Pay money for ethical work

[keenobserver]

Well, people are doing the worst they can too in every moment! :)
Or is it, we are neither doing the best nor the worst we can??

I like to look at it this way, which seems most useful to me:
While seekers of Truth can be said to be doing the best they can, non-seekers are doing the worst they can.
The two are generally progressing in opposite directions.

There's quite a difference when looked at this way, since 99% seem to be pissin in the wind.

[sue hindmarsh]

keenobserver wrote:

Sue: They (people) are literally doing the best they can in each and every moment.

Well, people are doing the worst they can too in every moment! :)
Or is it, we are neither doing the best nor the worst we can??

We can only ever do the best we can, for we are completely subject to our causes. For example: neither you nor I know what our next thought is going to be. That thought, like every other ‘thing’ depends entirely on the circumstances in that moment. No two circumstances are ever exactly the same. So we cannot foresee what direction our thoughs or lives will take at any moment. We are therefore “doing our best”, because we can do no other.

I like to look at it this way, which seems most useful to me:
While seekers of Truth can be said to be doing the best they can, non-seekers are doing the worst they can.
The two are generally progressing in opposite directions.

There's quite a difference when looked at this way, since 99% seem to be pissin in the wind.

Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise. Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers. They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force. In some people, wisdom triumphs; in others, ignorance prevails – but neither gets to choose their destiny.

-
When someone once asked Diogenes why he often laughed by himself, he said, "For that very reason."
-

[Kelly Jones]

K: If someone emotionally manipulates another to preserve irrational beliefs, then I really struggle to see how they are assisting people.

I don’t think people “preserve” those “irrational beliefs” out of sheer bloody mindedness. They don’t say, for instance, “I know the beliefs I base my life upon are totally irrational; but stuff it, I’m going to stick with them anyway.” For them to do so would mean that they knew what it meant to live truthfully, but decided to ignore that knowledge to be able to enjoy the pleasure and pain generated from lives based on false beliefs.

It's from my perspective.

People with irrational beliefs do have intuitions about the truth of the situation. But it makes them uncomfortable.

Out of the small number of people I’ve encountered who understood, to varying degrees, the truth about existence, only one of them has admitted that living according to the truth wasn’t for him. But turning his back on truth wasn’t done to cause harm to others - he simply had too many unresolved attachments making it impossible for him to connect whole heartedly with what he knew to be true.

Yes, if he ignored his own comfort levels, he would have done a lot of harm. Totally ignoring the need to repair them has done more.

He was just one man, but there have also been quite a few people over the years that have popped up on this forum showing a spark of consciousness. Most of them left and have never been heard of again. If they once again took refuge in irrationality it wasn't intentionally done so that they could wreak havoc upon the earth. Finding solace in irrationality means they hadn’t really broken from it in the first place. They may have been drawn mentally to the concept of truth, but they lacked the heart and stomach to focus on it alone. And without that focus, truth always remains a separate entity.

People rarely call cowardice, cowardice. The common situation is that being number 999,999,999,999,999 is such a discomforting truth for the ego, that it is refashioned as number 1 out of everybody coming after 999,999,999,999,999.

All I am doing is saying, one will never improve with that kind of game.

The bottom line is that every person is wholly dependent on circumstances (God/Tao/The Infinite) for everything they do and think. People are therefore completely innocent in all that they do and think. They are literally doing the best they can in each and every moment.

This is an example of that number game. Since there's no non-causation, there's no best or worst. One simply is causes.

Also, causation isn't a random, unpredictable affair. By identifying a truth, and associate it with psychological effects, shows that you believe that there are better types of causes than worse. For instance, thinking that one is wholly dependent on circumstances, is for you a better type of causes, than not thinking this way.

K: A person might be picking abandoned four-year-olds off the street in Kazakhstan, and feeding and sheltering them, but this usually enforces the belief that, if one does such things, then one is a good, decent person, and all guilt is thereby absolved.

S: Helping children isn't an irrational act in itself; what causes it to be so, as you point out, is people thinking they have done something “good”. The idea comes from the belief of an inherently existing self that is able to act independently from all other things. This is the basis of all mindless egotism - resulting in, for example, peoples fighting wars over possessions which aren't theirs in the first place, because they, as separate entities, do not exist. And out of this madness comes the situation of children finding themselves abandoned and in need of assistance.

So instead of emotionally manipulating people to preserve the irrational belief (bandaiding the symptom), you are really saying the best response is to hold rational beliefs.

Ultimately, people do value holding onto those irrational beliefs, more than becoming rational. Even though they don't make this decision in a highly conscious way, they definitely decide on certain values as most important, somewhere along the way.

