Free will vs Destiny vs Fate vs Others

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Circle

LOL! again! Appearances are appearing to whom or what? The very notion of appearances appearing ( which surely are appearing to someone or something) denies wholeness..

Ok, lets be a little clear. Please tell me in 5 lines what exactly you mean by Wholeness or what you try to point through it.

The question "appearances appearing to whom?" is the dualistic mind slashing wholeness into pieces and then pointing to the pieces as proof of unwholeness. It's fine, this is what mind does to create the appearance of multiplicity. In a way you're right, it IS the denial of wholeness, but it is not proof or evidence of unwholeness or multiplicity.

Appearances appear. This cannot be denied, but whatever follows that is a movement of thought ABOUT those appearances. The notion that something is appearing to something else is an assumption, a conclusion derived from belief and logic. Everything appears as an object of perception. You do not see a subject, you assume it in thought. You don't even see separate objects until mind separates them. Prior to that there is just sensation, image, sound, touch, taste, smell, thought, feeling, without label and not extruded into space and animated through time. All of this happens in the mind.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Circle

You are missing something here buddy. Free will means the control over choosing as well as partial control over thinking. Free will never denies the role of unconscious impulses. Not as far as I see it. But to say that unconscious impulses define what action you take or what way you think is wrong. You are walking down the street , you see a really hot girl, The first thought that arises ( may be a dirty one) is not in your direct control but springs from your subconscious but after that you take total control. You can choose to keep thinking dirty and you can choose to stop doing so. The first spark is always from outside consciousness, but that is just 0.01% of the total process. and with the thought you may end can be far different from the first impulse.

If you saw the video, they demonstrated that conscious thought and action occurred 6 seconds after the brain activity that predicted the conscious choice and action. This doesn't just apply to the conscious choice to push a button in a brain scan tunnel, it applies to all conscious choices. There is no place where a controller takes over after those "unconscious impulses".

Hencely, the unconscious impulse DOES define what choice you make and what action follows. This is the whole point.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

nothing comes from nothing

nothing likes to do nothing

[Circle]

You don't even see separate objects until mind separates them.

Mind seperates them? so it was already outside? seperate?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Circle

Mind seperates them? so it was already outside? seperate?

No, if it was, mind wouldn't have to do the separating. Mind could just perceive the separation, but there isn't actually separation to perceive, so it must be imagined and then experienced.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

No, if it was, mind wouldn't have to do the separating. Mind could just perceive the separation, but there isn't actually separation to perceive, so it must be imagined and then experienced.

Haha, I hope you know what you've got yourself into here Arcanum. I smell a 30 page thread coming on.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Haha, I hope you know what you've got yourself into here Arcanum. I smell a 30 page thread coming on.

Well, I need material for my 'Power of Futility' book. Hehe.

[arpee]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I think you're mixing 2 different concepts. Nothingness does not mean darkness. The buddhist interpretation is that all that exists springs forth from the nothingness which supports all that is. This is completely different from the metaphysical darkness you were alluding to. Supports quantum physics surprisingly well too.

As to the idea that the Universe is unconditional love I see no evidence to support that theory hence I choose not to believe it.

It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light.

Anyway, you don't have to believe. Never said you have to. Peace!

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I don't see how light and dark has anything to do with love in the first place. There is no love on one end of a spectrum and evil on another.

It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light. Yin-Yang are opposites, and love is with Yang and hate is with Yin so it is a spectrum. That's how light and dark relates to love and hate. It has to do with duality. The yin-yang.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by arpee

It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light.

Anyway, you don't have to believe. Never said you have to. Peace!



It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light. Yin-Yang are opposites, and love is with Yang and hate is with Yin so it is a spectrum. That's how light and dark relates to love and hate. It has to do with duality. The yin-yang.

Right but love and hate do not actually exist on any spectrum. In fact, the whole spectrum is completely imaginary.

[arpee]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Right but love and hate do not actually exist on any spectrum. In fact, the whole spectrum is completely imaginary.

Ok, I think we should just agree to disagree.

[Oceans]

Originally Posted by arpee

It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light.

Anyway, you don't have to believe. Never said you have to. Peace!



It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light. Yin-Yang are opposites, and love is with Yang and hate is with Yin so it is a spectrum. That's how light and dark relates to love and hate. It has to do with duality. The yin-yang.

Remember that the yin-yang symbol is contained in a circle. Chris and others are pointing both to the circle itself as well as what’s out of it: nothingness. Most people are simply focusing all their attention on the contents of the circle (yin-yang/duality), ignoring two important things, the circle itself that contains the two and what’s beyond it. Easy mistake to make and everyone has done it

If anyone wants to really wake up, start crossing that boundary out of the circle

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by arpee

It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light.

I think that the "evil" and "good" are misplaced. In fact, the yin is associated with the feminine, and the yang with the masculine, and BOTH are entirely necessary for the other to exist at all in this conceptual model. I really wouldn't say that morality (i.e., evil and good) come into it at all.

Do you actually see "good" and "evil" as, I don't know, fundamental or literal or tangible elements or forces or energies (or whatever)? As in, they exist on their own, apart from human judgement, as "things" unto themselves? (Just trying to understand your point of view. Not judging it. I may have once thought that "good" and "evil" were tangible, myself, but I can't remember being aware of it.)

Back to the yin-yang concept, part of the whole idea of yin-yang is that it is a self-contained duality. There is more, apart from and outside of that duality. The duality is a subset of the whole.

[arpee]

Originally Posted by Oceans

Remember that the yin-yang symbol is contained in a circle. Chris and others are pointing both to the circle itself as well as what’s out of it: nothingness. Most people are simply focusing all their attention on the contents of the circle (yin-yang/duality), ignoring two important things, the circle itself that contains the two and what’s beyond it. Easy mistake to make and everyone has done it

If anyone wants to really wake up, start crossing that boundary out of the circle

I didn't make a mistake. I expressed my beliefs clearly.

