Either/Or

[AgentB]

I'm inclined to think that he's just saying that do X, do not X.

This is how I interpreted it. As soon as you do/experience something, you're not doing/experiencing it's opposite. The inability to experience both simultaneously seems to be what he terms "regret".

I think this still holds up even when you bring memory/conceptualisation into the equation. If you remember/conceptualise the opposite (X') to contrast with X, you'll necessarily at that point no longer be doing X, but Y, bringing Y' (Y's opposite) into focus. Plus there's no telling whether the memory/conceptualisation of X' has any connection to the real X' if you would have chosen it.

[Sapius]

Regret...

Thinking over the possibilities about that which may or may not be regrettable, or may be regrettable either way, helps in no way for it is still at a stage when a certain action pertaining to that particular subject at hand has not taken any effect as yet. So, thinking about regretting over any unrealized action, in itself, is all that we have in front of us, but does not exist once a decision has taken effect, be it that of either/or, or decide on keep thinking over it. In any case, it is only in the front, that is, before any either/or action is realized, not once realized. How come?

In my opinion, if one fully understands the nature and implications of cause and effect, then there is nothing to regret at all, any way that is, because any and all thoughts are necessarily a result based on information and casual processes reached at that particular point and could not be otherwise, hence, why regret? Practically too, it is always better to rectify where possible, than regret.

[Matt Gregory]

Stopping at faith is essentially the key to this passage, and in fact to living correctly. It is not ongoing speculation, trying to find the nugget of Reality in the form of some thing, since this is obviously illogical, and ideally not something you want to spend your life doing.

Faith shows that any desire is basically belief that something can be really gained, ever.

I still don't understand the exact way he's likening desire to motion. When he says he's not departing, what is he not departing from? Truth, I suppose. But what is it about desire that causes the departure and why is it so difficult to return once you've departed?

[DHodges]

yes, there is another way to live. Don't make choices at all. Or better, understand why choice is an illusion. Doesnt regret imply that there is a self to feel regret? Regret ends when the self ends.

In the meantime I will continue to be bewildered, resistant and greatly troubled by what I just said.

That seemed like a pretty good answer. Why are you troubled, bewildered, etc.?

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory Patrick wrote:

yes, there is another way to live. Don't make choices at all. Or better, understand why choice is an illusion. Doesnt regret imply that there is a self to feel regret? Regret ends when the self ends.

In the meantime I will continue to be bewildered, resistant and greatly troubled by what I just said.

Dhodges wrote:

That seemed like a pretty good answer. Why are you troubled, bewildered, etc.?

I was kind of just joking. There have been a few people in my life that, when I suggested to them that choice doesnt exist and is an illusion, they were troubled and perplexed by it. One guy was kind of getting angry.

But I can remember the first time someone challenged me with such a perspective - - At the time I couldn't fathom that choice didnt exist, and I reluctantly discovered that 'I prefered' to believe that choice existed.

People generally don't like a deterministic view because they feel it negates any sort of personal control. I think that, the greater your desire for personal control, the more relucant you will be to accept such a reality. However, then again, one can abuse the deterministic view. One may prefer to take the deterministic view because it takes away ones responsiblity.

"Its not my fault i'm the way I am, thats just the way life made me - so fuck you" However, if someone comes to believe in determinism dogmatically only to remain vulgar and slump in despair, then they arent really choosing to do that anyway.

Anyhow,

After allowing myself to become used to a deterministic reality - -I dont mind at all.

Hey that reminds me Dhodges. Because I felt a bit bad about my comments I made to you about Daniel Dennet, I decided to research him a bit more throughly. I'll admit, i only read a bit out of the book 'consciousness explained, and judged him based on the little bit I read.

So, I decided to give him a fair chance, by going ahead and reading a few interviews by him.

He actually does speak clearly for the most part, and in a particular interview he addressed what we are talking about now. Accepting a deterministic view.

He did say something that seemed contradictary. To paraphrase crudely: "Just because it is all deterministic, doesnt mean we dont have the control to make choices to change and improve."

I dont really agree with that - it seems contradictory.

I would say that if I my entity acts in a way which improves the health of itself and the whole, than that is born out of a certain mental clarity that arises merely out of luck. There is the clarity there that sees by acting responsibly life is actually easier and more pleasant.

