[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[emptybill]

Binary illogic.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
>
>
> authfriend:
> > Would somebody please, PLEASE explain to Barry the
> > difference between determinism and predestination?
> >
> We've covered this before - the basic question is,
> are we free, or are we bound.
>
> If bound, by what means can we free ourselves (yoga)?
>
> If free, then there is no need for a technique or a
> yoga. That's the point.
>
> Turq is NOT going to your comments in this debate,
> so let's just cut to the chase:
>
> If bound > then technique
>
> If free > else no yoga
>
> "Apparently Turq thought that 'Determinism' was the
> same thing as 'Predestination'. In so doing, Turq
> went over to defend the Idealist view..."
>
> Subject: Analyzing the TMO using the "economic
> psychology" model
> Author: WillyTex
> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedfLife
> Date: Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:20 pm
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/273304
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

And I though a good writer could write about anything. But then you do not work 
for me; I have no authority to give you an assignment, you are very clearly 
your own authority.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Why not write something about your experience at the bluegrass 
> > festival? 
> 
> Blues festival. No thanks. Like so many things in
> the world, it's one of those you-had-to-have-been-
> there kinda things.
> 
> > As for being serious, my importance in this world is very 
> > slight. Being serious is a real drag.
> 
> You said it, not me. :-)

Obviously, I said it. Duh.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> OK, Judy
> 
> I am worn out. Today I take it easy. But it was fun. I think
> Turq is worn out too, but will probably deny it.

He has a tendency to get worn out really fast when things
don't go his way.

> I think his main focus for the day was a bluegrass festival

He referred to it as a "blues festival." Different festivals,
perhaps? I'm sure he knows the difference between blues and
bluegrass. Or maybe he just thought "bluegrass festival" 
wouldn't sound quite as cool.

>, which adds another layer of potential fatigue to the process,
> and he handled it well. 
>
> I think Turq likes to stir the pot in an offhand sort of way,
> and it is the offhandedness that annoys some.

If by "offhand" you mean "thoughtless," I'd agree. The
stirring is more important than the thinking.

> I think he adopts a point of view more than having a distinct
> one himself. You and others on the forum are much more
> familiar with the personas on display here.

I think you've got the picture with regard to Barry.

> To have one's values challenged is good exercise. I am not 
> even sure what my own values are, but these exchanges tend
> to highlight conditioned responses one has, and then there
> is the opportunity to wear those conditioned responses down
> a bit. Then one becomes freer to experience the more general 
> conditioned response that is the world.

And it makes for more interesting conversation.

> Picking things apart logically is a characteristic of the 
> scientific mind, but there are also those that argue basically 
> trying to parry a point by deflecting it rather than analysing
> it, a characteristic of the religiously oriented mind. I do
> not think Turq is the latter at all, he has a more subtle
> manner of diversion, so it is more of a challenge to find a
> way to have a dialogue.

Barry has pretty much perfected the art of aborting
dialogue. Dialogue would mean both parties to a debate
have equal roles, after all. The only way to have
genuine dialogue with Barry is to agree with him.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Why not write something about your experience at the bluegrass 
> festival? 

Blues festival. No thanks. Like so many things in
the world, it's one of those you-had-to-have-been-
there kinda things.

> As for being serious, my importance in this world is very 
> slight. Being serious is a real drag.

You said it, not me. :-)

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I did not expect this at all. It came in before I had finished 
> > > my previous response. Why did you 'need' another drive by? Oh, 
> > > just for the hell of it I suppose. Please enjoy your freedom 
> > > to respond.
> > 
> > No thanks. My responses were an attempt to get you
> > to lighten up and maybe stop taking yourself so 
> > seriously. Didn't work with you any more than 
> > similar attempts in the past worked with Edg. :-)
> > 
> > "Seriousness is not a virtue." G. K. Chesterton
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

OK, Judy

I am worn out. Today I take it easy. But it was fun. I think Turq is worn out 
too, but will probably deny it. I think his main focus for the day was a 
bluegrass festival, which adds another layer of potential fatigue to the 
process, and he handled it well. I think Turq likes to stir the pot in an 
offhand sort of way, and it is the offhandedness that annoys some. I think he 
adopts a point of view more than having a distinct one himself. You and others 
on the forum are much more familiar with the personas on display here. 

To have one's values challenged is good exercise. I am not even sure what my 
own values are, but these exchanges tend to highlight conditioned responses one 
has, and then there is the opportunity to wear those conditioned responses down 
a bit. Then one becomes freer to experience the more general conditioned 
response that is the world.

Picking things apart logically is a characteristic of the scientific mind, but 
there are also those that argue basically trying to parry a point by deflecting 
it rather than analysing it, a characteristic of the religiously oriented mind. 
I do not think Turq is the latter at all, he has a more subtle manner of 
diversion, so it is more of a challenge to find a way to have a dialogue.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:...
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:...
> > 
> > I think authfriend (Ms Stein) seems a much better appositional 
> > combatant to turquioseb (Mr Wright) because her emotional 
> > forthrightness and edginess is a nice counterbalance to the
> > somewhat blasé attitude displayed by Turq, and more attention
> > to finer expression of logic, and she seems to have more energy
> > than I, and more time. This is not to say I do not value what
> > Turq says, but value does have limits at times.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words, but please call me Judy.
> 
> Actually I'm not technically a "combatant" because Barry
> doesn't (technically) read my posts and has long since
> foresworn "interacting" with me (although he does slip
> every now and then). He prefers to denounce me on his own
> terms (often quasi-anonymously, as in "There are those on
> FFL who...", or with the pretense that he isn't referring
> to anyone in particular).
> 
> In any case, when I pick his posts apart, I do so for my
> own enjoyment and that of anyone else who happens to read
> what I write.
> 
> Barry doesn't actually interact that much with anybody, so
> it's been fun to read your dialogue with him. You tend to
> deal with more profound issues than I do where he's
> concerned in any case, and it's fascinating to see him try
> to address the points you bring up. I hope you'll continue,
> perhaps on another topic after taking a break.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Why not write something about your experience at the bluegrass festival? I am 
not suggesting this for a source for any arguments. 

As for being serious, my importance in this world is very slight. Being serious 
is a real drag.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I did not expect this at all. It came in before I had finished 
> > my previous response. Why did you 'need' another drive by? Oh, 
> > just for the hell of it I suppose. Please enjoy your freedom 
> > to respond.
> 
> No thanks. My responses were an attempt to get you
> to lighten up and maybe stop taking yourself so 
> seriously. Didn't work with you any more than 
> similar attempts in the past worked with Edg. :-)
> 
> "Seriousness is not a virtue." G. K. Chesterton
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I did not expect this at all. It came in before I had finished 
> > my previous response. Why did you 'need' another drive by? Oh, 
> > just for the hell of it I suppose. Please enjoy your freedom 
> > to respond.
> 
> No thanks. My responses were an attempt to get you
> to lighten up and maybe stop taking yourself so 
> seriously. Didn't work with you any more than 
> similar attempts in the past worked with Edg. :-)

Translation: As long as I get to make fun of you,
I'm happy to play. But if I sense that you're
laughing at me, that's it; I'm taking my ball and
going home. The *nerve*!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[WillyTex]

authfriend:
> Would somebody please, PLEASE explain to Barry the
> difference between determinism and predestination?
> 
We've covered this before - the basic question is, 
are we free, or are we bound. 

If bound, by what means can we free ourselves (yoga)? 

If free, then there is no need for a technique or a 
yoga. That's the point. 

Turq is NOT going to your comments in this debate, 
so let's just cut to the chase: 

If bound > then technique

If free > else no yoga

"Apparently Turq thought that 'Determinism' was the 
same thing as 'Predestination'. In so doing, Turq 
went over to defend the Idealist view..."

Subject: Analyzing the TMO using the "economic 
psychology" model
Author: WillyTex
Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedfLife
Date: Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:20 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/273304

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> I did not expect this at all. It came in before I had finished 
> my previous response. Why did you 'need' another drive by? Oh, 
> just for the hell of it I suppose. Please enjoy your freedom 
> to respond.

No thanks. My responses were an attempt to get you
to lighten up and maybe stop taking yourself so 
seriously. Didn't work with you any more than 
similar attempts in the past worked with Edg. :-)

"Seriousness is not a virtue." G. K. Chesterton

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:...
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:...
> 
> I think authfriend (Ms Stein) seems a much better appositional 
> combatant to turquioseb (Mr Wright) because her emotional 
> forthrightness and edginess is a nice counterbalance to the
> somewhat blasé attitude displayed by Turq, and more attention
> to finer expression of logic, and she seems to have more energy
> than I, and more time. This is not to say I do not value what
> Turq says, but value does have limits at times.

Thanks for the kind words, but please call me Judy.

Actually I'm not technically a "combatant" because Barry
doesn't (technically) read my posts and has long since
foresworn "interacting" with me (although he does slip
every now and then). He prefers to denounce me on his own
terms (often quasi-anonymously, as in "There are those on
FFL who...", or with the pretense that he isn't referring
to anyone in particular).

In any case, when I pick his posts apart, I do so for my
own enjoyment and that of anyone else who happens to read
what I write.

Barry doesn't actually interact that much with anybody, so
it's been fun to read your dialogue with him. You tend to
deal with more profound issues than I do where he's
concerned in any case, and it's fascinating to see him try
to address the points you bring up. I hope you'll continue,
perhaps on another topic after taking a break.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Back from another quick hike around the six public stages 
> of my local blues festival...