Acts that are done knowing the true nature of the self have a far greater chance of rational outcomes than those acts based on irrational beliefs. But getting people to loosen their grip on their false concept of the self is an extremely difficult thing to do - as they can't imagine existence without it.

Emphasising the core truth of causation is a good cause. Pointing out the irrationality of being social slaves, ie. to women and children, is another good cause.

By intending to persist with these types of causes, the probability is, they'll arise rather than other types.


-

[Kelly Jones]

Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise. Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers. They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force. In some people, wisdom triumphs; in others, ignorance prevails – but neither gets to choose their destiny.

This belief has a subtle error. You're saying that, because one cannot know all the causes in the Infinite, that one cannot make a good guess what causes are likely to unfold.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly,

You only know something was a "good guess" after the fact. You cannot know for sure how anything will turn out.

-

[Kelly Jones]

That's why it's called a good guess, as opposed to a bad guess.

A bad guess would be completely out of touch with reality.

-

[Kelly Jones]

For example, if one wished to lose weight (fat), a good guess about how to do it, would be to exercise more and eat less fatty/sugary foods. It's saying, "This is a good guess based on the evidence."

It's not saying, "This is for sure going to be effective." One might get run over by a car while out jogging, effectively removing that cause from the equation.

-

[Mitchell Porter]

Sue, Kelly, maybe you can convey something to me. I am trying to understand what's supposed to be so scary about cause and effect. It is a repeated theme here that there are truths which may be held at an intellectual distance, or which may be applied to oneself - but then one risks dread, terror, destruction of the ego, etc. I am having a hard time identifying reasons for fear which do not reduce to mundane ones, and yet I sense that there is supposed to be a distinct metaphysical terror (and reason for evasion) above and beyond those.

Here's an example. Suppose I suddenly realized that I don't know what will happen from one moment to the next. That might be terrifying, because if anything's possible, then terrible things are possible. But that doesn't seem to be qualitatively different from the fear I might feel if confronted with some particular terrible threat.

In particular, I repeatedly gain the impression that there is supposed to be something terrifying about loss of belief in inherent existence. But - perhaps because I still don't know what that is supposed to mean - I cannot see any terror in it beyond that which might be caused by the realization of empirical uncertainty. After all (I have been told), even though things have no inherent existence, they're still there, in some sense; it's just that they have causes. But where's the terror in that, unless you see a specific combination of causes bearing down upon you? The only thing I can see is that there might be a subsidiary argument that, because the causes are "infinite", you cannot ever master them. But that's just empirical uncertainty again.

[keenobserver]

Its like saying - What are you people afraid of, i dont understand, so what if there are fish in there, come on lets go for a swim!
All the while unaware of the existence of large man-eating sharks there in the water, but your friends know.
There is no way you could be concerned without knowledge of the existence of such amimals. Equate this knowledge with spiritual realization and you have it.
But what realization could shake you in your boots? First of all the kind that is as certain as you are, that is as believeable as is the fact of your own existence, which unless you are beyond mad you do not doubt in the slightest. We all are certain we exist, at least as an appearance, it cant be logically doubted without contradiction. Neither that a=a or b=b.
Well great spiritual truths, life changing knowledge, is felt - when it is felt - just like this, as surely as a=a.
Try to imagine then, the impact when you certainly realize that your ego is fully false and anything but a striving for perfection and truth is madness. That all your hunger and lust is irrational. That fear itself should be but isn't beyond you.

[Kelly Jones]

I am trying to understand what's supposed to be so scary about cause and effect. It is a repeated theme here that there are truths which may be held at an intellectual distance, or which may be applied to oneself - but then one risks dread, terror, destruction of the ego, etc. I am having a hard time identifying reasons for fear which do not reduce to mundane ones, and yet I sense that there is supposed to be a distinct metaphysical terror (and reason for evasion) above and beyond those.

Well, it depends what you understand cause and effect to be.

It is only scary if one's understanding of Reality is still incorrect. It is usually incorrect because of some attachment, for wanting things to be a particular way.

Here's an example. Suppose I suddenly realized that I don't know what will happen from one moment to the next. That might be terrifying, because if anything's possible, then terrible things are possible. But that doesn't seem to be qualitatively different from the fear I might feel if confronted with some particular terrible threat.

The idea that anything could be a threat (something that makes one feel terror) is a delusion. An attachment to having Reality appear in a certain form, and not another.

So terror of causation is itself a delusion, because one is never separate from it. Though one might wish to be capable of transcending it......foolishly.

In particular, I repeatedly gain the impression that there is supposed to be something terrifying about loss of belief in inherent existence. But - perhaps because I still don't know what that is supposed to mean - I cannot see any terror in it beyond that which might be caused by the realization of empirical uncertainty.

