Temporality - Quoted from Poison for the Heart

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote: It does absolve people from responsibility in one sense, but that's because the concept has a false foundation.
What is the false foundation, and in what sense does determinism not absolve people of responsibility?
The false foundation is the belief that free will is real. Whilst in an ultimate sense people are not responsible for what happens - Nature is - we can nevertheless employ a pragmatic sense of responsibility in the acknowledgement that individuals are or have behaved in certain ways and those behaviours may require modification, or the person may need to be separated from their ability to enact such behaviours. It's similar to the way we might treat a young child is doing something bad. We don't necessarily hold them responsible but we move to modify the behaviour or restrict the child's ability to do it.

In the same way that we can, for practical purposes, imagine free will to be real, can we also imagine responsibility to be real. The important thing here is not be attached to the belief that such things are more than pragmatic illusions, for then we decend into delusional mind states.

All of that is a long winded way of saying that "responsibility" is a practical fiction.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote: All of that is a long winded way of saying that "responsibility" is a practical fiction.
I needed the long winded version; I would not have believed just the snippet above.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Well, you're lucky I'm not Adya or I'd have to charge you $70 for the long winded version.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

lol
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Post by Blair »

Is it possible for you to put a sock in it at all, Elizabeth Isabelle?

It was funny up to about 500 posts, now it's just ridiculous. I am interested to understand what you are trying to achieve here though.

It's totally putting me off this forum that every second post is by you.

Can you explain yourself? or is that not how it works in your world.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

If the only complaint you have is her frequency then I'm not sure you have any real complaint. Your only real contribution to the board is to occasionally throw bricks at people from the bleaches. Elizabeth does seem genuinely interested in the topics. She needs a pretty dramatic perspective change on some of them but so long as she's showing interest we can help with that, right?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Dan Rowden wrote:
"responsibility" is a practical fiction.
I agree that those who are irresponsible are determined to be irresponsible, and simply cant help it.

However, I wouldnt go so far as to say that the phenomenon of responsibility doesnt exist altogether.

Ones relationship to life can be a responsible relationship.

For isnt that what wisdom is, a responsible relationship to life?

A quote by Otto W:


A man may become a genius if he wishes to. But at once it will certainly be said: "Very many men would like very much to be 'original geniuses,'" and their wish has no effect. But if these men who "would like very much" had a livelier sense of what is signified by their wish, if they were aware that genius is identical with universal responsibility - and until that is grasped it will only be a wish and not a determination - it is highly probable that a very large number of these men would cease to wish to become geniuses.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Cory Duchesne wrote:Dan Rowden wrote:
"responsibility" is a practical fiction.
I agree that those who are irresponsible are determined to be irresponsible, and simply cant help it.

However, I wouldnt go so far as to say that the phenomenon of responsibility doesnt exist altogether.

Ones relationship to life can be a responsible relationship.

For isnt that what wisdom is, a responsible relationship to life?

A quote by Otto W:


A man may become a genius if he wishes to. But at once it will certainly be said: "Very many men would like very much to be 'original geniuses,'" and their wish has no effect. But if these men who "would like very much" had a livelier sense of what is signified by their wish, if they were aware that genius is identical with universal responsibility - and until that is grasped it will only be a wish and not a determination - it is highly probable that a very large number of these men would cease to wish to become geniuses.
Wishing to be a genius, or wishing to be responsible, are results of events (events include everything from genetics to hearing/ reading something that inspired you, to thoughts triggered by your own thoughts), just as the ability to become a genius depends on prior events (the retarded person is not likely to become a genius, and the person whose skull gets crushed in is also at a significant disadvantage), but so is the decision of whether to be responsible or not.

Although we get neither credit nor blame for what we do because it was predetermined, we do get rewarded by right action and punished by wrong action - and that itself is part of the schema of determinism (built-in reinforcers). Whether or not we go for the reward or accept the punishment is a result of all the prior events upstream of who/what/where we are now in the stream of conciousness.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Even the decision to be responsible I dont think is really a decision - it only seems that way.

