that a universe of contrast must have cause and effect in order to function as a universe, and not a contrastless "void" ( not a real black void ofcourse )

[Sapius]

Jehu: We sentient beings are the embodiment of the Absolute, and our experiences are its experiences.

Well, you are absolutely inconsistent my friend, and it seems that since I do have the capability of disagreeing, I respectfully do so. I do not consider existence (Absolute in your books), as an “it” to begin with, so there can be no attributes associated to “it”, which the finite things are subject to. Given our brief engagement in previous discussions, I think a point-to-point discussion is futile, which I did attempt to write up BTW.

In my opinion, when talking of Being, the Absolute, we cannot think in terms of will or choice or good (you take existence, [Being, the Absolute] to be All Good BTW) or bad or perfection or capable of doing this or that, etc etc, which only the finite things are capable and subject to, and that has been my point.

Only “things” capable of making mistakes seem to have the capability of correcting it; “will or otherwise”, do not apply to Being (existence), the Infinite, the Tao, etc: we are mistakenly thinking of it as a “thing” out of habit and imagine THAT to be some sort of ultimate and absolute power source of it all, because we cannot simply accept a universe without A “GOD”. “There has to necessarily be something behind it all” seems to be our inherent weakness that sets us on to the path to finding it, and imagine that we have found it, whereas, ultimately, there seems to be nothing waiting there to be found to be begin with.

So I guess we can just leave it at that; at least I can since it seems that I can. Thanks :)

[Foreigner]

Well, how many such awakened ones have you come across?
And what is it that actually awakens?

J wont say because he wants you guys to figure it out for yourselves that his belief and god is identical to QRS's, which may explain why he's quit the old game to come here and cover for Q while on vacation.

p.s.--- What awakens?? what awakens! what do you think awakens, numbskull? the mind, of course, your godam sleeping mind awakens (with a lot of luck).

mggms!
F

[Sapius]

Foreigner: J wont say because he wants you guys to figure it out for yourselves that his belief and god is identical to QRS's, which may explain why he's quit the old game to come here and cover for Q while on vacation.

Well, ultimately, they all want the other to figure out that fundamentally there is no other, since eventually that involves a bit of faith/belief rather than only logical reasoning through and through, but as far as I know, David and Jehu have some fundamental differences, so Jehu cannot be defending any of the QRS in my opinion.