Are you (at the moment) in Voorthuizen? I have never been there. What is the 
town like? How far is that from where you live?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:...
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:...

I think authfriend (Ms Stein) seems a much better appositional combatant to 
turquioseb (Mr Wright) because her emotional forthrightness and edginess is a 
nice counterbalance to the somewhat blasé attitude displayed by Turq, and more 
attention to finer expression of logic, and she seems to have more energy than 
I, and more time. This is not to say I do not value what Turq says, but value 
does have limits at times.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

That was a quick reply. I must admit I am a slow poke compared to you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > > anartaxius@ wrote:
> > > > This is really valuable information to know, that you 
> > > > (turquoiseb) speak for the whole universe ('I think this 
> > > > is a pretty dismal view of the universe and indicates that 
> > > > the universe ... doesn't really think very much of them 
> > > > [the no-free-will adherents]').
> > >
> > > There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely 
> > > presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow 
> > > its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them-
> > > selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the 
> > > universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but if 
> > > it did, and it created a situation such as the one that the 
> > > non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much respect
> > > for them. They're basically nothing more than actors acting 
> > > out a script, with no ability to improvise or become co-
> > > creators of the play.
> > 
> > Saying 'indicates that the universe doesn't really think 
> > much of them,' implies that you know what the universe thinks. 
> 
> No, it really doesn't. I'm surprised that you would say
> that. I expected more from you. All that it implies is an
> idea, being played with for the fun of it. It's called
> "creative thought," or "fiction."

You expected more from me? Anticipating a particular response indicates a 
preprogrammed response already set. If you had free will in such a response, 
you would have no expectation and then wing it from there.
 
> > If you actually know, then the statement is true in the 
> > conventional meaning of truth, and this is not opinion. 
> 
> Do you actually believe that there is such a thing as
> "know," in the sense of "...you actually know...?" I
> ask because I do not.

There is probably just one thing one can really know, and what we know 
intellectually does not qualify for that experience.

> > If you don't know, then whatever you say is just something 
> > spoken out in ignorance. 
> 
> Define the absence of what you refer to above as "ignorance."
> Try to do it without invoking someone else's concepts or
> ideas that you've heard along the Way.

If you have heard something, but have no experience of that other than the 
words you heard, and you then speak about the nature of that something, that is 
ignorance. It is an opinion that is only very lightly connected with what the 
opinion is about, namely the idea you heard, the words you heard. You have to 
have heard something, taken in some idea of something, otherwise you would not 
know that something existed. Not knowing it existed, you could not formulate 
any idea or response about it. 

Say you heard someone mentioned a 'framaculator' and you wrote a few paragraphs 
about it only on the basis of having heard that word. You could wax and 
pontificate on it ad infinitum using your free will creative thought. You would 
be creating a fiction, a lie. It might be fun though. 

If you had not heard of it, there would be no way to know the idea unless you 
made it up yourself. Even here, I had to use English words I learned from 
somewhere else, and concepts I learned through life, just to write this 
paragraph. These concepts did not spring into my head just now ex nihilo and 
transfer to my fingers typing, they had precursors, just as you have. You said 
you were running off to a Blues festival. How did you know what it was without 
having a lot of material that came in from outside?

Can you respond to this without using words you have heard before and gotten 
from someone else or seen in a book. How many words do you have in your 
vocabulary that are now in common use that originated solely with you and then 
disseminated to the whole wide world?

> > Opinion is a word that has many shadings unfortunately. 
> 
> Unfortunately? Are you saying that there should be one
> and only one definition of the word and the concept?

It would be nice if the words opinion and knowledge were totally distinct. 
'Knowledge' could be coupled with the word 'truth,' and 'opinion' be regarded 
as idle thought devoid of 'truth.' Of course that is not what happens. 
'Unfortunately' represent exasperation. No, I do not think there should be only 
one definition, it would be nice, and make language clearer, but it ain't so.

> 
> > There can be 'expert opinion,' which is usually based on 
> > some sort of experiential knowledge...
> 
> To be precise, when talking about the wholly *subjective* 
> experience of enlightenment or supposed "higher" states
> of consciousness, this term is most commonly applied to
> those who do nothing more than *c

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> > As Robert said, enlightenment is (or perhaps is largely 
> > about) eliminating conditioned responses. 
> 
> Doth what Robert says about enlightenment make it true,
> or Truth? If not, what does? 

Did he say it was true because that's what Robert said?
If not, who did?


> Just askin'... Which is closer to the idea of 
> Occam's Razor? Imagining that the universe is
> so much a micromanager and so compelled to Do
> Things It's Own Way, Without Any Fuckin' Inter-
> ference From The Puppets, Thank You that it 
> has to imagine every possible way that these
> pseudo-sentient beings could thwart its Authority
> and invent Cosmic Security Software to thwart it,
> or that there's really free will?

Actually, the Occam's razor explanation would be that
the universe created us without the ability to thwart
its authority in the first place, so no need for any
security software.


> you're assuming the less Occam's Razor solution. Try
> to imagine how difficult it would be to create an OS
> to "handle" every attempt to thwart the authority of 
> the Divine Screenwriter,

Much easier to create the OS so it lacks the ability to
do any attempting of anything. It just does what it's
told.

 vs. writing software that
> simply assumed that there was no screenwriter, and 
> that reality was just writing itself.

That's actually what nonreligious determinism assumes.
That's the "three gunas" solution, in fact.


> The people on this forum lobbying against free
> will are doing so *while ignoring almost their
> every perception as a sentient being on this 
> planet*.

Actually the above statement is made by a person who
has determinedly ignored almost everything those
promoting free-will-as-illusion have said. We have
*all*, every one of us, most of us multiple times,
emphasized, called attention to, insisted on the
perception of free will.

 They are claiming that there is no free
> will while having enjoyed the subjective exper-
> ience of having had it for most -- if not all --
> of their life in this incarnation.

That's right. We claim it's a universal illusion
among human beans.

> I am merely advocating "not ignoring the obvious."
> If the universe seems to have presented you with
> a scenario in which you have free will, and that
> is your everyday experience, why the fuck would
> you want to believe otherwise?

Some people believe only what they want to believe.
Other people consider that it's possible what they
want to believe ain't the case.

> > There are good scientific arguments against the idea of 
> > free will. 
> 
> I would disagree. I would say that there are 
> arguments presented by scientists that verify
> their own confirmation bias.

Based on the preponderance of the data. There is very,
very little evidence supporting "free will."


> > There are also good scientific arguments that show
> > that strict determinism does not hold (quantum 
> > indeterminacy). 
> 
> Equally flawed, and for the same reason IMO.
> The "scientists" "found" what they wanted to 
> find. Drawing bulls-eyes around arrows. See
> Jyotish.  :-)

Um. Quantum indeterminacy is one of the most conclusively
validated principles in science.

When you put scare quotes around "scientists" simply
because you disagree with them, it says a great deal
about the rigidity and limitation of your thinking.


> > > > You have written some very entertaining things on this 
> > > > forum, but I think you may not always be thinking 
> > > > through all your arguments. 
> 
> What do you believe would be the outcome of "thinking
> through all my arguments? Agreeing with you?  :-)

No, just better arguments for your own POV.

But then there wouldn't be nearly as many
opportunities to make fun of you for your thoroughly
unwarranted intellectual arrogance. So please, by
all means continue not to think through your
arguments.


> > These ideas do not exist independently of each other. 
> 
> Of course they do.

Of course they *don't*. If the concept of free will
didn't exist, there would be no concept of determinism,
and vice versa. Duh.


> > ...finds the absence of free will such a distressing idea, 
> > it is more fun to take the opposing view, particularly
> > because there are such good experiential arguments, 
> > especially from science, to support lack of free will. 
> 
> Meaningful only to those who base their lives on
> "science." Did you think you were speaking to
> one of these?  :-)

He needs to realize that whether you tout science in an
argument or reject it depends entirely on where the
greatest putdown potential lies.


> > Yes, but you can say the same thing about the reverse, 
> > 95 percent of the people believing in free will, and 
> > that probably includes 95 percent of the population of 
> > Earth, have this idea because they heard it from someone, 
> > and on the basis of superficial experienc

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[turquoiseb]

Back from another quick hike around the six public stages 
of my local blues festival, here's another quick "drive by"
response to Xeno, who seems to expect them.  :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
> > 
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > 
> > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"

> As Robert said, enlightenment is (or perhaps is largely 
> about) eliminating conditioned responses. 

Doth what Robert says about enlightenment make it true,
or Truth? If not, what does? 

> In a way this is kind of strange because if the universe 
> is deterministic, all responses are conditioned. I think 
> this mainly relates to the kind of responses that generate 
> a negative experience, or perhaps an unusually positive 
> experience. We humans do not care for misery, but often 
> do not have the knowledge to eliminate it, and it persists 
> in our behaviour.