The terror is not based on empirical uncertainty, but on not taking absolute logical truths to their completion. If one realises that there is ultimately nothing anywhere to poke a stick at, and still thinks that one could be separate enough to poke a stick at something, then there could be terror (a kind of vertigo).

Each little delusion, however subtle, has to be consciously dismantled, for liberation to "flow" in all directions.

After all (I have been told), even though things have no inherent existence, they're still there, in some sense; it's just that they have causes.

Things are only there when there is a particular perspective that requires things to be there.

But where's the terror in that, unless you see a specific combination of causes bearing down upon you?

Yes. Not even a "specific combination", but simply that causes are really bearing down on one. The delusion that one can die.

The only thing I can see is that there might be a subsidiary argument that, because the causes are "infinite", you cannot ever master them. But that's just empirical uncertainty again.

It's a silly argument, because if causes are infinite, being separate in order to master them, is logically impossible. That's not empirical uncertainty though, that's an absolute logical truth.

Your general point would probably become clearer if you gave your definition of self, Reality, and things. And if you were aware in yourself of any attachments, or emotional tendencies. Namely, what you value, and how that manifests in your life.

-

[Mitchell Porter]

Things are only there when there is a particular perspective that requires things to be there.

My existence does not depend upon the state of your awareness. Even when you do not think of me, I still am. Therefore, your philosophy is false.

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly wrote:

Sue: Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise. Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers. They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force. In some people, wisdom triumphs; in others, ignorance prevails – but neither gets to choose their destiny.

This belief has a subtle error. You're saying that, because one cannot know all the causes in the Infinite, that one cannot make a good guess what causes are likely to unfold.

By definition, “guess” means to make an estimate, or conjecture. We can certainly guess what the future holds, but we can’t know the future with any certainty. We just have to do the best we can with what we’ve got.

Sue: You only know something was a "good guess" after the fact. You cannot know for sure how anything will turn out.

That's why it's called a good guess, as opposed to a bad guess.

A bad guess would be completely out of touch with reality

The above sentence doesn’t really make any sense.

The “reality” of a “good guess” is when circumstances arise that matches to a large degree your guess. The “reality” of a “bad guess” is when circumstances arise that doesn’t match to a large degree your guess.

Kelly: For example, if one wished to lose weight (fat), a good guess about how to do it, would be to exercise more and eat less fatty/sugary foods. It's saying, "This is a good guess based on the evidence."

It's not saying, "This is for sure going to be effective." One might get run over by a car while out jogging, effectively removing that cause from the equation.

Being squashed by a car could be consider a legitimate way to lose weight – though it may be a tad drastic. ; )

There is no way we can be sure that eating less fatty and sugary foods causes weight loss. We can assume that it does, but the weight loss could be caused by something else that, as yet, we are completely unaware of. Science has only recently discovered the gene for obesity. One day it might discover a virus that causes people to store fat. We’ll just have to wait and see. In the mean time we can use the knowledge that is at hand to try and stay healthy by not eating too many fatty and sugary foods.

In the same vein, people who suffer from mental illness were thought by earlier generations to be possessed by evil spirits. This idea is now mostly out of favour, replaced instead by the idea of modern psychology. In years to come, medical science may uncover completely different causes for mental illness. Or future people may go through an anti-science phase by adopting the ancient practices and revive the idea that the mentally ill are possessed by demons. The circumstances at the time will dictate what new or old idea will be adopted and developed.

When I say that “all” things depend on circumstances, I’m including things like the concept of “good”. For as reality presents itself anew in each and every moment, a fresh reckoning of what one considers ‘good’ occurs. We recognize this fact in a gross manner - knowing that our likes and dislikes are always changing because circumstances are always changing. What most people don’t readily recognize is that that change is occurring subtly each and every moment. Things are not the same as they were a moment before, and they will never be exactly the same ever again.

BTW, that last statement is not a guess or a prediction about the future. The universe has neither a beginning, nor an end – therefore, infinite possibility exists.

-

[Jason]

Things are not the same as they were a moment before, and they will never be exactly the same ever again.

BTW, that last statement is not a guess or a prediction about the future. The universe has neither a beginning, nor an end – therefore, infinite possibility exists.

I'm not sure I understand how you come to the conclusion that a past moment will never be repeated, exactly, in the future. Wanna explain why that is so?

Also, if as you say, infinite possibility exists, then why not the possibility of exactly repeating a past moment? Seems contradictory.

Another thing, if the universe has infinite possibilities, there cannot be the possibility of the universe having limited possibilities can there? Isn't that a contradiction too?

[Kelly Jones]

Mitchell,

The existence of any consciousness outside one's ken is a logical rather than empirical uncertainty, because one can never know whether the behaviours of others that seems to match one's own, is adequate evidence to prove their consciousness. All one can know for sure is that one is conscious (meaning, appearances are happening, whoever one may be).