I see us as purely selfish beings. Malevolent (fearful)selfishness or Benevolent (intelligent) selfishness.

No?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He [Dennett] did say something that seemed contradictory. To paraphrase crudely: "Just because it is all deterministic, doesnt mean we dont have the control to make choices to change and improve."

It would be interesting to see the exact quote since Dennett is normally quite cautious in his phrasings on this subject. What I suspect he means (or should have said anyway in my opinion) is that the faculty of the 'decision maker', which he describes to be in reality a very complex process (but simplified only in the more abstract self-reflections) is still there to weigh factors against each other and caused to initiate actions - to respond with awareness and so to behave in some responsable manner. Some Dennett quote I dug up that might be interesting to consider:

The difference between a responsible brain and a nonresponsible one -- not irresponsible, but nonresponsible -- is not a difference in the physics. It is a difference in the organization of that brain. It is a difference in the capacity of that brain to respond to information, to respond to reason, to be able to reflect.

Reflection is a really important feature of human competence. If you’re simply unable to notice what you’re doing and what the implications of that are, then you’re not as responsible as somebody who can.

Cory, you wrote further:

I would say that if I my entity acts in a way which improves the health of itself and the whole, than that is born out of a certain mental clarity that arises merely out of luck. There is the clarity there that sees by acting responsibly life is actually easier and more pleasant.

I see us as purely selfish beings. Malevolent (fearful) selfishness or Benevolent (intelligent) selfishness.

Isn't this benevolent selfishness some sort of social function? Ones self-interest is extended to the immediate surrounding, family, company, tribe, village? Since people need this network to function in.

Now could this interest be extended even to a larger degree? What happens if the whole - nothing excluded - becomes our (illusive) self, through our thoughts and actions? Since one needs the whole to function in, too.

[Cory Duchesne]

This is part of the interview that I found a bit contradictory:



Interviewer: Would a deterministic world mean that, say, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was going to happen ever since the Big Bang?

Dennett: "Going to happen" is a very misleading phrase. Say somebody throws a baseball at your head and you see it. That baseball was "going to" hit you until you saw it and ducked, and then it didn’t hit you, even though it was "going to."

In that sense of "going to," Kennedy’s assassination was by no means going to happen. There were no trajectories which guaranteed that it was going to happen independently of what people might have done about it. If he had overslept or if somebody else had done
this or that, then it wouldn’t have happened the way
it did.

People confuse determinism with fatalism. They’re two completely different notions.

Reason: Would you unpack that a little bit?

Dennett: Fatalism is the idea that something’s going to happen no matter what you do. Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you’re caused to know, and so forth -- but still, what you do matters. There’s a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out.

If I accomplish one thing in this book, I want to break the bad habit of putting determinism and inevitability together. Inevitability means unavoidability, and if you think about what avoiding means, then you realize that in a deterministic world there’s lots of avoidance. The capacity to avoid has been evolving for billions of years. There are very good avoiders now. There’s no conflict between being an avoider and living in a deterministic world. There’s been a veritable explosion of evitability on this planet, and it’s all independent of determinism.

[Rhett]

.

This is part of the interview that I found a bit contradictory:

Not surprising. We should separate the two.

Interviewer: Would a deterministic world mean that, say, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was going to happen ever since the Big Bang?

Yes.

Dennett: "Going to happen" is a very misleading phrase. Say somebody throws a baseball at your head and you see it. That baseball was "going to" hit you until you saw it and ducked, and then it didn’t hit you, even though it was "going to."

In that sense of "going to," Kennedy’s assassination was by no means going to happen. There were no trajectories which guaranteed that it was going to happen independently of what people might have done about it. If he had overslept or if somebody else had done
this or that, then it wouldn’t have happened the way
it did.

People confuse determinism with fatalism. They’re two completely different notions.

Reason: Would you unpack that a little bit?

Dennett: Fatalism is the idea that something’s going to happen no matter what you do. Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you’re caused to know, and so forth -- but still, what you do matters. There’s a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out.

If I accomplish one thing in this book, I want to break the bad habit of putting determinism and inevitability together. Inevitability means unavoidability, and if you think about what avoiding means, then you realize that in a deterministic world there’s lots of avoidance. The capacity to avoid has been evolving for billions of years. There are very good avoiders now. There’s no conflict between being an avoider and living in a deterministic world. There’s been a veritable explosion of evitability on this planet, and it’s all independent of determinism.