Do you realize that the basis of the above rap is
that "misery" is a "lower" state and that we "should"
either "eliminate" it or disallow it from persisting
in our behavior? What if you got to the end of your
life and found out that the misery was the Best Part,
and you'd completely fuckin' missed it because you
were busy practicing ways to "eliminate" it?  :-)

> > > The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all 
> > > that bad.
> > 
> > I'll explain lower where I think this idea came from.
> > 
> > > A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) 
> > > is found in the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the 
> > > heart of all beings, Arjuna, causes these beings to move, 
> > > (as if) being placed on a machine, by virtue of maya.'
> > 
> > To me, this vision sounds icky. To others, who would 
> > prefer to believe that they have no responsibility for 
> > their actions (because "they" don't perform them...someone 
> > or something else does), it probably sounds ideal.
> 
> The Christians try to get around this by giving man free 
> will while somehow keeping Goddy omniscient and omnipotent. 
> That is like saying you have arms and legs and at the same 
> time have no arms and legs. Personal responsibility as an 
> idea, even if it does not exist in reality, is a good 
> effective theory because even if there is no control over 
> one's actions, if the body and the so-called mind seem to 
> be doing certain things, the universe is going to blast 
> these two entities if certain situations arise. It is a 
> paradox. If there is no free will but it *seems* as if 
> there is...

Just askin'... Which is closer to the idea of 
Occam's Razor? Imagining that the universe is
so much a micromanager and so compelled to Do
Things It's Own Way, Without Any Fuckin' Inter-
ference From The Puppets, Thank You that it 
has to imagine every possible way that these
pseudo-sentient beings could thwart its Authority
and invent Cosmic Security Software to thwart it,
or that there's really free will?

Seems to me that free will is the odds-on favorite
in this game.  :-)

> ...by virtue of the virtual experience of having some kind 
> of seeming individuality...

Or actual individuality. Again, with all due respect,
you're assuming the less Occam's Razor solution. Try
to imagine how difficult it would be to create an OS
to "handle" every attempt to thwart the authority of 
the Divine Screenwriter, vs. writing software that
simply assumed that there was no screenwriter, and 
that reality was just writing itself.

> ...we will always experience life as if we were free. 

Possibly...uh...because that's true? To believe other-
wise, you have to believe in a universe, and a Screen-
writer behind that universe, who decided to go to all
the trouble of creating a universe in which sentient
beings were *fooled* into thinking they were truly
sentient, and had free will. To believe this, you are
stating a belief in a God or Laws Of Nature so fuckin'
perverse that they sat down and said to It/Themselves:
"OK...new Creation time. How can we fuck with them 
this time? I know...let's convince them that they have
free will, when it's really all MY doing. That'll be
funny. Dev team...start to work on this right now." :-)

> So does it matter if we are really free or not? If you 
> are able to speculate so freely, what difference does 
> it make which side of the argument you are on? 

I don't even perceive that there is an argument.
The people on this forum lobbying against free
will are doing so *while ignoring almost their
every perception as a sentient being on this 
planet*. They are claiming that there is no free
will while having enjoyed the subjective exper-
ience of having had it for most -- if not all --
of their life in this incarnation.

I am merely advocating "not ignoring the obvious."
If the universe seems to have presented you with
a scenario in which you have free will, and that
is your everyday experience, why the fuck would
you want to believe otherwise?

> There are g

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

Would somebody please, PLEASE explain to Barry the
difference between determinism and predestination?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:

> > Opinion is a word that has many shadings unfortunately. 
> 
> Unfortunately? Are you saying that there should be one
> and only one definition of the word and the concept?

This is funny. Barry, of course, is the one who has always
insisted there's one and only one definition of the word
and the concept.


> > ...and then there is opinion by people who have no idea what 
> > they are talking about, and are just flapping off at the mouth. 
> 
> Name some of these people. On this forum. I know none.

You. You just got done expressing the opinion that anyone
who believes in determinism is a "Goddist," because you
didn't bother to read the essay by Sam Harris that we've
been discussing.

> What I see is a remarkably equal buncha froods spouting
> opinion. I do not hold anyone on this forum's opinion to
> be "higher" or based on more "I actually know" authority
> than any others', and that includes my own. Do you hold
> some people's opinions to be "more expert" than others?

Those who read the Harris essay actually know that not all
determinists are religionists. You didn't know that.


> If you were a predestinationist and the Laws Of Nature
> had declared that you would be having a shitty time 
> with this discussion, you would be. I, on the other 
> hand, might not. :-)

But it would have nothing to do with predestination.


> Anticipating this, I replied to your post in "real 
> time," writing responses to each paragraph as I 
> encountered it for the first time. You may decide
> whether those responses were predestined or my own
> invention.  :-)

Nor would this.


If the *thought*
> > of not having free will is distressing in some way, then 
> > that is probably a conditioned response. 
> 
> Agreed. I don't find it the least bit distressing.

How many here believe, having read his posts on the subject
of free will, that Barry doesn't find the idea of no free
will distressing? Hands, please.

See? Almost nobody. ;-)

> My take on Pascal's Wager might be that one side 
> says I should bet on predestination, because That's 
> Just How The World Is, Because We Actually Know 
> These Things, And You Should Trust Us. I'm just not 
> seein' the up side of betting on predestination in
> this scenario. I'm betting on free will. If it turns 
> out not to have been true, no harm, no foul. I cannot 
> be held responsible for acting up in class if I was 
> never capable of acting up in class. :-)

None of this has anything to do with the idea of
predestination.

Barry...you could look it up. But you have the free will
not to and make yourself look ridiculous as a result.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) 
> > speak for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal 
> > view of the universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't 
> > really think very much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). 
> 
> There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely
> presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow
> its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them-
> selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the
> universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but
> if it did, and it created a situation such as the one that
> the non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much
> respect for them. They're basically nothing more than 
> actors acting out a script, with no ability to improvise
> or become co-creators of the play.

Do humans who design and build robots not really think
very much of their creations? Do you find it "dismal"
that the purpose of robots is to carry out the intentions
of their creators?

Do you think about what you write, or are you far more
interested in generating putdowns of those who do not
hold the same opinions you do, whether those putdowns
make sense or not?

> > Someone pass the crown! I certainly do not know enough to 
> > speak for all of existence.
> 
> I don't "know" *anything*. I merely speculate, for the fun
> of it. To me, there is no fun in the idea of the universe 
> as automaton.

Of course, implicit in the idea of universe as automaton
is that the sentience which drives it is identical to our
own sentience ("Atman is Brahman"). Which implies that 
what we experience as our own individual free will is
really the free will of the sentience that is responsible
for our existence. It's just that we are under the illusion
that individual sentience is separate from the universal
sentience.

If we could only eliminate that illusion, we would 
experience ourselves as the Source of the free will that
governs the universe, a will infinitely more vast, 
infinitely more sentient, infinitely more free, and
infinitely more FUN than what the illusion dictates.

That's the idea you find "dismal" because you aren't
willing or able to expand your imagination to encompass
it (again, because it's more "fun" for you to limit your
imagination to putdowns).

> > A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is 
> > found in the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart 
> > of all beings, Arjuna, causes these beings to move, (as if) 
> > being placed on a machine, by virtue of maya.'
> 
> To me, this vision sounds icky. To others, who would
> prefer to believe that they have no responsibility for
> their actions (because "they" don't perform them...someone
> or something else does), it probably sounds ideal.

And to others it sounds like a metaphor for what *is*,
regardless of what we would "prefer" to believe. Some
of us are willing to consider the possibility that what
we might "prefer" to believe isn't the case.

> > In religious terminology, this is called the will of
> > God. 
> 
> Exactly. IMO the whole idea of of "no free will" is an
> attempt by God-ists to impose the idea of "the will of
> God" onto a universe that has never had need of a God.

Unfortunately for the validity of your "opinion," the
current discussion was triggered by an essay you didn't
bother to read by Sam Harris, a member of the New Atheism
movement and author of the book "The End of Faith," who
believes there is no such thing as free will.

"Opinion is a word that has many shadings unfortunately. 
There can be 'expert opinion,' which is usually based on 
some sort of experiential knowledge, and then there is 
opinion by people who have no idea what they are talking 
about, and are just flapping off at the mouth."--Xeno

The fact that religionists call it the will of God does
not mean that everyone who believes there is no free
will is a religionist. That's like saying that because
alcoholics tend to deny they're alcoholics, everyone who
denies being an alcoholic must be an alcoholic.


> With Hindus and wannabee Hindus like TMers, they want to
> believe in "no free will" because they have been told that
> that's what the world looks like from the point of view
> of the manufactured need they've been sold, enlightenment.
> So they "weight" the idea of "no free will," ranking it
> "higher" in likelihood because they've been told that it
> is associated with enlightenment.

Maybe for some, not for me. I had been "ranking it 
'higher' in likelihood" long before I ever encountered
the idea of enlightenment. In fact, I gave the idea of 
enlightenment more weight because it seemed to validate
what I had already been inclined to believe about free
will, not the reverse.