The problem of other people's consciousness can be solved logically as an unsolvable mystery. That is, it is a secret that cannot be revealed. And this is certain logical knowledge.

A person's existence is an empirical uncertainty. All one knows is how it appears at any particular time. But their consciousness doesn't exist empirically, because their consciousness - thoughts and appearances happening in the mind - is assumed. It is a logical assumption, not reliant on further evidence.

This is a totally different kettle of fish to the question of whether God exists/is conscious, because the definition of a person is not "All-mighty, Omniscient Creator of all Things, Absolute, Eternal, Unchanging, Lord of the Heavens and the Earth".

-

[David Quinn]

Things are only there when there is a particular perspective that requires things to be there.

My existence does not depend upon the state of your awareness. Even when you do not think of me, I still am. Therefore, your philosophy is false.

Your existence is nevertheless generated out of your own awareness. I don't think Kelly was talking about her own awareness specifically. Just awareness, generally.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

Sue wrote:
Things are not the same as they were a moment before, and they will never be exactly the same ever again.

BTW, that last statement is not a guess or a prediction about the future. The universe has neither a beginning, nor an end – therefore, infinite possibility exists.

I'm not sure I understand how you come to the conclusion that a past moment will never be repeated, exactly, in the future. Wanna explain why that is so?

See answer below.

Also, if as you say, infinite possibility exists, then why not the possibility of exactly repeating a past moment? Seems contradictory.

Perhaps it “seems contradictory” because you are imagining a universe where things come into exist as finished products. But no thing has a beginning or an end. Therefore the “past moment” had neither a beginning nor an end. Therefore it will not be repeated because it never was in the first place.

Another thing, if the universe has infinite possibilities, there cannot be the possibility of the universe having limited possibilities can there? Isn't that a contradiction too?

For the universe to have “limited possibilities” it would have to have a beginning and an end, but it doesn’t - which is why there is infinite possibility.

-

[Carl G]

Sue: They (people) are literally doing the best they can in each and every moment.

keenobserver: Well, people are doing the worst they can too in every moment! :)
Or is it, we are neither doing the best nor the worst we can??

Sue: We can only ever do the best we can, for we are completely subject to our causes.

False. We potentially have a measure of say in matters, otherwise known as freedom.

For example: neither you nor I know what our next thought is going to be.

Not knowing the future does not support your argument in any way. One can still act in the present.

That thought, like every other ‘thing’ depends entirely on the circumstances in that moment.

True, but this does not support your argument. Circumstances can include one's own will, for example.

No two circumstances are ever exactly the same. So we cannot foresee what direction our thoughs or lives will take at any moment.

Again, non-knowledge of the future does not dispel one's potential power in the present.

We are therefore “doing our best”, because we can do no other.

Therefore nothing. You have not established this in any way.

Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise.

False. I realize this is part of the basic belief system of philosophers here, but it is simply not true.

Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers.

False. Their efforts to "seek truth" can put them in another boat.

They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force.

This statement in no way supports your argument. One can be subject to the same fundamental force, and still have a measure of freedom.

In some people, wisdom triumphs; in others, ignorance prevails – but neither gets to choose their destiny.

A quaint aphorism, but not true. Some people can establish in themselves a measure of freedom, which allows them creative participation in their process (their destiny).

[Jason]

Sue: Things are not the same as they were a moment before, and they will never be exactly the same ever again.

BTW, that last statement is not a guess or a prediction about the future. The universe has neither a beginning, nor an end – therefore, infinite possibility exists.

Jason: if as you say, infinite possibility exists, then why not the possibility of exactly repeating a past moment? Seems contradictory.

S: Perhaps it “seems contradictory” because you are imagining a universe where things come into exist as finished products. But no thing has a beginning or an end. Therefore the “past moment” had neither a beginning nor an end. Therefore it will not be repeated because it never was in the first place.

If there is no such thing as a moment then what is it that "will never be exactly the same ever again"? Your original statements rely on there being moments.

[Kelly Jones]

Sue,

K: If someone emotionally manipulates another to preserve irrational beliefs, then I really struggle to see how they are assisting people.

S: I don’t think people “preserve” those “irrational beliefs” out of sheer bloody mindedness. They don’t say, for instance, “I know the beliefs I base my life upon are totally irrational; but stuff it, I’m going to stick with them anyway.” For them to do so would mean that they knew what it meant to live truthfully, but decided to ignore that knowledge to be able to enjoy the pleasure and pain generated from lives based on false beliefs.

K: It's from my perspective. People with irrational beliefs do have intuitions about the truth of the situation. But it makes them uncomfortable.