.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is part of the interview that I found a bit contradictory

Well, surely there are parts of Dennett's thinking that are not very consistent, for example his thoughts about the saving grace of morality and secular materialism are sounding totally baseless to me.

The following part demonstrates Dennett's determinism better perhaps, when lifted out of the context:

Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you’re caused to know, and so forth -- but still, what you do matters. There’s a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out.

There's still a moment perceived as 'choice' and the making of decisions. A fatalist would believe it doesn't matter and retreat from the process thereby still making a choice by avoiding initiation of change.

The point is that determinism only increases responsibility when understood correctly. Because after having understood some of the causes and effects of ones behavior, one might respond better to the rational, wise course of action that now unfolds.

[Cory Duchesne]

Diebert wrote,

What happens if the whole - nothing excluded - becomes our (illusive) self, through our thoughts and actions? Since one needs the whole to function in too.

This sort of ‘I am the whole’ thinking is often delusional unless one goes into it with a lot of care, detail and subtlety. The origins of this sort of thinking of course come from more mystical, religious and ‘ecologically concerned’ bodies of thought, and thus, such ways of thinking are usually found only in the brains of the more chaotic spiritual types, and repugnant and irrational to the more academic sort of fellow.

However, I’m not aggrandizing these more chaotic spiritual types, as they can easily get carried away (in a dogmatic overly emotional flakey sort of way) with these sort of ‘I am the whole’ sentiments. Of course, if one values truth, a chaotic disposition seems to be a blessing.

There ‘appears’ to be a certain absurdity in saying that I ‘am’ what appear to be objects outside of me (other people, an apple, trees, stars, the world, etc).

However, this is only the case if I am someone who lives in a world of concepts, pedantic logic and abstractions rather than simply ‘seeing’ the fact that my body is comprised of energy (or simply ‘is’ energy) that I have eaten, and that energy that I have eaten once took the form of an entity that was comprised of what ‘it’ ate. Infinity. Profound understanding isn’t necessarily the result of logic alone, in the same way gazing at a tree or the moon isn’t necessarily an act of logic or reason.

I am the food that I eat, air that I breathe, and water that I drink. And of course Food, air and water are all comprised and thus undivided from other forms of material. Food for example ‘is’ comprised of stored energy ‘sunlight’, minerals, and bacteria, all of which are comprised of that which ‘seems’ to be divided but isn’t.

So basically, what I’m getting at is: I already am everything. I don’t have to ‘become’ the whole: I already am - - even if I don’t realize it. If I don’t realize it, well, perhaps we could say that is ‘the birth of tragedy, laziness, sloth, stupidity’ or ‘the birth of absurdity’.

Now, what happens when I realize I am the whole? Well, generally one remains egotistical, vain, intolerant of others, enthusiastic over silly whims, frightened of the unknown, etc….

Things really don’t change too much. If I was fairly disorganized and inattentive in the past, I will continue to be (unless I devote myself to some serious meditation - a whole different matter). If I was clever and well organized I will continue to be (unless I devote myself to a whole lot of drug use or suffer some sort of family crisis).

One may start gardening in a more holistic way, the angle that one plays while socializing may change a bit, friendships may be destroyed as new ones emerge, one maybe attracted to new internet message forums and bored with those that once entertained, if one is a songwriter ones lyrics might become different, one may find the world more ugly and painful, one may start meditating more, one may quit their job and look for something that appreciates ones holistic way of looking at things.

Another thing to be wary of is realizing the limitations of ones ability to realize. One can only realize that one ‘is’ that which one has the capacity to observe, and thus, one must also realize that, whatever it is that one observes has infinity behind it, beneath it, and within it. One is not only that which one observes, but one ‘is’ what one can’t observe. Therefore, one cannot know what one is. There is only the realization of indivisibility and uncertainty.

To say: “I have become the whole”, or “I want to become the whole”, are meaningless sentiments. One can only recognize that one already is the whole, yet one must realized one does not know what the whole truly is. If I come to believe I know what the whole is, well then I am deluded. One cannot know ‘what’ and ‘why’ but only how, or ‘the way’. I can only see that what I am is everything, yet everything is just a little ripple that extends into the vast unknown.