I think of irresponsibility as akin to being locked up in a musty, damp, black cave, or being malnourished and sick.

Physiologically there is an involutnary urge for the natural, for greater freedom, greater health, for less opression.

If you are starving from food deprivation, it isnt really a decision to want food. And if you are educated, it isnt really a decision to want healthy food.

So there really isnt even a decision to be made, there is only a biological, physiological drive for greater health/freedom in contrast to facts that are true in spite of our beliefs.

In that sense, responsibility is like the light at the end of the tunnel, or it is like nourishing food.

Have you ever met someone with unhealthy eating habits, overweight? They are not too fond of healthy food are they?

No, they hate health, and love their misery.

Some of us are lucky to know that we are in a tunnel and thus start finding our way out, and some of us manage to exit death and enter life.

In this sense, responsibility exists in the same way that there is light and space outside of a tunnel, or in the same way that there is healthy food and health in contrast to unhealthy food and sickness.

Irresponsibility is simply living in darkness and ignorance to varying degrees.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

I agree with Cory that one's relationship to reality can be one of responsibility. It's basically the decision to be conscious rather than unconscious.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:I agree with Cory that one's relationship to reality can be one of responsibility. It's basically the decision to be conscious rather than unconscious.
Which, as both you and Cory said, isn't really a decisision - but the term works well enough to signify the mental event.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Yes, it's another practical fiction. Life is made up of such fictions. Part of what wisdom is not being caught up in the delusion of thinking them real.

Wisdom is not knowledge, it is non-attachment.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

yes, 'choice' is a practical fiction, yet responsibility is real.

To believe that one lacks free will only lead to fatalism if the believer merely believes rather than understands.

It's true, we do lack free will, but merely believing it is not good enough - one has to understand reality in order to avoid the helpless, gloomy, fatalistic mindset that some say results from believing in our lack of free will.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Cory Duchesne wrote:yes, 'choice' is a practical fiction, yet responsibility is real.
Actual responsibility is different from being justly held responsible, which is also different frim being unjustly held responsible. Either form of being held responsible is an action of the external forces that interact with our internal forces* to direct which way our 'lives' fall.

* Yes, I know 'internal' and 'external' are fictional constructs because the 'self' referred to is not real, but the terms are needed to convey the thought, and it is appropriate to use fictional constructs to describe an unreal being.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Elizabeth: Actual responsibility is different from being justly held responsible, which is also different frim being unjustly held responsible.
Quite right.

When Socrates was brought to trial - what was it exactly that he was held responsible for? Basically, for being too responsible.

The people comprising the justice system of Athen's were just carrying out their irresponsible responsibilities.

:)
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Cory Duchesne wrote:When Socrates was brought to trial - what was it exactly that he was held responsible for? Basically, for being too responsible.

The people comprising the justice system of Athen's were just carrying out their irresponsible responsibilities.
Actually yes. They may have extinguished Socrates' unreal corporial life, but that birthed him into martyrdom. The part of Reality that the illusion called "Socrates" merely changed forms.

Socrates could not give up his philosophy because it was not in his nature to do so. The state could not let him subvert their religion, as it was not in its nature to do so. The state was bigger than the corporial incarnation, so the state's will pushed the course of Socrates' life, but the manifestation of Reality of "Socrates" in a way was and is Athens, and the Reality goes on. The truth and Socrates kind of got glued together. That happens to some people sometimes.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

In the archives, I found a quote from Kevin that doesn't seem to fit with determinism, even though he tried to explain in the thread how it did.

Jan 30,2004, 4:47 p.m. Kevin wrote:
Things are random because they are caused to be random.
This just does not sit right with me. He goes on:
Determinism and predictability are two different things. Why do you think that all caused events should be predictable to us, when we don't even know what is causing those events?
The inability to predict does not mean that things are random. It only indicates a lack of ability on the part of the observer.