And in fact, I was drawn to TM exactly because it didn't 
require using "w

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[whynotnow7]

well played, both of you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > > anartaxius@ wrote:
> > > > This is really valuable information to know, that you 
> > > > (turquoiseb) speak for the whole universe ('I think this 
> > > > is a pretty dismal view of the universe and indicates that 
> > > > the universe ... doesn't really think very much of them 
> > > > [the no-free-will adherents]').
> > >
> > > There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely 
> > > presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow 
> > > its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them-
> > > selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the 
> > > universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but if 
> > > it did, and it created a situation such as the one that the 
> > > non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much respect
> > > for them. They're basically nothing more than actors acting 
> > > out a script, with no ability to improvise or become co-
> > > creators of the play.
> > 
> > Saying 'indicates that the universe doesn't really think 
> > much of them,' implies that you know what the universe thinks. 
> 
> No, it really doesn't. I'm surprised that you would say
> that. I expected more from you. All that it implies is an
> idea, being played with for the fun of it. It's called
> "creative thought," or "fiction."  
> 
> > If you actually know, then the statement is true in the 
> > conventional meaning of truth, and this is not opinion. 
> 
> Do you actually believe that there is such a thing as
> "know," in the sense of "...you actually know...?" I
> ask because I do not. 
> 
> > If you don't know, then whatever you say is just something 
> > spoken out in ignorance. 
> 
> Define the absence of what you refer to above as "ignorance."
> Try to do it without invoking someone else's concepts or
> ideas that you've heard along the Way.
> 
> > Opinion is a word that has many shadings unfortunately. 
> 
> Unfortunately? Are you saying that there should be one
> and only one definition of the word and the concept?
> 
> > There can be 'expert opinion,' which is usually based on 
> > some sort of experiential knowledge...
> 
> To be precise, when talking about the wholly *subjective* 
> experience of enlightenment or supposed "higher" states
> of consciousness, this term is most commonly applied to
> those who do nothing more than *claim* some sort of 
> experiential knowledge. 
> 
> > ...and then there is opinion by people who have no idea what 
> > they are talking about, and are just flapping off at the mouth. 
> 
> Name some of these people. On this forum. I know none. 
> 
> What I see is a remarkably equal buncha froods spouting
> opinion. I do not hold anyone on this forum's opinion to
> be "higher" or based on more "I actually know" authority
> than any others', and that includes my own. Do you hold
> some people's opinions to be "more expert" than others?
> 
> > If you believe the universe does not have sentience, why even 
> > say that it can somehow think? 
> 
> For FUN, dude. Just in case you haven't gotten the Tweet,
> writers occasionally think up shit just for the fuck of it.
> 
> > If you had originally said what you say in the above paragraph, 
> > the ambiguity would not arise.
> 
> WHAT ambiguity? I don't think you've made clear what it
> is that seems ambiguous to you. At least you haven't made
> it clear to me. 
> 
> I don't believe that there is a God, or that the universe
> has sentience. That doth not prevent me with taking either
> of those ideas and just fuckin' running with them fictionally,
> just for the fun of it.
> 
> > If one believes in strict determinism, of course everyone is 
> > nothing more than an actor acting out a script, and for most 
> > not even knowing they are acting out a script. I wonder how 
> > actors feel when they are acting out a play. 
> 
> In my experience, having known a few, I think it depends 
> on what kind of actor they are. If they are of the "I am
> a mere instrument for the playwright and the director"
> type, they would probably have no problem with the idea
> of determinism. If, on the other hand, they were of the
> "I could have written this dialog better" or "I really
> want to direct" type of actors, they might sneak a 
> little improvisation into the take. Hey! What's the worst
> that could happen, right? God (the director) either likes
> my improvised dialog and my take on the scene, or He'll
> order another take. :-)  
> 
> See how someone can take a concept he doesn't believe in
> and use it to have fun with? Did you note that above I
> was having fun playing with the notion of a God I do not
> believe in?
> 
> > They say the same things every night, do the same motion

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > 
> > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > anartaxius@ wrote:
> > > This is really valuable information to know, that you 
> > > (turquoiseb) speak for the whole universe ('I think this 
> > > is a pretty dismal view of the universe and indicates that 
> > > the universe ... doesn't really think very much of them 
> > > [the no-free-will adherents]').
> >
> > There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely 
> > presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow 
> > its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them-
> > selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the 
> > universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but if 
> > it did, and it created a situation such as the one that the 
> > non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much respect
> > for them. They're basically nothing more than actors acting 
> > out a script, with no ability to improvise or become co-
> > creators of the play.
> 
> Saying 'indicates that the universe doesn't really think 
> much of them,' implies that you know what the universe thinks. 

No, it really doesn't. I'm surprised that you would say
that. I expected more from you. All that it implies is an
idea, being played with for the fun of it. It's called
"creative thought," or "fiction."  

> If you actually know, then the statement is true in the 
> conventional meaning of truth, and this is not opinion. 

Do you actually believe that there is such a thing as
"know," in the sense of "...you actually know...?" I
ask because I do not. 

> If you don't know, then whatever you say is just something 
> spoken out in ignorance. 

Define the absence of what you refer to above as "ignorance."
Try to do it without invoking someone else's concepts or
ideas that you've heard along the Way.

> Opinion is a word that has many shadings unfortunately. 

Unfortunately? Are you saying that there should be one
and only one definition of the word and the concept?

> There can be 'expert opinion,' which is usually based on 
> some sort of experiential knowledge...

To be precise, when talking about the wholly *subjective* 
experience of enlightenment or supposed "higher" states
of consciousness, this term is most commonly applied to
those who do nothing more than *claim* some sort of 
experiential knowledge. 

> ...and then there is opinion by people who have no idea what 
> they are talking about, and are just flapping off at the mouth. 

Name some of these people. On this forum. I know none. 

What I see is a remarkably equal buncha froods spouting
opinion. I do not hold anyone on this forum's opinion to
be "higher" or based on more "I actually know" authority
than any others', and that includes my own. Do you hold
some people's opinions to be "more expert" than others?

> If you believe the universe does not have sentience, why even 
> say that it can somehow think? 

For FUN, dude. Just in case you haven't gotten the Tweet,
writers occasionally think up shit just for the fuck of it.

> If you had originally said what you say in the above paragraph, 
> the ambiguity would not arise.

WHAT ambiguity? I don't think you've made clear what it
is that seems ambiguous to you. At least you haven't made
it clear to me. 

I don't believe that there is a God, or that the universe
has sentience. That doth not prevent me with taking either
of those ideas and just fuckin' running with them fictionally,
just for the fun of it.

> If one believes in strict determinism, of course everyone is 
> nothing more than an actor acting out a script, and for most 
> not even knowing they are acting out a script. I wonder how 
> actors feel when they are acting out a play. 

In my experience, having known a few, I think it depends 
on what kind of actor they are. If they are of the "I am
a mere instrument for the playwright and the director"
type, they would probably have no problem with the idea
of determinism. If, on the other hand, they were of the
"I could have written this dialog better" or "I really
want to direct" type of actors, they might sneak a 
little improvisation into the take. Hey! What's the worst
that could happen, right? God (the director) either likes
my improvised dialog and my take on the scene, or He'll
order another take. :-)  

See how someone can take a concept he doesn't believe in
and use it to have fun with? Did you note that above I
was having fun playing with the notion of a God I do not
believe in?

> They say the same things every night, do the same motions 
> every night, say other peoples thoughts every night. They 
> are in a behavioural prison. Yet they seem to enjoy their 
> craft. Not being free is not necessarily confining.

Predilection, dude. Different types of actors. Some 
are content with the idea of being directed, some want 
to direct.

> > > Som

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:

>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
anartaxius@ wrote:
>>This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb)
speak for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of
the universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think
very much of them [the no-free-will adherents]').

>There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely presented my
opinion of what a universe that did not allow its supposedly-sentient
beings to make decisions for them-selves might think of them. I don't
even believe that the universe *has* sentience, and could think
*anything*, but if it did, and it created a situation such as the one
that the non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much respect
for them. They're basically nothing more than actors acting out a
script, with no ability to improvise or become co-creators of the play.

Saying 'indicates that the universe doesn't really think much of them,'
implies that you know what the universe thinks. If you actually know,
then the statement is true in the conventional meaning of truth, and
this is not opinion. If you don't know, then whatever you say is just
something spoken out in ignorance. Opinion is a word that has many
shadings unfortunately. There can be 'expert opinion,' which is usually
based on some sort of experiential knowledge, and then there is opinion
by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and are just
flapping off at the mouth. If you believe the universe does not have
sentience, why even say that it can somehow think? If you had originally
said what you say in the above paragraph, the ambiguity would not arise.
If one believes in strict determinism, of course everyone is nothing
more than an actor acting out a script, and for most not even knowing
they are acting out a script. I wonder how actors feel when they are
acting out a play. They say the same things every night, do the same
motions every night, say other peoples thoughts every night. They are in
a behavioural prison. Yet they seem to enjoy their craft. Not being free
is not necessarily confining.

>> Someone pass the crown! I certainly do not know enough to speak for
all of existence.

>I don't "know" *anything*. I merely speculate, for the fun of it. To
me, there is no fun in the idea of the universe as automaton.

I am not so sure of that. We seem to be getting a lot of klicks or
mileage out of this. I am having a lot of fun writing about the universe
being an automaton, and imagining your response as automatic without a
sliver of free will. However the universe is, free will or not, the
level of fun is the same we have all been experiencing. If the *thought*
of not having free will is distressing in some way, then that is
probably a conditioned response. As Robert said, enlightenment is (or
perhaps is largely about) eliminating conditioned responses. In a way
this is kind of strange because if the universe is deterministic, all
responses are conditioned. I think this mainly relates to the kind of
responses that generate a negative experience, or perhaps an unusually
positive experience. We humans do not care for misery, but often do not
have the knowledge to eliminate it, and it persists in our behaviour.

>> The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad.

>I'll explain lower where I think this idea came from.

>> A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in
the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings,
Arjuna, causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine,
by virtue of maya.'

>To me, this vision sounds icky. To others, who would prefer to believe
that they have no responsibility for their actions (because "they" don't
perform them...someone or something else does), it probably sounds
ideal.