To realize that what one is, ‘is’ the whole, is to realize that one doesn’t really exist, but only the whole exists.

Man generally doesn’t realize that he doesn’t exist because he is not conscious, but rather, he is conditioned. He is just an encrypted program operating mindlessly. This conditioning fuses itself with the more natural biological fear, thus creating what some call psychological fear. This psychological fear is pretty much a disease as far as I can tell. This disease can be eradicated by consciousness.

Ironically, it is only the unconscious person who thinks in terms of ‘I’. Whereas the conscious person sees that there is no self.

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

This is part of the interview that I found a bit contradictory:

Interviewer: Would a deterministic world mean that, say, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was going to happen ever since the Big Bang?

Dennett: "Going to happen" is a very misleading phrase. Say somebody throws a baseball at your head and you see it. That baseball was "going to" hit you until you saw it and ducked, and then it didn’t hit you, even though it was "going to."

In that sense of "going to," Kennedy’s assassination was by no means going to happen. There were no trajectories which guaranteed that it was going to happen independently of what people might have done about it. If he had overslept or if somebody else had done this or that, then it wouldn’t have happened the way it did.

People confuse determinism with fatalism. They’re two completely different notions.

Reason: Would you unpack that a little bit?

Dennett: Fatalism is the idea that something’s going to happen no matter what you do. Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you’re caused to know, and so forth -- but still, what you do matters. There’s a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out.

If I accomplish one thing in this book, I want to break the bad habit of putting determinism and inevitability together. Inevitability means unavoidability, and if you think about what avoiding means, then you realize that in a deterministic world there’s lots of avoidance. The capacity to avoid has been evolving for billions of years. There are very good avoiders now. There’s no conflict between being an avoider and living in a deterministic world. There’s been a veritable explosion of evitability on this planet, and it’s all independent of determinism.

I don't see anything contradictory here. He expresses his point clearly.

He is basically saying that even though everything is predetermined, including our thoughts and choices, it doesn't mean that our choices in the present have no effect on how the future unfolds. Our choices and actions are part of the causal mix.

So what we do in the here and now will definitely influence future outcomes. At the same time, what we do in the here and now has been predetermined from the outset (keeping in mind, of course, that there has never really been an outset). Thus, everything is ultimately predetermined.

When Dennet says that the concept of determinism or predeterminism has nothing to do with inevitability, he is refering to the obvious truth that the future is not independent of our present actions.

-

[Edited for spelling - DQ]

[MKFaizi]

Contradictions are seen for the sake of continuing obsequious and gratuitous conversation.

Faizi

[David Quinn]

The essence of academia ....

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Now, what happens when I realize I am the whole? Well, generally one remains egotistical, vain, intolerant of others, enthusiastic over silly whims, frightened of the unknown, etc….

Things really don’t change too much.

It depends how deep this realization actually goes. One might indeed find the conceptual door but never enter the rabbit hole behind it. Nothing indeed changes because someone egotistical, vain and frightened of the unknown will never dare or care to enter anyway. Or it wouldn't fit like a camel never fits through the eye of a needle. And if they accidentally do they will become probably severely confused, in need of medication to keep functioning as they were.

Man generally doesn’t realize that he doesn’t exist because he is not conscious, but rather, he is conditioned. He is just an encrypted program operating mindlessly. This conditioning fuses itself with the more natural biological fear, thus creating what some call psychological fear. This psychological fear is pretty much a disease as far as I can tell. This disease can be eradicated by consciousness.

Aha! Something does change then in your opinion? Or in what ways do you think this consciousness and the eradication of psychological fear will affect man?

[Cory Duchesne]

David Quinn wrote:

I don't see anything contradictory here. He expresses his point clearly.

He is basically saying that even though everything is predetermined, including our thoughts and choices, it doesn't mean that our choices in the present have no affect on how the future unfolds. Our choices and actions are part of the causal mix.

I see what you mean, but I still think there is a more rational way of putting it.

My point is this: Rather than emphasize the significance of choice, I think, for the sake keeping things consistent and rational, one should emphasize the fact that choice is an illusion and that there is really no self taking action, and instead, there is simply an 'involuntary awareness'. When it comes to 'awareness' some people are more well endowed then others, and this is ultimately due to sheer luck. And of course, we should use ‘reason and logic’ to differentiate lucky conditions from unlucky. Lucky genetic disposition, childhood, environment, quality of education, etc….

