Translation of Barry's post: "I'm too intellectually lazy to bother not to contradict myself, so when I get caught at it, I'll just declare that consistency is an intellectual limitation."
Barry, nobody is fooled by this. *You* wouldn't be fooled by it if somebody else tried to use it as an excuse for sloppy thinking. You would point out (and have pointed out) that the contradictions simply meant the person hadn't thought things through, or was trying to play both ends against the middle. Doesn't wash, sorry. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to finish this up... > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There was nothing -- repeat, *nothing* -- in what > > > > > I wrote that suggested or even hinted at determinism. > > > > > > > > Point is, Barry, back then you were arguing > > > > *against* the idea that there was nothing one > > > > could do to become enlightened, and mocking it. > > > > Now you're arguing *for* it, and mocking the > > > > opposite idea. > > > > > > > > I don't care what you want to call it. I'm > > > > just pointing out that your perspective has > > > > changed rather drastically. > > > > > > No, actually, it hasn't. There is a *great* > > > deal one can do to facilitate the realization > > > of enlightenment. And to block its realization. > > > It's just that neither is the final determining > > > factor, just a factor. > > > > If there are other factors involved than what you > > yourself can do, then realization is not "available > > at any time," which is what you've been claiming. > > WHY? It seems to me that you are saying, "I cannot > conceive of a universe in which some things are out > of my control in which realization is not available > to me at any time." Right? > > Well, I *can* conceive of it. I do not share your > conceptual limitation. > > Realization is available at all times. Sometimes via > the mechanism of control, and sometimes through > other mechanisms. > > > > Get it now? > > > > > > > > In fact, it was specifically about the randomness > > > > > of the universe. > > > > > > > > You mean, the course of action is unfathomable, > > > > just as Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita? > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call it "randomness," though, given > > > > what you say above about a "consensus result of > > > > the entire "set" of causes/actions." That sure > > > > ain't randomness. > > > > > > Yes it is. The composition of the "set" is random, > > > at every moment. > > > > Not if cause and effect is involved, it isn't. > > Not if "consensus" is involved, it isn't. > > Not if that consensus is a *result*, it isn't. > > WHY? Again, it seems to me that you are saying, "I cannot > conceive of these three things being supported by a > completely random universe." > > Fine. I can. No problemo. All three can (and, as far > as I can tell, do) gleefully coexist with randomness. > > > > > > But I can see how it might comfort you to see deter- > > > > > minism all around you, even if it's not really there. > > > > > > > > And I can see how it might comfort you to think > > > > you're in total control. > > > > > > I *am* in total control of the things I do to > > > facilitate my realization of enlightenment. But > > > I am not silly enough to believe that's all there > > > is to it -- "Do X and Y will appear." There are > > > other factors that are not in my control > > > > Again, if that's the case, then realization is not > > "available at any time." > > Ah, but it is available at any time. > > AND there are factors that are not in your control. :-) > > You cannot juggle these two concepts simultaneously. > I can. End of story. > > > Sometimes it is *not* > > available, if there are other factors involved over > > which you do not have control. > > No, it is completely available during *all* of > those periods when factors exist over which you > have no control. :-) >