The Christians try to get around this by giving man free will while
somehow keeping Goddy omniscient and omnipotent. That is like saying you
have arms and legs and at the same time have no arms and legs. Personal
responsibility as an idea, even if it does not exist in reality, is a
good effective theory because even if there is no control over one's
actions, if the body and the so-called mind seem to be doing certain
things, the universe is going to blast these two entities if certain
situations arise. It is a paradox. If there is no free will but it
*seems* as if there is, by virtue of the virtual experience of having
some kind of seeming individuality, we will always experience life as if
we were free. So does it matter if we are really free or not? If you are
able to speculate so freely, what difference does it make which side of
the argument you are on? There are good scientific arguments against the
idea of free will. There are also good scientific arguments that show
that strict determinism does not hold (quantum indeterminacy). Thus
neither the past nor the future can be deter

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[emptybill]

Not to worry. You were constrained by forces beyond your control.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> I intend to reply to this last post of yours in response to my
response to your original post regarding free will, but I have not had
time to study it, so it might be a few days.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:  . . . .  .   .   .   .   .
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

I intend to reply to this last post of yours in response to my response to your 
original post regarding free will, but I have not had time to study it, so it 
might be a few days.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:  . . . .  .   .   .   .   .

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[whynotnow7]

Xeno, that is an excellent piece of writing, straddling both the determinist 
and free will points of view, and simultaneously bringing them into union wrt 
practical experience. 

On the one hand I find all the automatic parts of my body silently comforting, 
senses, breathing, heartbeat, kidney and liver function, digestion, blood and 
oxygen circulation, excretory capability, etc. perhaps it is this which is at 
the basis of the deterministic point of view, a sense within the body that the 
intelligence to perfectly regulate all of these intricate processes can be seen 
and felt externally as well. 

On the other hand, it is the stability of these autonomic functions that 
provides me a foundation to move beyond them in a spirit of full creativity, 
possibly giving rise to the predominately free will perspective.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Remember the Tea Party guy who famously yelled at his
> congressman, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"?
> 
> That's Barry: "Keep your determinist hands off my free will!"
> 
> Xeno, excellent job of laying things out. I don't think
> it'll do any more good than explaining to the Tea Partier
> that Medicare has always been in the hands of the
> government, but it was worth a shot. Very well done.
> 
> That's 50 and out for me.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
> > for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> > universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> > much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> > certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
> > 
> > The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> > idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> > Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> > causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> > virtue of maya.'
> > 
> > In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> > religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
> > make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> > individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> > know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
> > is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> > along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
> > up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
> > units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up
> > is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person)
> > that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
> > Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
> > obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the
> > idea of individual personhood is involved.
> > 
> > Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam
> > free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
> > always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
> > would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To
> > give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
> > of course makes God not such hot stuff.
> > 
> > The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
> > universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
> > accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
> > free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
> > free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
> > for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in
> > the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
> > dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates
> > the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
> > relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
> > representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to
> > explain the entire value of existence.
> > 
> > Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
> > that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact
> > true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
> > enlightenment does not change the universe.
> > 
> > This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to
> > be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
> > which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is
> > in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become a
> > soggy 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[WillyTex]

turquoiseb:
> My guess is that at least 95% of the people 
> on the planet who believe that there is no 
> free will do so because of SOMETHING THEY 
> WERE TOLD. By the spiritual teacher, scrip-
> tures, or religions they grew up with or 
> adopted later...
>
99.9% of everything we know, we know because
it's SOMETHING WE WERE TOLD. Almost everything
you know is gained from the three valid means 
of knowledge: inference (observation), verbal 
testimony (guru, teacher), and the scriptures 
(books).

We do not know anything apriori, that is, we
do not know anything about a spiritual path
or 'enlightenment' unless we read about it,
or we are told about it. 

So, your belief in a 'free will' you either
read about or were told about. We cannot infer
a free will from experience because there is
nothing in the percieved world that would
indicate a a will or free will - that's is a 
metaphysical idea.

So, it is a surprise that Barry would now
adopt an idealist point of view! Can anyone
figure this out?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[cardemaister]

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Me, I think this... 

Interesting, seemingly appositional use of the objective
form of the first person pronoun.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) 
> speak for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal 
> view of the universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't 
> really think very much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). 

There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely
presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow
its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them-
selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the
universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but
if it did, and it created a situation such as the one that
the non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much
respect for them. They're basically nothing more than 
actors acting out a script, with no ability to improvise
or become co-creators of the play. 

> Someone pass the crown! I certainly do not know enough to 
> speak for all of existence.

I don't "know" *anything*. I merely speculate, for the fun
of it. To me, there is no fun in the idea of the universe 
as automaton. 

> The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. 

I'll explain lower where I think this idea came from.

> A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is 
> found in the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart 
> of all beings, Arjuna, causes these beings to move, (as if) 
> being placed on a machine, by virtue of maya.'

To me, this vision sounds icky. To others, who would
prefer to believe that they have no responsibility for
their actions (because "they" don't perform them...someone
or something else does), it probably sounds ideal. 

> In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. 

Exactly. IMO the whole idea of of "no free will" is an
attempt by God-ists to impose the idea of "the will of
God" onto a universe that has never had need of a God.

> You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, 
> but I think you may not always be thinking through all your 
> arguments. I particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured 
> needs. Enlightenment is a manufactured need. Most people in 
> this world do not give a thought to the idea because they 
> either do not know the term, or just don't care.

If you "get" this, then you're in good position to under-
stand my feeling about where the idea of "there is no free
will" comes from. I believe it is a similarly manufactured
idea. 

My guess is that at least 95% of the people on the planet
who believe that there is no free will do so because of
SOMETHING THEY WERE TOLD. By the spiritual teacher, scrip-
tures, or religions they grew up with or adopted later. 
Wanting to believe that these scriptures or teachings are
true, they see the world around them in terms of confirm-
ation bias and try to make it agree with what has been
told to them. Voila. They were told that there is no free
will, and start to look for "signs" that "prove" that there
is no free will.

With Hindus and wannabee Hindus like TMers, they want to
believe in "no free will" because they have been told that
that's what the world looks like from the point of view
of the manufactured need they've been sold, enlightenment.
So they "weight" the idea of "no free will," ranking it
"higher" in likelihood because they've been told that it
is associated with enlightenment.

A very small percentage of people who believe that there 
is no free will do so on the basis of their subjective 
experience of a particular brain fart that they have *also*
been told by their spiritual teachers, scriptures, and 
religions is associated with enlightenment, or "higher"
states of consciousness. I'm talking about "witnessing,"
or the "not the doer" sensation.

I am NOT saying that this subjective experience does not
exist. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. What I'm 
saying is that although the experience exists, it does not
on its own MEAN anything. The "meaning" people associate
with witnessing and "not the doer" was, again, TOLD TO
THEM. They were *told* that this state is associated with
enlightenment, and thus is a "higher" state.

I don't buy this. I think that it's Just Another State
Of Attention, no "higher" or "better" than any other. It's
just another passing POV or brain fart. Thus I have no need 
to try to imagine that the world "always" looks like this. 
It doesn't. That's just how the nature of action appears 
from one tiny isolated state of attention.

My feeling is that this "witnessing" state is NOT associated
with anything "higher" or "enlightened," it's Just Another
State Of Attention. Thus I have no need to build any world
views upon it, even though I have experienced it. I have 
ALSO experienced the subjective feeling of having free will. 
I have experienced the latter far more often. I'm gonna "go
with the numbers" and assume that the POV I have experienced
the most often is possibly the most accurate. :-)

Besides, I like the

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Ravi Yogi]

What's wrong with the good ol' serenity prayer - serenity to accept
things I cannot change (fate) and courage to change things I can (free
will)? I don't agree that Bhagavad Gita was advocating determinism.
Enlightenment also mostly seems to be a result of both, the will to be
free and the grace which ultimately frees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
>
> This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb)
speak
> for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
>
> The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> virtue of maya.'
>
> In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> religions that use this model of description do have a problem when
they
> make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free,
it
> is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is
giving
> up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of
sub
> units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives
up
> is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a
person)
> that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
> Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
> obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when
the
> idea of individual personhood is involved.
>
> Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving
Adam
> free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
> always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
> would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted.
To
> give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
> of course makes God not such hot stuff.
>
> The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
> universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
> accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
> free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
> free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
> for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates
in
> the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
> dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic
illuminates
> the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
> relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
> representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work
to
> explain the entire value of existence.
>
> Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
> that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in
fact
> true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
> enlightenment does not change the universe.
>
> This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems
to
> be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
> which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life
is
> in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become
a
> soggy pile of mindless oatmeal porridge with enlightenment, blissfully
> unaware of all the crap that goes on in this universe. One becomes
fully
> engaged in a mystery. From time to time, we try to solve part of the
> mystery. But we will never solve the whole mystery. This gives you,
me,
> and others here the license to continue to investigate this here in
> writing, or draw battle lines, whatever suits us for the moment, even
if
> what suits us is out of our hands; we can always pretend we are the
> doer. For many things in life this is a useful way to look at our
> experience.
>
> You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, but I
> think you may not always be thinking through all your arguments. I
> particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured needs. Enlightenment
is
> a manufactured need. Most people in this world do not give a thought
to
> the idea because they either do not know the term, or just don't care.
> But if the idea resonates, and it hooks you, then the need seems to be
> real, only to find out, if the quest goes the distance, that it was in
> fact, just made up. Being a seeker is an idiot's quest, but

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Robert]

Enlightenment means freedom from the 'conditioned mind' 'the past' and 'the 
future' that's all...