If a baseball was thrown at my head and I duck - the baseball was 'not' going to hit me, precisely because we live in a deterministic universe where 'I ducked'.

I was ‘going to’ duck the baseball. Ducking the baseball was an inevitability. It is as simple as that. There are reasons why I managed to duck. My fortunate disposition, and my ducking the baseball, was determined/inevitable. Dennett makes it sound like the ducking of the baseball was based on thinking things out logically first and then making a choice. Rubbish. In that sort of a situation there is only a primitive reflex to avoid danger.

Is it not a sign of sanity to point out that there is fundamentally no difference between the words determined and inevitable? It just seems like madness to try and separate the two.

The baseball 'seemed' like it was going to hit me. I 'seemed' to be making the choice to duck, but really I didn't choose, it was simply an involuntary, healthy reaction that was predetermined.

I don’t know if any of you had ever reacted to a sudden danger before…..but it happens very quickly and without thought. The act of jumping back from danger is not an action based on thought. It is more primitive than that. It is involuntary, choice-less, and determined.

One is lucky to be 'sufficiently' healthy, aware, keen, and sensitive(physically).

I just don’t know who Dennett thinks he is addressing when he warns against a fatalistic ideology.

There is only the will to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. All humans live their lives attempting to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. (Looking around at humanity, it’s a little hard to believe, but it’s true.)

It’s as if Dennett thinks there are folks out there who are deliberately trying to hurt themselves or are contented with remaining in a state of pain without hopes of gaining a greater mode of existence. There is no doubt that human beings are known to deliberately hurt themselves (when I was in high school, I knew a guy who, after getting really drunk, broke a beer bottle over his head……his head bled quite badly and his girlfriend took him to the hospital.…..

On a different occasion, there was a fellow who, after getting incredibly drunk, heated the metal part of a lighter and branded his forearm. This fellow who had just branded himself was sitting next to a boy who didn’t go to many party’s and didn’t have much confidence, but wanted to be confident and cool like the fellow who just branded himself. The fellow who had just branded himself told the unconfident boy next to him to hold out his forearm to get branded. Because the unconfident boy was drunk enough and sufficiently desperate to be ‘cooler’ ‘tougher’ and more ‘respected’, the boy hesitantly held out his arm and got branded.

Of course, these examples of immolation reveal how, humans, especially men, will deliberately punish themselves in order to gain a higher more pleasurable position in life (more respect, admirations, friends, strength, a sense of belonging).

Obviously their efforts were and will probably continue to be quite vain.

Surely only the most abnormal and rare of individuals prefer to interpret reality in a way where, being continuously punished without reward is the inevitability. Even so called pessimists like Schopenhauer postulated freedom from punishment. All religious bodies of thought speak of an inevitable damnation, but accompany this ideology with a path to liberation and heaven. Where is the human being who thinks only in terms of punishment while omitting reward? Probably only in Dennett’s imagination. I'm not saying that there are not or have not been human beings who've threw away notions of punishment and reward.....or better, reached a point of understanding where they did not see a distinction between the two......

However, it is a such reality or such persons without duality that Dennett is probably confused by.


David Quinn wrote:

So what we do in the here and now will definitely influence future outcomes.

Why not just say: what we do now, whether wise or foolish is involuntary and inevitable?

David Quinn wrote:

When Dennett says that the concept of determinism or predeterminism has nothing to do with inevitability, he is reffering to the obvious truth that the future is not independent of our present actions.

I don’t see how that negates inevitability.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory Patrick wrote:
Now, what happens when I realize I am the whole? Well, generally one remains egotistical, vain, intolerant of others, enthusiastic over silly whims, frightened of the unknown, etc….

Things really don’t change too much.

Diebert wrote,

It depends on how deep this realization actually goes.

Yes, I somewhat agree. I said ‘generally’ intentionally, in order to make room for the exception that I think we both agree on and that I will go into below.

I think it might be better to say – ‘It’ (being perfect) depends on how constant one’s attention is applied to seeing the indivisibility. but not even 'only' that. How devoted can one be to remaining attentive moment to moment? How constant can it be? And what am I going to do for a livelihood? something creative, innovative? That's the wish most of us have.