-

S: Out of the small number of people I’ve encountered who understood, to varying degrees, the truth about existence, only one of them has admitted that living according to the truth wasn’t for him. But turning his back on truth wasn’t done to cause harm to others - he simply had too many unresolved attachments making it impossible for him to connect whole heartedly with what he knew to be true.

K: Yes, if he ignored his own comfort levels, he would have done a lot of harm. Totally ignoring the need to repair them has done more.

-

S: He was just one man, but there have also been quite a few people over the years that have popped up on this forum showing a spark of consciousness. Most of them left and have never been heard of again. If they once again took refuge in irrationality it wasn't intentionally done so that they could wreak havoc upon the earth. Finding solace in irrationality means they hadn’t really broken from it in the first place. They may have been drawn mentally to the concept of truth, but they lacked the heart and stomach to focus on it alone. And without that focus, truth always remains a separate entity.

K: People rarely call cowardice, cowardice. The common situation is that being number 999,999,999,999,999 is such a discomforting truth for the ego, that it is refashioned as number 1 out of everybody coming after 999,999,999,999,999. All I am doing is saying, one will never improve with that kind of game.

-

S: The bottom line is that every person is wholly dependent on circumstances (God/Tao/The Infinite) for everything they do and think. People are therefore completely innocent in all that they do and think. They are literally doing the best they can in each and every moment.

K: This is an example of that number game. Since there's no non-causation, there's no best or worst. One simply is causes. Also, causation isn't a random, unpredictable affair. By identifying a truth, and associate it with psychological effects, shows that you believe that there are better types of causes than worse. For instance, thinking that one is wholly dependent on circumstances, is for you a better type of causes, than not thinking this way.

-

K: A person might be picking abandoned four-year-olds off the street in Kazakhstan, and feeding and sheltering them, but this usually enforces the belief that, if one does such things, then one is a good, decent person, and all guilt is thereby absolved.

S: Helping children isn't an irrational act in itself; what causes it to be so, as you point out, is people thinking they have done something “good”. The idea comes from the belief of an inherently existing self that is able to act independently from all other things. This is the basis of all mindless egotism - resulting in, for example, peoples fighting wars over possessions which aren't theirs in the first place, because they, as separate entities, do not exist. And out of this madness comes the situation of children finding themselves abandoned and in need of assistance.

K: So instead of emotionally manipulating people to preserve the irrational belief (bandaiding the symptom), you are really saying the best response is to hold rational beliefs. Ultimately, people do value holding onto those irrational beliefs, more than becoming rational. Even though they don't make this decision in a highly conscious way, they definitely decide on certain values as most important, somewhere along the way.

-

S: Acts that are done knowing the true nature of the self have a far greater chance of rational outcomes than those acts based on irrational beliefs. But getting people to loosen their grip on their false concept of the self is an extremely difficult thing to do - as they can't imagine existence without it.

K: Emphasising the core truth of causation is a good cause. Pointing out the irrationality of being social slaves, ie. to women and children, is another good cause. By intending to persist with these types of causes, the probability is, they'll arise rather than other types.

-

K: [ Sue to keenobserver wrote: Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise. Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers. They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force. In some people, wisdom triumphs; in others, ignorance prevails – but neither gets to choose their destiny. ]

This belief has a subtle error. You're saying that, because one cannot know all the causes in the Infinite, that one cannot make a good guess what causes are likely to unfold.

S: You only know something was a "good guess" after the fact. You cannot know for sure how anything will turn out.

K: That's why it's called a good guess, as opposed to a bad guess. A bad guess would be completely out of touch with reality. For example, if one wished to lose weight (fat), a good guess about how to do it, would be to exercise more and eat less fatty/sugary foods. It's saying, "This is a good guess based on the evidence." It's not saying, "This is for sure going to be effective." One might get run over by a car while out jogging, effectively removing that cause from the equation.

S: By definition, “guess” means to make an estimate, or conjecture. We can certainly guess what the future holds, but we can’t know the future with any certainty. We just have to do the best we can with what we’ve got.

You are saying there is a "good" way to define guessing, and a "bad" way.

Namely, good guessing understands cause and effect, whereas poor guessing does not.

So, understanding cause and effect is "doing the best with what we've got", whereas not understanding it, is not.

K: That's why it's called a good guess, as opposed to a bad guess. A bad guess would be completely out of touch with reality.

S: The above sentence doesn’t really make any sense. The “reality” of a “good guess” is when circumstances arise that matches to a large degree your guess. The “reality” of a “bad guess” is when circumstances arise that doesn’t match to a large degree your guess.

I meant consciousness of the nature of Ultimate Reality is necessary for a good guess.

K: For example, if one wished to lose weight (fat), a good guess about how to do it, would be to exercise more and eat less fatty/sugary foods. It's saying, "This is a good guess based on the evidence." It's not saying, "This is for sure going to be effective." One might get run over by a car while out jogging, effectively removing that cause from the equation.