Becoming innocent like a child again...

'Radiate the 'Light of Your Own Being'..

And help to continue the dispelling of darkness...

Radiating 'Truth' dispelling layers of liars, lieing...


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes I really love the view that non-believers in
> Free Will have of the universe they live in and what
> that implies about what the universe thinks of them. 
> 
> They postulate essentially an enormous cuckoo clock,
> in which all sentient beings are just automatons doing
> what they've been programmed to do, endlessly. In their
> view of the universe, many of these automatons think
> that they're making their own decisions, but they aren't
> really. That's just an illusion. In reality, they're 
> just acting out actions designed by something or someone
> else, whatever or whoever wound up the clock. 
> 
> What is most fascinating is that many of the automatons
> who believe in this Cuckoo Clock Universe present them-
> selves as if they were "spiritual seekers," that is, as
> if there were something that was in their power to *do*
> that would facilitate or speed up their evolution towards
> the goal of "enlightenment" they aspire to. 
> 
> What I don't understand is why, if they are incapable
> of "doing" anything, they believe that there is anything
> they can do to facilitate their enlightenment. Even more
> puzzling is their reverence for spiritual teachers who
> they feel are "enlightened." According to their view
> of the universe, none of these "enlightened" beings can
> do diddleysquat, either. They are just as much automatons
> as the people who revere and follow them. And if the
> whole thing is one big deterministic cuckoo clock, then
> there was nothing the "enlightened" could *ever* have
> done for them.
> 
> Me, I think this is a pretty dismal view of the universe,
> one that indicates that the universe (which many of these
> supposed "spiritual seekers" believe is sentient) doesn't
> really think very much of them. It doesn't allow them
> any freedom or autonomy, and allows them no say in their
> own lives. Everything is programmed, and there is nothing
> they can ever do that will affect anything else, *includ-
> ing* their own enlightenment. And if they ever realize 
> this "enlightenment" they seek, the only thing that's 
> happened for them is that they supposedly realize that 
> they're automatons. 
> 
> Big whoop. I'm much more comfortable with a more Buddhist
> view of the universe in which everyone has Free Will and
> thus can affect not only their own lives but the lives
> of others. Teachers in such a universe would actually be
> accomplishing something, not just speaking as automatons
> to other automatons. 
> 
> But if that's the way they want to see the universe they
> live in, so be it. At least now I understand why so many
> of them seem so chronically unhappy and why so many of
> them actually long for annihilation. If I thought I lived
> inside an enormous cuckoo clock and that nothing I had
> ever done or will ever do mattered, I'd probably hope
> for "soul suicide" myself.  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Yifu]

right...whatever people want, and that seems natural them; just fine with me 
(within certain limits). On the whole, the notion of more options available for 
choosing sounds better than fewer.

Orthodox Christianity following Paul especially is geared (imo) toward an 
immortality of subtle bodily existence, in a dualistic relationship with Jesus; 
or among Jehovah's Witnesses, perfected physical bodies.. (my interpretation of 
his statements relating to immortality, perfect bodies, etc; appear related to 
immortality in some relative sense, not the "immortality" of the Self).
...
As to Self-Realization, those who opt for relative extinction after death seem 
to overlook the fact that there's some body/mind saying "I'm Enlightened, I'm 
Awakened,..."; and such statements may provide some "utility"...some reason why 
they've said it. At this juncture I'm not questioning the wisdom of such 
statments. This being the internet, anything goes and no need to hide one's 
Lamp under a cover. But with physical death and extinction - obliteration of 
the remaining bodies - there's no possibility of continuing with activity. 
Seems like fewer options than more. The idea of fewer options seems to be 
contrary to MMY's themes such as "Field of All Possibilities".
Without a body, there's only one possibility. With bodies, there are Infinite 
possibilities.
...
An interesting question would relate to possible boredom after so many years in 
the afterlife. But assuming one's chosen Deity has some type of magical powers, 
the Deity could have the Siddhi "wipe out boredom among devotees". I would 
expect such a Siddhi among the various powers attributed to Kali.  Maybe Jesus. 
Remains to be seen.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Yifu, thank you for taking time to answer my queries. I am not convinced of 
> this. One can have many unusual experience in meditation. Near death 
> experiences have been tested in certain ways, such as seeing if persons who 
> say they have had those experiences were able to read messages over the 
> hospital beds with the writing on boards facing up toward the ceiling etc., 
> with no confirmation. The mind, as brain, has the propensity to fabricate 
> experiences, dreams, and it may not be well understood if this capacity for 
> imagery can be activated in other ways outside of sleep. I do not know the 
> answer to this question, but for now I would tend to attribute unusual 
> experiences I have had to slipping into some kind of dream. Out of body 
> experience can be induced by various means, this has been done under 
> experimental conditions, so the answer may turn out to be something different 
> than what those in the past surmised about it.
> 
> I do find it curious that there are all these traditions, in which 
> immortality is guaranteed in a spiritual sense, that eternity is in living 
> the moment, not in the concept of time, yet within these traditions, fear of 
> death and some kind of physical immortality and persistence in time is still 
> sought for individuality. Depending on who turns out to be right, we will 
> find out, or we will not.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Of course...(as to detection). Basically a subtle body or bodies as a 
> > composite would be, starting with definitions of what an individual body is 
> > (in some traditions, people don't "have" bodies. They are bodies, or a 
> > body/mind).  Then a simple definition as a starting point would be a 
> > body/mind or bodies independent of the physical body by way of 
> > dissasociation or separation; e.g. physical death, out of body travel, or a 
> > NDE. Such bodies may exist in the subtle dimensions usually invisible to 
> > most people.
> > ...
> > Ramana Maharshi stated that he maintained 20 of such subtle bodies in 
> > subtle planes of existence. Many people claim to have meetings with 
> > physically dead Gurus via extra-physical contact in which intelligent 
> > conversations may occur. Then there's the phenomenon of posession in which 
> > entities living in dimensions "beyond" the physical may attempt to take 
> > over the physical bodies of susceptible people.  
> > ...
> > Examples: 
> > a. physical death - I recommend Shyalaman movie with Bruce Willis, "Sixth 
> > Sense". In one scene a dude was run over by a car and his death was so 
> > quick that he didn't realize he was dead, until some demons came after him. 
> > The "he" in this case = the subtle bodies or bodies remaining after the 
> > demise of the physical.
> > ...
> > So basically, the question of subtle bodies relates to life after death, 
> > your dead relatives for example. Do they exist, or not?
> > As to direct perception, I've had many contacts with the physically dead so 
> > need no convincing, but ymmv. 
> > ...
> > Last but not least, we have the testimony of various higher dimensional 
> > explorers who have given accounts of people, other livi

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Yifu, thank you for taking time to answer my queries. I am not convinced of 
this. One can have many unusual experience in meditation. Near death 
experiences have been tested in certain ways, such as seeing if persons who say 
they have had those experiences were able to read messages over the hospital 
beds with the writing on boards facing up toward the ceiling etc., with no 
confirmation. The mind, as brain, has the propensity to fabricate experiences, 
dreams, and it may not be well understood if this capacity for imagery can be 
activated in other ways outside of sleep. I do not know the answer to this 
question, but for now I would tend to attribute unusual experiences I have had 
to slipping into some kind of dream. Out of body experience can be induced by 
various means, this has been done under experimental conditions, so the answer 
may turn out to be something different than what those in the past surmised 
about it.

I do find it curious that there are all these traditions, in which immortality 
is guaranteed in a spiritual sense, that eternity is in living the moment, not 
in the concept of time, yet within these traditions, fear of death and some 
kind of physical immortality and persistence in time is still sought for 
individuality. Depending on who turns out to be right, we will find out, or we 
will not.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Of course...(as to detection). Basically a subtle body or bodies as a 
> composite would be, starting with definitions of what an individual body is 
> (in some traditions, people don't "have" bodies. They are bodies, or a 
> body/mind).  Then a simple definition as a starting point would be a 
> body/mind or bodies independent of the physical body by way of dissasociation 
> or separation; e.g. physical death, out of body travel, or a NDE. Such bodies 
> may exist in the subtle dimensions usually invisible to most people.
> ...
> Ramana Maharshi stated that he maintained 20 of such subtle bodies in subtle 
> planes of existence. Many people claim to have meetings with physically dead 
> Gurus via extra-physical contact in which intelligent conversations may 
> occur. Then there's the phenomenon of posession in which entities living in 
> dimensions "beyond" the physical may attempt to take over the physical bodies 
> of susceptible people.  
> ...
> Examples: 
> a. physical death - I recommend Shyalaman movie with Bruce Willis, "Sixth 
> Sense". In one scene a dude was run over by a car and his death was so quick 
> that he didn't realize he was dead, until some demons came after him. The 
> "he" in this case = the subtle bodies or bodies remaining after the demise of 
> the physical.
> ...
> So basically, the question of subtle bodies relates to life after death, your 
> dead relatives for example. Do they exist, or not?
> As to direct perception, I've had many contacts with the physically dead so 
> need no convincing, but ymmv. 
> ...
> Last but not least, we have the testimony of various higher dimensional 
> explorers who have given accounts of people, other living entities, and 
> environments in unseen (to others) dimensions; for example: Emanuel 
> Swedenborg, and more recently Robert A. Monroe, author of "Journey's Out of 
> the Body". Hopefully more of such explorers will come on the scene with 
> accounts that can be compared and classified, filling in our gaps in 
> extradimensional realms; the types of realms mentioned in various books 
> and Scriptures...the Lokas.   
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > I used the words as turquoiseb used them. I personally do not prefer the 
> > word soul because it has confusing implications or possible equivocations 
> > when dealing with multiple spiritual traditions. For myself, I have no clue 
> > as to what a 'subtle body' is. I know people talk of this, but what is a 
> > 'subtle body,' what characteristics does it have, and where do these 
> > characteristics reside? 
> > 
> > This is kind of a magical concept to me. By what method can this item be 
> > determined to exist? Why is it important? What does it add to concepts of 
> > existence? Others often use this word 'subtle' to indicate something that 
> > cannot be detected by those who claim that whatever it is this word is 
> > modifying does not have any reality, like a subtle aura, or a subtle energy 
> > field. You cannot know something exists if there is no way to detect it.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > On "Soul suicide" (best to replace the S word with subtle body or 
> > > bodies). In any event, refer to post #277826. As to subtle body suicide, 
> > > this is the official TMO version of existence, or fate; among the 
> > > Enlightened upon physical death.
> > > ...
> > > Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras (Cf. 277826):
> > > "The release souls are embodied or non-embodied according to the