Personally, despite I realize quite clearly I don’t exist and there is only an undivided whole, despite I understand the concept of cause and effect - - my mind, emotions and thought, involuntarily wander too and fro far too often and with great strength. The most absurd fantasies and past memories absorb my attention a great deal of the time. Day dreaming is like being hypnotized. One becomes absorbed by a movement of painful past memories (sometimes pleasurable) and pleasurable future fantasies instead of remaining in an attentive, selfless state. The attentive state destroys every thought as it arises. However, thoughts likewise can destroy the attentive state (this depends on how emotionally and aesthetically involved one is)
When I lie to sleep, I continue to be thwarted by and engulfed in thought, memory and emotion. Or better, I simply continue to ‘be’ corrupted. Really, there is no division between the abstraction that I call ‘me’ and my thoughts and emotion. There is only one shoddy whole. However, for the convenience of communication, there will have to be a bit of fragmentation, for thus is the nature of language.
Eventually I slip into sleep, into the convoluted and weird logic of dreams. I wake up groggy and the residue of a night’s dreaming is a fog that is slowly burned away by the degrees of attention and awareness that rise as the day goes on.
One can realize and understand intellectually that ‘I am the whole’, I am not divided’ - -- but that alone is not the ‘cause’ of having the brain totally cleaned and made supremely sharp, whole, sensitive and attentive. Having the energy to be constantly attentive is probably the key factor.

The ingrained tendencies of the brain to be vain, to be enthusiastic with motives, to feel humiliation, pride, shame, fear, envy, lust, to be greedy, to feel hatred would all have to be somehow destroyed, deactivated, put totally asleep. I’m not saying this can’t happen. What causes it to happen?

I don’t think merely realizing intellectually that one is the whole, and I don’t think the rigorous application of the cause and effect concept is solely responsible for the radical profound change that you seem to be optimistic about or perhaps even claim to have undergone. Like i said, constant attention, not allowing thoughts to take root and grow into turbid suffocating realities is what is most important and most simple - - yet oddly, the most difficult.

Diebert wrote,

It depends how deep this realization actually goes.

How deep did I go in my previous writings? What was lacking? Maybe you could point the way.

Diebert wrote:

One might indeed find the conceptual door but never enter the rabbit hole behind it.

Where is this ‘center/self’ that ‘enters’? What is it that one is entering?


Diebert wrote:

Nothing indeed changes because someone egotistical, vain and frightened of the unknown will never dare or care to enter anyway.

Enter? Into what state? I suppose you could say there is a state of very high sophistication, sensitivity, attentiveness, stoicism…….but to reach that state, I don’t think it’s an act of ‘entering’ or anything like that, although I realize you probably equate the word ‘realize’ with the word enter. I think it comes to down to something basic like ‘habits’. I know that is not the end all be all explanation - - but it is a very simple and obvious factor. If, as a child, my mother pampered and spoiled me severely, there are thus emotional habits created, serving as an unfortunate foundation for my future tendencies and aspirations.

Diebert wrote:

If they accidentally did [realize?] they will probably end up severely confused, in need of medication to keep functioning as they were.

Yes, it is much like the fellow who smokes marijuana, and or does a bunch of LSD and mushrooms in order to improve his mind and expand his awareness. He comes to some profound realizations, but afterwards he experiences some problems keeping an emotional, organizational, and financial balance. He generally ends up being pretty confused and unbalanced following the drug induced illuminations. Often, the pain of the confusion and unbalance leads him either to psychotherapy w/ medication ‘or’ more rigorous, drug-free, philosophic though processes and healthy disciplined food consumption and exercise. Perhaps, sometimes - - a bit of both.

Cory Patrick wrote:

This conditioning fuses itself with the more natural biological fear, thus creating what some call psychological fear. This psychological fear is pretty much a disease as far as I can tell. This disease can be eradicated by consciousness.

Diebert wrote,

Aha! Something does change then in your opinion?

Yes, that was why I said ‘generally’.

In my previous post I did list some of the more general, superficial changes that will happen following ones realization of, or interest in what one is.

As for a radical change such as the ‘untangling, cleansing or unknotting’ of the brain, this seems to happen to greater and lesser degrees (depending on how attentive one is). The presence of consciousness, illumination is probably the ‘causeless cause’ responsible for anything truly radically positive man has done/expressed in the past 5000 years.