S: Being squashed by a car could be consider a legitimate way to lose weight – though it may be a tad drastic. ; ) There is no way we can be sure that eating less fatty and sugary foods causes weight loss. We can assume that it does, but the weight loss could be caused by something else that, as yet, we are completely unaware of. Science has only recently discovered the gene for obesity. One day it might discover a virus that causes people to store fat. We’ll just have to wait and see. In the mean time we can use the knowledge that is at hand to try and stay healthy by not eating too many fatty and sugary foods.

What will occur will always be the Infinite, that much is absolutely certain.

Guesses about any specific way that the Infinite will unfold, are based on defining so-called random variables first, that describe a specific outcome. This is in the realm of logical certainty: either the specific outcome will occur (at specified moment), or not. There is no way to judge probability at this stage, until purpose is introduced, namely, the aim of finding out how likely the specific outcome is.

Purpose makes all the difference. It changes the way things appear. So, "random variables" are no longer random, because they're defined in relation to the specific outcome. For example, the Infinite could unfold as "fat loss" purely on the belief that everything was describing that outcome. This is the "placebo effect".

Another example, rolling dice for a random number, has by definition random variables like "dice", "rolling", "reading a random number". These parts of the specific outcome significantly effect how the Infinite will unfold, because of the purposefulness added to creation.

It is 100% certain that an appearance labelled "about to roll a die" and a purposeful mental image about what rolling a die looks like, will greatly colour the appearances thereafter, should they arise. It is a mental hangover, like the bright-light after-image. It's an unavoidable part of consciousness.

So, knowing how purpose drives the way things are identified (or you could say, belief drives memory), means one can say that, with certainty, the Infinite unfolds for a conscious individual in a way that reflects character.

The more conscious and willing a character is, the better the guesses are.

This is the same idea as karma.

As you wrote earlier: "Acts that are done knowing the true nature of the self have a far greater chance of rational outcomes than those acts based on irrational beliefs."

S: In the same vein, people who suffer from mental illness were thought by earlier generations to be possessed by evil spirits. This idea is now mostly out of favour, replaced instead by the idea of modern psychology.

Notice that you're describing "likely causes" in terms of perspective, which is, tendencies to choose one type of random variable over another.

S: In years to come, medical science may uncover completely different causes for mental illness. Or future people may go through an anti-science phase by adopting the ancient practices and revive the idea that the mentally ill are possessed by demons. The circumstances at the time will dictate what new or old idea will be adopted and developed.

If there is very little consciousness in future humans, then their random variables will tend to be completely unpredictable. This is because their purpose is unclear.

S: When I say that “all” things depend on circumstances, I’m including things like the concept of “good”. For as reality presents itself anew in each and every moment, a fresh reckoning of what one considers ‘good’ occurs.

Good refers to the random variables that reflect purpose clearest.

So, whenever the Infinite throws up measly, weak, almost-not consciousnesses that have no clear purpose, one can say with 100% certainty that their "good" refers to anything at all --- such as is the popular idea nowadays.

S: We recognize this fact in a gross manner - knowing that our likes and dislikes are always changing because circumstances are always changing.

What a picture of reality.

Who's "we" ?

I tend to be centralised, with one voice speaking louder than the others.

S: What most people don’t readily recognize is that that change is occurring subtly each and every moment. Things are not the same as they were a moment before, and they will never be exactly the same ever again.

Hence, no change at all.

S: BTW, that last statement is not a guess or a prediction about the future. The universe has neither a beginning, nor an end – therefore, infinite possibility exists.

You're starting to sound like Jason with his, "God has ordained me as free to be as naughty as I feel like".

What happened to your strong willing belief that "with just a handsbreadth of knowledge"....... ?


-

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

Sue: Perhaps it “seems contradictory” because you are imagining a universe where things come into exist as finished products. But no thing has a beginning or an end. Therefore the “past moment” had neither a beginning nor an end. Therefore it will not be repeated because it never was in the first place.

If there is no such thing as a moment then what is it that "will never be exactly the same ever again"? Your original statements rely on there being moments.

A moment does exist - but only in its causes, that is: it does not come into existence by itself, but does so relative to all other things other than itself.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl wrote:

Sue: For example: neither you nor I know what our next thought is going to be.

Not knowing the future does not support your argument in any way. One can still act in the present.

Not knowing the future is the reality we live with. Yes, we do act in the present, but the ‘present’ isn’t static – it too is always changing.

Sue: That thought, like every other ‘thing’ depends entirely on the circumstances in that moment.

True, but this does not support your argument. Circumstances can include one's own will, for example.

By “own will” I’ll take you to mean our psychology: our likes, dislikes, ideas, fears, etc. Our psychology is a cause, which depends on other causes. Our actions and thoughts in this very moment are the result of those causes.