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[WillyTex]

authfriend:
> Remember the Tea Party guy who famously yelled at his
> congressman, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"?
> 
> That's Barry: "Keep your determinist hands off my free will!"
> 
> Xeno, excellent job of laying things out. I don't think
> it'll do any more good than explaining to the Tea Partier
> that Medicare has always been in the hands of the
> government, but it was worth a shot. Very well done.
> 
> That's 50 and out for me.
> 
Well, actually people pay for their Medicare out of their 
payroll deductions over the course of their career, but their 
point is that they are opposed to Obama cutting 500 billion 
from Medicare and want Obama to keep his hands off.

But, Barry thinks his free will can enable him to make
better decisions - yet he doesn't seem to realize that almost
everything he knows about the will, he read in books or he
was told it. 

Nobody just instantly thinks they have free will - it takes 
a lifetime of intellectual persuasion for anyone to deny 
the obvious truth of causation, which we ALL experience every 
single day. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[WillyTex]

> > In religious terminology, this is called 
> > the will of God...
> > 
> > I'm much more comfortable with a more 
> Buddhist view of the universe in which 
> everyone has Free Will...
>
There are no Buddhists that believe in a
'Free Will' because that would mean that
they ascribe to the 'soul-monad' theory.

A person would have to have a soul in order
to have a will. In order to have a soul,
the soul-monad would have to be a permanent,
non-changing entity. 

But, nobody has ever seen a 'soul' or can 
describe it, because the belief in a soul 
is just a metaphysical speculation - a soul
is not an object of cognition - it is 
merely another *belief*.

So, it is really surprising that Barry would
reverse himself now after ten years and 
state that he now believes in a Soul entity 
that has the power to change things and 
events, IMO. Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Yifu]

Of course...(as to detection). Basically a subtle body or bodies as a composite 
would be, starting with definitions of what an individual body is (in some 
traditions, people don't "have" bodies. They are bodies, or a body/mind).  Then 
a simple definition as a starting point would be a body/mind or bodies 
independent of the physical body by way of dissasociation or separation; e.g. 
physical death, out of body travel, or a NDE. Such bodies may exist in the 
subtle dimensions usually invisible to most people.
...
Ramana Maharshi stated that he maintained 20 of such subtle bodies in subtle 
planes of existence. Many people claim to have meetings with physically dead 
Gurus via extra-physical contact in which intelligent conversations may occur. 
Then there's the phenomenon of posession in which entities living in dimensions 
"beyond" the physical may attempt to take over the physical bodies of 
susceptible people.  
...
Examples: 
a. physical death - I recommend Shyalaman movie with Bruce Willis, "Sixth 
Sense". In one scene a dude was run over by a car and his death was so quick 
that he didn't realize he was dead, until some demons came after him. The "he" 
in this case = the subtle bodies or bodies remaining after the demise of the 
physical.
...
So basically, the question of subtle bodies relates to life after death, your 
dead relatives for example. Do they exist, or not?
As to direct perception, I've had many contacts with the physically dead so 
need no convincing, but ymmv. 
...
Last but not least, we have the testimony of various higher dimensional 
explorers who have given accounts of people, other living entities, and 
environments in unseen (to others) dimensions; for example: Emanuel Swedenborg, 
and more recently Robert A. Monroe, author of "Journey's Out of the Body". 
Hopefully more of such explorers will come on the scene with accounts that can 
be compared and classified, filling in our gaps in extradimensional realms; 
the types of realms mentioned in various books and Scriptures...the Lokas.   



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> 
> I used the words as turquoiseb used them. I personally do not prefer the word 
> soul because it has confusing implications or possible equivocations when 
> dealing with multiple spiritual traditions. For myself, I have no clue as to 
> what a 'subtle body' is. I know people talk of this, but what is a 'subtle 
> body,' what characteristics does it have, and where do these characteristics 
> reside? 
> 
> This is kind of a magical concept to me. By what method can this item be 
> determined to exist? Why is it important? What does it add to concepts of 
> existence? Others often use this word 'subtle' to indicate something that 
> cannot be detected by those who claim that whatever it is this word is 
> modifying does not have any reality, like a subtle aura, or a subtle energy 
> field. You cannot know something exists if there is no way to detect it.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > On "Soul suicide" (best to replace the S word with subtle body or bodies). 
> > In any event, refer to post #277826. As to subtle body suicide, this is the 
> > official TMO version of existence, or fate; among the Enlightened upon 
> > physical death.
> > ...
> > Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras (Cf. 277826):
> > "The release souls are embodied or non-embodied according to their will
> > 
> >  IV. 4.15 � 4.16
> > 
> > The released soul can animate several bodies at the same time."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
> > > for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> > > universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> > > much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> > > certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
> > > 
> > > The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> > > idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> > > Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> > > causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> > > virtue of maya.'
> > > 
> > > In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> > > religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
> > > make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> > > individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> > > know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
> > > is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> > > along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
> > > up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

Remember the Tea Party guy who famously yelled at his
congressman, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"?

That's Barry: "Keep your determinist hands off my free will!"

Xeno, excellent job of laying things out. I don't think
it'll do any more good than explaining to the Tea Partier
that Medicare has always been in the hands of the
government, but it was worth a shot. Very well done.

That's 50 and out for me.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
> for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
> 
> The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> virtue of maya.'
> 
> In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
> make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
> is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
> up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
> units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up
> is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person)
> that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
> Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
> obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the
> idea of individual personhood is involved.
> 
> Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam
> free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
> always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
> would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To
> give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
> of course makes God not such hot stuff.
> 
> The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
> universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
> accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
> free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
> free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
> for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in
> the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
> dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates
> the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
> relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
> representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to
> explain the entire value of existence.
> 
> Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
> that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact
> true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
> enlightenment does not change the universe.
> 
> This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to
> be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
> which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is
> in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become a
> soggy pile of mindless oatmeal porridge with enlightenment, blissfully
> unaware of all the crap that goes on in this universe. One becomes fully
> engaged in a mystery. From time to time, we try to solve part of the
> mystery. But we will never solve the whole mystery. This gives you, me,
> and others here the license to continue to investigate this here in
> writing, or draw battle lines, whatever suits us for the moment, even if
> what suits us is out of our hands; we can always pretend we are the
> doer. For many things in life this is a useful way to look at our
> experience.
> 
> You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, but I
> think you may not always be thinking through all your arguments. I
> particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured needs. Enlightenment is
> a manufactured need. Most people in this world do not give a thought to
> the idea because they either do not know the term, or just don't care.
> But if the idea resonates, and it hooks you, then the need seems to be
> real, only to find o

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

I used the words as turquoiseb used them. I personally do not prefer the word 
soul because it has confusing implications or possible equivocations when 
dealing with multiple spiritual traditions. For myself, I have no clue as to 
what a 'subtle body' is. I know people talk of this, but what is a 'subtle 
body,' what characteristics does it have, and where do these characteristics 
reside? 

This is kind of a magical concept to me. By what method can this item be 
determined to exist? Why is it important? What does it add to concepts of 
existence? Others often use this word 'subtle' to indicate something that 
cannot be detected by those who claim that whatever it is this word is 
modifying does not have any reality, like a subtle aura, or a subtle energy 
field. You cannot know something exists if there is no way to detect it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> On "Soul suicide" (best to replace the S word with subtle body or bodies). In 
> any event, refer to post #277826. As to subtle body suicide, this is the 
> official TMO version of existence, or fate; among the Enlightened upon 
> physical death.
> ...
> Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras (Cf. 277826):
> "The release souls are embodied or non-embodied according to their will
> 
>  IV. 4.15 � 4.16
> 
> The released soul can animate several bodies at the same time."
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
> > for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> > universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> > much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> > certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
> > 
> > The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> > idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> > Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> > causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> > virtue of maya.'
> > 
> > In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> > religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
> > make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> > individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> > know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
> > is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> > along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
> > up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
> > units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up
> > is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person)
> > that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
> > Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
> > obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the
> > idea of individual personhood is involved.
> > 
> > Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam
> > free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
> > always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
> > would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To
> > give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
> > of course makes God not such hot stuff.
> > 
> > The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
> > universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
> > accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
> > free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
> > free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
> > for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in
> > the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
> > dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates
> > the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
> > relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
> > representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to
> > explain the entire value of existence.
> > 
> > Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
> > that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact
> > true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
> > enlightenment does not change the universe.
> > 
> > This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to
> > be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
> > which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is
> > in forgetting that it is all just 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Yifu]

On "Soul suicide" (best to replace the S word with subtle body or bodies). In 
any event, refer to post #277826. As to subtle body suicide, this is the 
official TMO version of existence, or fate; among the Enlightened upon physical 
death.
...
Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras (Cf. 277826):
"The release souls are embodied or non-embodied according to their will

 IV. 4.15 – 4.16

The released soul can animate several bodies at the same time."