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

I think that the "evil" and "good" are misplaced. In fact, the yin is associated with the feminine, and the yang with the masculine, and BOTH are entirely necessary for the other to exist at all in this conceptual model. I really wouldn't say that morality (i.e., evil and good) come into it at all.

As noted, part of the whole idea of yin-yang is that it is a self-contained duality. There is more, apart from and outside of that duality. The duality is a subset of the whole.

I believe that it's all yang (good), yin (evil) doesn't really exist, it's the absence of yang

[Oceans]

Originally Posted by arpee

I didn't make a mistake. I expressed my beliefs clearly.

Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

Where/how did you create your belief system...life experiences or spiritual/philosophy pick-n-mix that felt right to you?

[Oceans]

Originally Posted by arpee

I believe that it's all yang (good), yin (evil) doesn't really exist, it's the absence of yang

Yin doesn’t exist now?

Let’s use murder as a choice of 'bad' activity. So what you are saying is that the killer is missing Yang. This means he is nothingness (as there is no Yin). Nothingness is the absence of Yang

Is this how you see it?

[arpee]

Originally Posted by Oceans

Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

Where/how did you create your belief system...life experiences or spiritual/philosophy pick-n-mix that felt right to you?

I picked what felt best to me. Love feels the best.

Originally Posted by Oceans

Yin doesn’t exist now?

Let’s use murder as a choice of 'bad' activity. So what you are saying is that the killer is missing Yang. This means he is nothingness (as there is no Yin). Nothingness is the absence of Yang

Is this how you see it?

Yup, killing is an act of emptiness, it is the void of healing.
Hating is an act of emptiness, it is a void of Love.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by arpee

I believe that it's all yang (good), yin (evil) doesn't really exist, it's the absence of yang

Right. I understand that point of view. Probably have held something close to it at some point along my evolution (it seems extremely familiar, anyway). I still certainly understand the metaphor of dark being the absence of light, etc.

[Oceans]

Originally Posted by arpee

Yup, killing is an act of emptiness, it is the void of healing.
Hating is an act of emptiness, it is a void of Love.

How do you view free will?

Killing someone dosen't involve free will, as it comes from emptiness?

I thought you couldn't choose who to Love (in a sexual way)....ie there is no free will who you fall for, it just happens

[arpee]

Originally Posted by Oceans

How do you view free will?

Killing someone dosen't involve free will, as it comes from emptiness?

Taking the action to kill someone, is free will.

Originally Posted by Oceans

I thought you couldn't choose who to Love (in a sexual way)....ie there is no free will who you fall for, it just happens

Ok... I don't understand your point. What does this have to do with anything?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by arpee

It goes back to Yin-Yang. Yin is evil and it is dark, and Yang is good and it is light.

Anyway, you don't have to believe. Never said you have to. Peace!

I think there's been a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about Zen Buddhism. My point is that the "nothingness" as expressed in Buddhism refers to the vast spaces between molecules which may in fact only appear when observed. There is much more empty space than anything else. Has no moral judgement attached to it, it's not "evil". It's just an observation.

You're free to believe what you will (freedom of religion hooray!). I just think a correct understanding of different philosophies is very important.

[arpee]

Ah ok. I know Zen Buddhism says that I was just explaining my interpretation of "nothingness" or "emptiness" with the duality thing.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by arpee

I didn't make a mistake. I expressed my beliefs clearly.



I believe that it's all yang (good), yin (evil) doesn't really exist, it's the absence of yang

I just noticed this is a thread about free will, oh well.


Traditionally a Taoist would not say yin doesn't exist and yang does.

They would say both are mutually arising and dependent phenomena.

There is never a full yang state, as the seed of yin is part of it.

You seem to be borrowing a Taoist concept improperly.


And what does any of that have to do with free will?

[arpee]

The universe is based on yang (good/light/love) since yin doesn't exist and is just the absence of yang.

Unconditional love is allowing others to be and accepting them without forcing them to change. Since the universe is based on unconditional love then logically each individual is born with their own free will.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by arpee

The universe is based on yang (good/light/love) since yin doesn't exist and is just the absence of yang.

again, traditionally yin/yang is thought of differently as most, if not all, would not say the universe is based on yang. and that yin doesn't exist. they would say the universe is based on yin/yang.

but that's just the conventional use of yin/yang in taoism. which isn't what you are talking about with you are using yin/yang.

but - if I take on your redefinitions... why even mention yin (the absence of yang) if it's doesn't exist? oh, never mind. it's too far off the real usage of yin/yang I don't care to continue asking how you are defining everything.

Unconditional love is allowing others to be and accepting them without forcing them to change. Since the universe is based on unconditional love then logically each individual is born with their own free will.

I am not able to follow this.

[arpee]

Darkness and Coldness also does not exist, there is only light and heat, darkness is the absence of light and coldness is the absence of heat, but we still define those terms. That is why yin is still important even though it doesn't really exist.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The point of interest is that the conscious mind does not dictate the choices but merely experiences them. Whatever you identify as the free willy, it is not choosing consciously but rather is subject to it's own conditioning which it did not consciously choose to form.

It means that experience is happening sans the author of that experience.

Argh. Point taken. Intensely disempowering...But true!

Originally Posted by Circle

And I am reminded of a Bertrand Russell Quote at your desperate attempts to deny free will through such poorly relevant videos.

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

- Bertrand Russell"

Funnily enough I would have to admit to being that man in regards to this topic. Watch the video again, it's completely relevant. In fact it goes right to the heart of the matter.