Kevin, did you want to expound on that a little further?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Eliz: The inability to predict does not mean that things are random.
The inability to predict does not mean that things are 'not' random either though.
Eliz: [The inability to predict does not mean that things are random], it only indicates a lack of ability on the part of the observer.
Ability to do what? Predict? Predict what? For instance, look at a the fuzz on a television screen. What do you think is there to predict?

Randomness is in contrast to habit. Things are predictable to the degree that they are habitual, like organisms and minerals.

Things are unpreditable to the degree that they are random.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Cory Duchesne wrote: Ability to do what? Predict? Predict what? For instance, look at a the fuzz on a television screen. What do you think is there to predict?

Randomness is in contrast to habit. Things are predictable to the degree that they are habitual, like organisms and minerals.

Things are unpreditable to the degree that they are random.
Ability to predict the future. Drop your shoe - do you think it will fall, float or something else? That's something easy for us to understand and predict because we know about that. A toddler, however, might be quite surprised, and have to perform that experiment repeatedly. Can one of your parents predict how the other one is going to react to a particular circumstance? Probably, as people tend to be habitual, and as you essentially said, we can predict things to the degree that they are habitual. Existance is much more complicated than just shoe dropping or spousal prediction (and not everybody can perform that trick) so we can not predict all of it. Some of it we can - before Hurricane Katrina hit, They predicted that New Orleans would fill up like a soup bowl because of where/how it was constructed, and demonstrated it on a graphic model as the storm was approaching. They had enough data and the computer capacity to figure it out. 200+ years ago the public would have attributed that kind of prediction to witchcraft.

Things are predictable to the degree that we have complete, accurate information, an understanding of how to apply that information, and accuracy in our process of doing so.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Ability to predict the future. Drop your shoe - do you think it will fall, float or something else? That's something easy for us to understand and predict because we know about that.
Habit: a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality.

I know it’s strange to think of gravity as a habit, but if we go by the definition above, I think we can regard gravitational pull as predictable due to the extent that it is a dominant or regular disposition or tendency, a prevailing character/quality.
Eliz: Can one of your parents predict how the other one is going to react to a particular circumstance?
It depends on how well my father knows my mother’s habits. He actually seems to know her pretty well. On Christmas, there are certain gifts that he seems to know will provide the desirable reaction. He gives her books by the authors that she claims to like every year and her reaction is the pleasant one that he hopes and for the most part predicts.

If he cheated on her, I’m sure he knows that if he told her the truth of his philandering, her reaction would be un-enjoyable for him and her.



Existance is much more complicated than just shoe dropping or spousal prediction (and not everybody can perform that trick) so we can not predict all of it.
We can predict to the degree that we understand the habitual conditions that our prediction is taking place in. The more complicated our conditions, the more difficult it is to make predictions.

before Hurricane Katrina hit, They predicted that New Orleans would fill up like a soup bowl because of where/how it was constructed, and demonstrated it on a graphic model as the storm was approaching. They had enough data and the computer capacity to figure it out.


Yes, they were able to make a prediction because they had an understanding of the conditions (which are basically comprised of habits)
200+ years ago the public would have attributed that kind of prediction to witchcraft.

Its true. And if we go back far enough, people probably would have attributed the disaster itself to the works of some God. The pre-philosophical greeks – Hesiod and homer laid the foundation for greek common sense. All events in nature were attributed to the whims of God’s who were capricious, spiteful, punishing and *unpredictable*.

As philosophers began to emerge, explanations came closer and closer to gaining a bit of predictive power and soon, by the time Plato hit the scene, the only Gods that were still taken seriously were conceived of as being responsible for that which was predictable and orderly. So a bit of a reversal took place.


Events are predictable to the degree that we have complete, accurate information, an understanding of the conditions that we wish to make a prediction in.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Cory wrote:
Habit: a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality.

I know it’s strange to think of gravity as a habit, but if we go by the definition above, I think we can regard gravitational pull as predictable due to the extent that it is a dominant or regular disposition or tendency, a prevailing character/quality.
I'd already figured that's what you meant.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »


Cory: Habit: a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality.