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
> for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
> 
> The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> virtue of maya.'
> 
> In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
> make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
> is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
> up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
> units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up
> is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person)
> that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
> Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
> obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the
> idea of individual personhood is involved.
> 
> Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam
> free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
> always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
> would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To
> give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
> of course makes God not such hot stuff.
> 
> The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
> universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
> accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
> free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
> free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
> for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in
> the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
> dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates
> the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
> relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
> representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to
> explain the entire value of existence.
> 
> Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
> that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact
> true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
> enlightenment does not change the universe.
> 
> This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to
> be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
> which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is
> in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become a
> soggy pile of mindless oatmeal porridge with enlightenment, blissfully
> unaware of all the crap that goes on in this universe. One becomes fully
> engaged in a mystery. From time to time, we try to solve part of the
> mystery. But we will never solve the whole mystery. This gives you, me,
> and others here the license to continue to investigate this here in
> writing, or draw battle lines, whatever suits us for the moment, even if
> what suits us is out of our hands; we can always pretend we are the
> doer. For many things in life this is a useful way to look at our
> experience.
> 
> You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, but I
> think you may not always be thinking through all your arguments. I
> particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured needs. Enlightenment is
> a manufactured need. Most people in this world do not give a thought to
> the idea because they either do not know the term, or just don't care.
> But if the idea resonates, and it hooks you, then the nee

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Yifu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
> for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
> universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
> much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
> certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.
> 
> The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
> idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
> Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
> causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
> virtue of maya.'
> 
> In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
> religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
> make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
> individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
> know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
> is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
> along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
> up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
> units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up
> is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person)
> that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
> Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
> obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the
> idea of individual personhood is involved.
> 
> Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam
> free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
> always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
> would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To
> give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
> of course makes God not such hot stuff.
> 
> The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
> universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
> accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
> free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
> free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
> for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in
> the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
> dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates
> the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
> relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
> representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to
> explain the entire value of existence.
> 
> Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
> that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact
> true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
> enlightenment does not change the universe.
> 
> This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to
> be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
> which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is
> in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become a
> soggy pile of mindless oatmeal porridge with enlightenment, blissfully
> unaware of all the crap that goes on in this universe. One becomes fully
> engaged in a mystery. From time to time, we try to solve part of the
> mystery. But we will never solve the whole mystery. This gives you, me,
> and others here the license to continue to investigate this here in
> writing, or draw battle lines, whatever suits us for the moment, even if
> what suits us is out of our hands; we can always pretend we are the
> doer. For many things in life this is a useful way to look at our
> experience.
> 
> You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, but I
> think you may not always be thinking through all your arguments. I
> particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured needs. Enlightenment is
> a manufactured need. Most people in this world do not give a thought to
> the idea because they either do not know the term, or just don't care.
> But if the idea resonates, and it hooks you, then the need seems to be
> real, only to find out, if the quest goes the distance, that it was in
> fact, just made up. Being a seeker is an idiot's quest, but one does not
> realize one is the idiot until the path falls out from under the feet.
> 
> The idea that we have free will is made up, and it has a particular
> application. The idea that we are automatons is similarly made up, and
> it has a particular application. If you are sitting watching a beautiful
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.

The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar
idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the
Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna,
causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by
virtue of maya.'

In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However
religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they
make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the
individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not
know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it
is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows
along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving
up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub
units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up
is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person)
that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person.
Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty
obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the
idea of individual personhood is involved.

Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam
free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was
always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level,
would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To
give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that
of course makes God not such hot stuff.

The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the
universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this
accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in
free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have
free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible
for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in
the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in
dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates
the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true'
relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole
representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to
explain the entire value of existence.

Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view
that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact
true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same,
enlightenment does not change the universe.

This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to
be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through
which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is
in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become a
soggy pile of mindless oatmeal porridge with enlightenment, blissfully
unaware of all the crap that goes on in this universe. One becomes fully
engaged in a mystery. From time to time, we try to solve part of the
mystery. But we will never solve the whole mystery. This gives you, me,
and others here the license to continue to investigate this here in
writing, or draw battle lines, whatever suits us for the moment, even if
what suits us is out of our hands; we can always pretend we are the
doer. For many things in life this is a useful way to look at our
experience.

You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, but I
think you may not always be thinking through all your arguments. I
particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured needs. Enlightenment is
a manufactured need. Most people in this world do not give a thought to
the idea because they either do not know the term, or just don't care.
But if the idea resonates, and it hooks you, then the need seems to be
real, only to find out, if the quest goes the distance, that it was in
fact, just made up. Being a seeker is an idiot's quest, but one does not
realize one is the idiot until the path falls out from under the feet.

The idea that we have free will is made up, and it has a particular
application. The idea that we are automatons is similarly made up, and
it has a particular application. If you are sitting watching a beautiful
sunset, maybe neither idea will come to mind, just the sitting and
watching, no mind, just pure experience. By the way, enlightenment is
soul suicide.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes I really love th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[WillyTex]

authfriend:
> I *understand* that Barry is deathly afraid to read
> anything I write (and why), but others here have
> answered his questions about free-will-as-illusion as
> well, yet he keeps asking the same questions they've
> already answered.
>
> Apparently he's also deathly afraid of encountering
> a rational case for the illusion premise, because he
> so desperately needs to believe in free will. So he
> simply doesn't read anything he thinks might present
> such a case. Rather than debug the faulty routine
> he's created, he'd rather keep running it unaltered
> and have it crash every time. That way he can point
> to it triumphantly and proclaim, "See? I told you it
> doesn't compute!"
>
> Garbage in, garbage out, Bar.
>

"Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that
states that for everything that happens there are
conditions such that, given them, nothing else could
happen..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism


"Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make
choices free from certain kinds of constraints..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Enlightened Cuckoo Clock

[authfriend]

I *understand* that Barry is deathly afraid to read
anything I write (and why), but others here have 
answered his questions about free-will-as-illusion as
well, yet he keeps asking the same questions they've
already answered.

Apparently he's also deathly afraid of encountering
a rational case for the illusion premise, because he
so desperately needs to believe in free will. So he
simply doesn't read anything he thinks might present
such a case. Rather than debug the faulty routine
he's created, he'd rather keep running it unaltered
and have it crash every time. That way he can point
to it triumphantly and proclaim, "See? I told you it
doesn't compute!"

Garbage in, garbage out, Bar.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes I really love the view that non-believers in
> Free Will have of the universe they live in and what
> that implies about what the universe thinks of them. 
> 
> They postulate essentially an enormous cuckoo clock,
> in which all sentient beings are just automatons doing
> what they've been programmed to do, endlessly. In their
> view of the universe, many of these automatons think
> that they're making their own decisions, but they aren't
> really. That's just an illusion. In reality, they're 
> just acting out actions designed by something or someone
> else, whatever or whoever wound up the clock. 
> 
> What is most fascinating is that many of the automatons
> who believe in this Cuckoo Clock Universe present them-
> selves as if they were "spiritual seekers," that is, as
> if there were something that was in their power to *do*
> that would facilitate or speed up their evolution towards
> the goal of "enlightenment" they aspire to.
> 
> What I don't understand is why, if they are incapable
> of "doing" anything, they believe that there is anything
> they can do to facilitate their enlightenment. Even more
> puzzling is their reverence for spiritual teachers who
> they feel are "enlightened." According to their view
> of the universe, none of these "enlightened" beings can
> do diddleysquat, either. They are just as much automatons
> as the people who revere and follow them. And if the
> whole thing is one big deterministic cuckoo clock, then
> there was nothing the "enlightened" could *ever* have
> done for them.
> 
> Me, I think this is a pretty dismal view of the universe,
> one that indicates that the universe (which many of these
> supposed "spiritual seekers" believe is sentient) doesn't
> really think very much of them. It doesn't allow them
> any freedom or autonomy, and allows them no say in their
> own lives. Everything is programmed, and there is nothing
> they can ever do that will affect anything else, *includ-
> ing* their own enlightenment. And if they ever realize 
> this "enlightenment" they seek, the only thing that's 
> happened for them is that they supposedly realize that 
> they're automatons. 
> 
> Big whoop. I'm much more comfortable with a more Buddhist
> view of the universe in which everyone has Free Will and
> thus can affect not only their own lives but the lives
> of others. Teachers in such a universe would actually be
> accomplishing something, not just speaking as automatons
> to other automatons. 
> 
> But if that's the way they want to see the universe they
> live in, so be it. At least now I understand why so many
> of them seem so chronically unhappy and why so many of
> them actually long for annihilation. If I thought I lived
> inside an enormous cuckoo clock and that nothing I had
> ever done or will ever do mattered, I'd probably hope
> for "soul suicide" myself.  :-)
>