Sue: No two circumstances are ever exactly the same. So we cannot foresee what direction our thoughts or lives will take at any moment.

Again, non-knowledge of the future does not dispel one's potential power in the present.

By “potential power” I’ll assume you mean, once again, our psychology. As I’ve said, we are also a cause, but we can’t know exactly what the consequences of this present moment will be. We can guess what it will be, but we are powerless to know the future with any certainty. This is a fact of life.

Sue: We are therefore “doing our best”, because we can do no other.

Therefore nothing. You have not established this in any way.

I’ve “established” my point in my previous post. I continue to establish it in this post.

It would have perhaps been interesting if you would have established a point for me to take a look at.

Sue: Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise.

False. I realize this is part of the basic belief system of philosophers here, but it is simply not true.

For me to make further comment, I’d need to know what you’re basing this, for want of a better word, impression on.

Sue: Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers.

False. Their efforts to "seek truth" can put them in another boat.

I’ll once again assume that you are referring to our psychology.

Yes, the seeker of truth is different to a non-seeker in that they value different things. This difference occurs because they each have different causes – causing them to be one way or the other. But that doesn’t mean that they are stuck in one camp or another. As I said, “Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers” – both subject to causation, and thereby both subject to change.

Sue: They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force.

This statement in no way supports your argument. One can be subject to the same fundamental force, and still have a measure of freedom.

I’m pretty sure by now that your meaning of “freedom” is the same as “own will” and “potential power” – which I’ve dealt with in the questions above.

Sue: In some people, wisdom triumphs; in others, ignorance prevails – but neither gets to choose their destiny.

A quaint aphorism, but not true. Some people can establish in themselves a measure of freedom, which allows them creative participation in their process (their destiny).

Everything is in a causal relationship with everything else. We too are included in the term “everything”. Therefore, we do have an effect on other things - including the present. But we are not the absolute architects of the present: that’s causality’s job.

Not being the sole architect of the present makes clear that we’re not the sole architect of our future. We can guess what the future holds for us, but we cannot know for sure what will come to fruition.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly wrote:

I tend to be centralised, with one voice speaking louder than the others.

-

Kelly, in my post on this thread dated Thu Jun 14; I made the point that people’s thoughts and actions are determined by causality. In your most recent post to me, which I’ve taken the quote from, you appear to have confused the subject matter of my post with your ideas on human psychology. I’m hoping that your mistake isn’t due to my style of writing, but if it is, I apologise for any confusion. Perhaps if you read my most recent post to Carl, it may help you gain a better insight into the subject I’m exploring.

If, after reading it, you still want me to reply to your post - I will. But you may decide to instead develop a new post discussing that subject matter.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Sue,

Your reply to Carl doesn't reveal anything new about your ideas, to me.

What I see as happening is your conclusions about causation are being driven by personal beliefs, what you call "psychology". (I should add: I distinguish between willing and willingness in "likes and dislikes" --- separating active psychology from passive.)

On the one hand, you call causation "the best way", implying that there is some other way which is not best (which is not logically possible, given that causation is present for every "way"). On the other hand, you call understanding causation as better than not understanding it. It is important not to confuse the two: everyone is "acted upon" by causation, yet no person is passive, because they are not separate to causation in order to submit to it; whereas there can be a passive orientation to causation (an unwillingness to see one's thoughts and behaviours as caused) and there can be an active orientation.

It would be good if you could see this (good, meaning, reflecting purpose clearly).

It would be much simpler if you just stopped saying that people always do the best they can. It's misleading, because according to the reasoning, there is no other way that they can act - no middling, no worst. They simply do what they are caused to do.

Then, it would be clear that purpose (such as to be rational) decides what is "more or less valuable".


[edited grammar]

[David Quinn]

It is unclear whether Carl is arguing for freedom in an absolute sense or a relative sense. I don't think anyone here would deny that freedom can exist in a relative sense, and that, practically speaking, some people are more free than others.

I wrote this in Wisdom:

A: If everything we do is caused, then what is the difference between those who rebelliously try to break their conditioning and those who passively accept the status quo? There is no real difference, is there?

B: Imagine two balls that are released from a great height and allowed to fall. One of the balls has a parachute attached to it and floats gently downwards. The other has no parachute and quickly plummets to the ground.

The distinction between these two balls is essentially no different to the distinction we make between the person who passively goes along with his conditioning and the person who exerts his will against it. The existence of gravity and the mass of the balls have combined to "condition" the balls to fall quickly to the ground when released. The presence of a parachute, however, allows one of the balls to go against its conditioning to some degree. This is even more the case if the ball is fitted with a jetpack or an anti-gravity device of some kind.