What this consciousness is, whether or not it originates from, whether or not consciousness is a projection of the brain, and whether or not someone has came close to explaining it, I am still inquiring and researching. I really don't know.

Diebert wrote,

What ways do you think this consciousness and the eradication of psychological fear will affect man?

I think the eradication of fear will give man the involuntary clarity to see what actions generate further pain, and what actions bring peace. Stupidities such as drug addictions, self inflicted disease, obesity, war, and environmental addictions will probably gradually be curbed.

Men won’t be as inclined to let woman have it their own way, and thus, the population will start to go down as well. We wont be as inclined to reproduce. Or maybe not. I’m not interested in being a prophet.

Peak-oil in relationship to permaculture is a significant phenomenon. Man, because he has no choice, is starting to go down and dissent. His assent is coming to an end involuntarily. He is forced, out of the sheer will to survive, to make his way back down the mountain. however, technologies continue to advance, so who knows what trick he'll pull next.

New discoveries in physics, agriculture, architecture, obstetrics, parenting/psychology - - -really just about every aspect of culture, as it has changed into increasingly sophisticated expressions over the past while now, will continue to be shaped by new levels of consciousness eventually reaching the source, the very essence of sophistication, which is timeless and beyond ancient. I can remember how recycling and composting suddenly became a law here in Canada. Permaculture originated in Australia and is now spreading around the world and is taking root here in Canada as well. Permaculture is highly in debt to Masanobu Fukuoka, a philosopher and farmer, who in turn, gave a great deal of his life to understand the ultimate eventually speaking very highly of Buddha, lau-tsu and others.

Message boards like this one is a good example of what sort of things to expect to see following man's burst of realizaiton.

Website like this are definitely a help.

Evidence for man’s maturity is everywhere.

I attribuite it mostly to his capacity to not dream and instead be attentive and awake to the facts of the matter, with as much constancy as possible. From this attention, actions will be born that are increasingly unifying and self-eradicating.

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

I just don’t know who Dennett thinks he is addressing when he warns against a fatalistic ideology.

Most of the human race, I dare say. In my experience, most people are very confused when it comes to issues of free will, causality, predeterminism, predictability, inevitability, etc.

It is hard to believe, I know, given that we are living in the glitzy 21st century, but the human race is barely past the primitive stages when it comes to philosophic thought.

DQ: So what we do in the here and now will definitely influence future outcomes.

CP: Why not just say: what we do now, whether wise or foolish is involuntary and inevitable?

Because this thread has primarily been about determinism and the future.

In any case, I emphasized both sides of the equation when I said:

So what we do in the here and now will definitely influence future outcomes. At the same time, what we do in the here and now has been predetermined from the outset (keeping in mind, of course, that there has never really been an outset). Thus, everything is ultimately predetermined.

DQ: When Dennett says that the concept of determinism or predeterminism has nothing to do with inevitability, he is reffering to the obvious truth that the future is not independent of our present actions.

CP: I don’t see how that negates inevitability.

There are two senses of the word "inevitable" at play here. Dennett successfully negates one of them and affirms the other.

-

[MKFaizi]

the essence of academia ....

Absolutely. I reckon if not for academia, this forum might not exist.

Tiresome but essential.

Faizi

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

I just don’t know who Dennett thinks he is addressing when he warns against a fatalistic ideology.

DQ replied:

Most of the human race, I dare say. In my experience, most people are very confused when it comes to issues of free will, causality, predeterminism, predictability, inevitability, etc.

Yes, apparently so, but my point is simply this. Human beings are optimistic, hopeful, willful creatures, no matter how cynical and fatalistic they might appear. Give me one example of a human being who is fatalistic, and I will reveal to you how that human being has/had a very un-fatalistic outlook (severely deluded yes, fatalistic, no.) I dont know if the brain is capable of being fatalistic. It'd be like Bird trying to swim.

Humans appear cynical, pessimistic, however you want to put it, but they're negativity is only a means to a certain quality of optimism. Cynical people are always optimistic about something. And optimisitc people are always doubtful and cynical about something as well.

It is hard to believe, I know, given that we are living in the glitzy 21st century, but the human race is barely past the primitive stages when it comes to philosophic thought.

I agree that most of the human race is barely past the primitive stages of philosophic thinking, however, that does not negate my previous statement.