I know it’s strange to think of gravity as a habit, but if we go by the definition above, I think we can regard gravitational pull as predictable due to the extent that it is a dominant or regular disposition or tendency, a prevailing character/quality.


Elizabeth: I'd already figured that's what you meant.
It might have seemed like I was being a bit unnecessary in my emphasis.

However, the reason I was over-emphasizing my 'habit' hypothesis was simply an atttempt at conquering the malicious grins & laughter echoing in my head from my last philosohpy class. I really wasnt as focused on you as it might have seemed. But maybe you didnt take it that way.

My prof asked the class: "how do we define, a person?" "what is a person?".

I raised my hand.

Yes Cory?

"Habits".

What?

"Habits. People are essentially habits."

My prof barely chuckled and said what was apparently a display of his wit - "I'm not laughing Cory, I'm just smiling"

Some snotty, big boobed 'theistic girl' in my class then laughed and looked at me like I was a mentally retarded.

Prof then said: "Cory, thats a bit too broad and encompassing."

Anyone else want to answer?

Yes Benjamin, what is it that makes a person a person?

"soul?"

Yes that's right! Good Benjamin. A good place to start.

Prof proceeds to present the next powerpoint slide, which talks about man being the only creature with a soul, but then tediously goes on to point out all of the ramifications and problems.

Which we already did last month! Notions of soul and a theistic God come up so frequently in this class, and are so easily destroyed with logic, and our text actually does a good job at making dualist and theistic arguments look so feeble in contrast to arguments from an atheist view.

Yet we just keep on coming back.

Anyways, just an explanation for what seemed like odd and even irritating behavior in my previous posts.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Cory,

I think "soul" was a lousy answer, incomplete, and possibly just stated to brown-nose the professor. Has anyone asked him how he knows that man is the only one to have a soul? Why don't dogs have a soul? etc. I would have asked (then again, some of my teachers didn't like me very much... but many of them respected me).

They were probably thinking what other animals had habits, and looking for more of a difference. I don't think "soul" was it, though.

I imagine you meant human's particular habits.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Eliz: I think "soul" was a lousy answer, incomplete, and possibly just stated to brown-nose the professor.
Yeah, it sure was. Soul is just an uneccesary assumption and all it does is create problems. But thats probably why academic philosohpers like it so much - its an excuse to circumvent the real issues. People love their problems. They wouldnt know what to do with themselves if they had no problems. Creating problems based on illogical assumptions is bassically what culture is.

Anyways, your right on about the kid being a real big brown noser - he truly is.
Eliz: I imagine you meant human's particular habits.
Well yeah, of course, but before proceeding to get the 'soul' answer from the twit next to me, he actually cajoled me for a bit, asking me sarcastically - - so are we going to start giving human rights to fishes?

I said: "So what I said implied that?"

Well, habit is a bit encompassing, Cory.

Then I said: "Well, different habits express different manifestations - Fishes are comprised of unique habits, while humans are comprised of unique habits"

then prof says: "but what about rocks, what you are saying applies to rocks, and we arent rocks, cory".

"Sir, Rocks have their own unique type of habits."

Prof then laughs in a kind of fake way.

Next question please!



Anyhow,

I mean, I wasnt expecting my 'habit answer' to be the answer that would end the whole discussion. I thought it was a good way to get the discussion going - -you know, start with a broad generalization that is hard to refute, then work your way into the details.

But nope, I was the idiot. Soul is a much more logical place to start.

I think soul is where you should end if that's where logic takes you and if it doesnt, it doesnt.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Post by Blair »

Dan Rowden wrote:If the only complaint you have is her frequency then I'm not sure you have any real complaint. Your only real contribution to the board is to occasionally throw bricks at people from the bleaches. Elizabeth does seem genuinely interested in the topics. She needs a pretty dramatic perspective change on some of them but so long as she's showing interest we can help with that, right?
Fair enough Dan, I'm just throwing bricks, yadayadayah..

I don' see you much for righting the wrong, Dan. You are just being complicit in the face of this idiocy. What happened to the drowden that I used to respect?
Locked