Naturally, cause and effect has determined that one of the balls has a parachute attached to it and the other doesn't, just as cause and effect determines that one person has a strong, rebellious will and another doesn't.

-

[Carl G]

Sue: For example: neither you nor I know what our next thought is going to be.

Carl: Not knowing the future does not support your argument in any way. One can still act in the present.

Sue: Not knowing the future is the reality we live with. Yes, we do act in the present, but the ‘present’ isn’t static – it too is always changing.

Yes, change occurs.

Sue: That thought, like every other ‘thing’ depends entirely on the circumstances in that moment.

Carl: True, but this does not support your argument. Circumstances can include one's own will, for example.

Sue: By “own will” I’ll take you to mean our psychology: our likes, dislikes, ideas, fears, etc. Our psychology is a cause, which depends on other causes. Our actions and thoughts in this very moment are the result of those causes.

Will may stem from psychology, and certainly must be supported by psychology (a complete automaton cannot exert any) but, no, will is the actual assertion of the self according to the conscious wish on the part of the individual. Thereby the individual becomes part of the cause of the next moment, consciously, and thereby has an effect based upon that wish.

Sue: No two circumstances are ever exactly the same. So we cannot foresee what direction our thoughts or lives will take at any moment.

Carl: Again, non-knowledge of the future does not dispel one's potential power in the present.

Sue: By “potential power” I’ll assume you mean, once again, our psychology.

Not exactly. Yes, there is a certain potential contained, if you like, within one's psychology, but to unleash it's power, except in the usual automatic reactive ways, and indeed magnify it, requires the development and harnessing of will (especially in higher work, such as that of ferreting out truth, and the work of self-transformation).

As I’ve said, we are also a cause, but we can’t know exactly what the consequences of this present moment will be. We can guess what it will be, but we are powerless to know the future with any certainty. This is a fact of life.

I am still not sure why you consider uncertainty of the future as any sort of handicap or impediment.

Sue: We are therefore “doing our best”, because we can do no other.

Carl: Therefore nothing. You have not established this in any way.

Sue: I’ve “established” my point in my previous post. I continue to establish it in this post.

It would have perhaps been interesting if you would have established a point for me to take a look at.

I don't disagree that most people do only what they can, or must, or are caused to. It is because most are automatons. Clearly.

I only fail to see why you think we are doing "our best" because we cannot see the future. Is it because if we could ahead we would avoid certain mistakes? I can't agree that this would significantly alter the psychology of most people.

In other words, failing to have the gift of foresight isn't what is holding people back, in general.

Sue: Every ‘thing’ arises out of its causes. No thing gets to choose what causes arise.

Carl: False. I realize this is part of the basic belief system of philosophers here, but it is simply not true.

For me to make further comment, I’d need to know what you’re basing this, for want of a better word, impression on.

Choice is predicated upon will. As will is developed, one earns a certain latitude in thoughts and actions. This equates to a level of participation in one's process, i.e. what causes arise. One becomes co-creative with God. That's one way to put it.

Sue: Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers.

Carl: False. Their efforts to "seek truth" can put them in another boat.

Sue: I’ll once again assume that you are referring to our psychology.

No, efforts refer to the work of developing will, which then unlocks power. Efforts, will, and power are all built from psychology (one has to start somewhere), and work with it, but extend beyond psychology, and feed from beyond it. They extend to the God, and feed from God. Or, as you like to say here, the Infinite. To consider effort, will, and power equivalent to, or limited by psychology would be to sell short their very nature and the nature of the process involved.

Yes, the seeker of truth is different to a non-seeker in that they value different things. This difference occurs because they each have different causes – causing them to be one way or the other. But that doesn’t mean that they are stuck in one camp or another. As I said, “Seekers of truth are in the same boat as non-seekers” – both subject to causation, and thereby both subject to change.

This is altogether too limiting a mantra for me.

Sue: They both are subject to the same fundamental creative force.

Carl: This statement in no way supports your argument. One can be subject to the same fundamental force, and still have a measure of freedom.

Sue: I’m pretty sure by now that your meaning of “freedom” is the same as “own will” and “potential power”

Freedom is the result of effort to develop will, to unleash power, specifically the power to participate, to what ever degree possible, consciously and creatively, in one's own destiny.

Everything is in a causal relationship with everything else. We too are included in the term “everything”. Therefore, we do have an effect on other things - including the present. But we are not the absolute architects of the present: that’s causality’s job.
-

Agreed. And not badly put.

Not being the sole architect of the present makes clear that we’re not the sole architect of our future. We can guess what the future holds for us, but we cannot know for sure what will come to fruition.

Again you return to our inability to read the future, as though it forms a sort of disclaimer for why we cannot excel in the present.

Why must we "know for sure what will come to fruition"?