Whether they are capable of philosophy or not, all human beings are concerned with maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The glitzy 21st century is the expression of the drive to maximize pleasure. The squalor and wretchedness of drug addiction, prostitution and extreme poverty are the tag along companions of glitzy 21st century living. Humanity is suffering badly, however, absurdly enough, the struggle has always been to enjoy themselves. Humans are not fatalistic, just stupid. A stupidity that is determined, involuntary and inevitable – just like intelligence.

[Matt Gregory]

I've got it!

Either/Or is a book about the stages of ordinary human life (love, in particular). Kierkegaard is saying that he doesn't move through the stages, and also that he arrived at this "stillness" prior to experiencing the stages, not afterwards.

Sorry to interrupt, I was just happy to finally figure that out.

[Cory Duchesne]

Matt Gregory wrote:

I've got it!

Either/Or is a book about the stages of ordinary human life (love, in particular). Kierkegaard is saying that he doesn't move through the stages, and also that he arrived at this "stillness" prior to experiencing the stages, not afterwards.

Sorry to interrupt, I was just happy to finally figure that out.

Yes, that absolutely makes sense. To understand this is to come to an amusing conclusion that is contary to a common cliche:

Wisdom doesn't come in time/experience.

[Matt Gregory]

No, that's not nearly enough.

Correction: the book is an ironic critique of various states (K calls them "stages") of desire, organized in a progression going from states typical of youth to states typical of maturity. Except for the Ultimatum, which is more like a bridge to the Two Upbuilding Discourses that he published. Well, the whole book is really a bridge to the Upbuilding Discourses/Christianity.

That's what I get out of it, anyway. A very ambitious piece of work. It's pretty amazing, really.

[SBN Charles]

Kierkeggards perception is completely universal in that exerpt, otherwise how could he have come to the conclusion of regretting either doing this or that, with only 2 options at his disposal.

[Matt Gregory]

What are you responding to? I don't think anyone was questioning that Kierkegaard's statements were universal.

[kjones]

I still don't understand the exact way he's likening desire to motion. When he says he's not departing, what is he not departing from? Truth, I suppose. But what is it about desire that causes the departure and why is it so difficult to return once you've departed?

Either/Or is a book about the stages of ordinary human life (love, in particular). Kierkegaard is saying that he doesn't move through the stages, and also that he arrived at this "stillness" prior to experiencing the stages, not afterwards.

Correction: the book is an ironic critique of various states (K calls them "stages") of desire, organized in a progression going from states typical of youth to states typical of maturity.

A child is arrogant, because truth is still raw and righteousness easy. Children have grand and ostentatious plans. The young are the best hackers, not yet nauseated by long failure. They're selfish enough to want to do it all for themselves. But such a child eventually crosses over into the shell-like adult. Selfishness leads only to death ! What to do then?

The way things are packaged ready into functional objects, is a feature of shell-like-living. The useful becomes the right, but there is no deep thought about the basis of what is right.

Yet without these things having developed such uses, the functionality wouldn't arrive. Intellectualising is a progression. Maybe it ends as useless, while still continuing ?

----

It's desire for something, the childish dream of something, that is hell. It's impossible to return, that's why it's difficult. You just can't get back there, ever.

Because that desire to return is the desire for something. It is impossible to drop it all, "to drop it all" is an action, reflecting on "it all"...separate.

So he couldn't stop still before, he could only drop it all after reflecting on being it all. Isn't that only possible through having experienced intense and ongoing existential crises?

----

Lately, I've realised how essential it is not to give up. It is easy to. There is much against becoming properly functional. It is very complicated when one feels like giving up, because pessimism turns the mind into dull sod. But one must report back, every moment, to existence. There's no departure or stasis possible.

Surely suicide ends a momentary suffering, but it doesn't end it at all, really. It just makes it harder for some other being, who hasn't got some inspiring (or any) examples to see. He or she becomes fatalistic, defeatist, shell-like, and has no inkling of it, let alone how simple it really is. Even if one suffers, and has a terrible and terrifying existence, and especially so compared to the contented and happy sheep, there is at least a foothold for someone else.

The miracle is just there, somewhere. A memento mori is a good way to remember how urgently one should keep hacking away. A hanging-rope tied in the form of a noose, it invokes a more subjective, reflective mindstate.


KJ