Free Will Mix

[Arising_uk]

The words of a post menopausal whack job of a ****, named KIM!!!!! Did I mention in self denial? Fearful of your own shadow, are you?

See what a Yank you are?

You think your opinion of my name affects me Billy-Bob?

You think your misapplication of my gender affects me?

[Arising_uk]

Speak for yourself dip shit, ...

I am you idiot.

oh yeah I forgot, you fear what that is don't you?

What is it you forgot? As I have no eyed-deer what you are now babbling about?

[Arising_uk]

That's a good point, how does it feel to simply be a depository.

Again I have no eyed-deer what you are squawking about?

But you tell me, "how does it feel to simply be a depository"?

[Arising_uk]

This coming from a post menopausal whack job that believes in 'magic' like a little girl, Is that what menopause did to you sweetie, cause you to revert back to your childhood? Magic what a fucking fool! That kind of title only appeals to children.

And only a child gets put off a book by its title without perusing its contents first.

Keep that misogyny up, it becomes you.

[Arising_uk]

Oh is that why you jump at every chance to wave you fucking colorful rag, with the prophet no less, do you know how childish that is, in the eyes of a true philosopher? ...

Pay attention! Bob only gets this response from me when he's playing the Yank.

As if you'd know what a "true philosopher" was but lmao that you actually think this term has meaning.

You wouldn't know true philosophy if it bit you on the ass. You've always believed you were nothing, and decided to parrot all kinds of material to prove to the world that you're not. But in the end you're just a fucking depository, that has a problem with circular logic! Kimmy want a cracker?

Save your psycho-babble for yourself and your shrink.

"true philosophy". Only someone who has read bugger all philosophy would say such a thing.

[Arising_uk]

You're actually dumb enough to think you can actually hurt me with what I've put out there, as if I would be dumb enough to provide you with ammo? ...

Get a grip! I give two tosses about 'hurting' you. I was expressing my feelings at your words. That you think this way just shows how little your sessions have helped you.

You forget that it's you, that fears what you are, so as to hide behind Foghorn Leghorn, a cartoon character, that probably believes in magic, the magic of animation. You project your concerns and fears upon me, which is what I've been trying to tell you from the start, you seem to argue with yourself.

Nope, I ask you simple questions and they end up in this kind of drivel, but again, save your psycho-burble for yourself.

I am regretting using that avatar that I brought over from a face-book fad. As before that I'd never used one as it leads numbnuts like you to read psychological insights into them. But I'm now stubborn enough to keep it just to laugh at the 'insights' and responses it gets. Its like my nik, chosen purely by random circumstance, a mishearing of the radio 4 shipping forecast whilst registering if anyones interested and the _uk comes about because I've found it an easy way make any nik unique so I don't get the registration problem - "This name has been taken, please try again" - it too leads to no end of humour at the insights people appear to have about it. Although it has led to me thinking some thoughts that I'd not considered so synchronicity still holds.

[marjoramblues]

All these tit-for-tat postings and justifications - just so much trash. Can't someone take it out, please.
If this is supposed to be some kind of therapy comparison, the benefits of NLP versus God knows what, then why not go to Philo Counselling ? Or is that just some kind of a joke that nobody would be seen dead in...

[Arising_uk]

Kim, I understand now, so I'm sorry for verbally abusing you, It all makes sense now. You're getting older and feel inadequate, you despise yourself and don't want anyone to know of those things that you despise in you, being a female, your age and such. Because if you knew those things about someone else, instead of caring for them and having sympathy for them, you'd use that information to abuse them, as you've tried to do to me. So it's a matter of your projection, that you've tried to abuse me. I'm just sorry that you feel that way about yourself, and wonder who did this to you. Again, I'm sorry, I just didn't realize the full nature of you neuroses before. From now on I shall allow you to abuse me how ever you want, without retaliation, knowing that you can't help yourself, but I highly suggest you seek a psychologist well versed in Jung's theory on neurosis, he seems to be an authority on the subject, because I'm sorry to say that NLP and that Magic book has seriously failed you. Just trying to be helpful.

with Love,

Spheres of Balance

LMFAO!! Ooo!! Nasty! I'm all of a tremble.

That you think someone repeating their feelings about these so called personal truths that you spew out just shows how much truth appears to affect you. That you gush them for sympathy just shows how far the Yank has fallen down the emotional public confessional or is that urinal.

The more I listen to your misogynistic patriarchal psycho-babble, based upon a cultural blinker you call your 'gender intution', the more I feel for Kayla and AS who have to leave in a world where the dinosaurs still roam the plains.

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watch you destroy your carefully constructed 'balanced' persona.

Wanker.

[Arising_uk]

Nothing to say about SOB's summary, then ?

He didn't want me to comment upon it?

[Arising_uk]

I'm not jumpin in on Arising's side here. I'm exposing him to you. He needs no help.

Ooo! I feel quite naked!

[marjoramblues]

Kim, I understand now, so I'm sorry for verbally abusing you, It all makes sense now. You're getting older and feel inadequate, you despise yourself and don't want anyone to know of those things that you despise in you, being a female, your age and such. Because if you knew those things about someone else, instead of caring for them and having sympathy for them, you'd use that information to abuse them, as you've tried to do to me. So it's a matter of your projection, that you've tried to abuse me. I'm just sorry that you feel that way about yourself, and wonder who did this to you. Again, I'm sorry, I just didn't realize the full nature of you neuroses before. From now on I shall allow you to abuse me how ever you want, without retaliation, knowing that you can't help yourself, but I highly suggest you seek a psychologist well versed in Jung's theory on neurosis, he seems to be an authority on the subject, because I'm sorry to say that NLP and that Magic book has seriously failed you. Just trying to be helpful.

with Love,

Spheres of Balance

LMFAO!! Ooo!! Nasty! I'm all of a tremble.

That you think someone repeating their feelings about these so called personal truths that you spew out just shows how much truth appears to affect you. That you gush them for sympathy just shows how far the Yank has fallen down the emotional public confessional or is that urinal.

The more I listen to your misogynistic patriarchal psycho-babble, based upon a cultural blinker you call your 'gender intution', the more I feel for Kayla and AS who have to leave in a world where the dinosaurs still roam the plains.

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watch you destroy your carefully constructed 'balanced' persona.

Wanker.

Now, you're just having a larf...play on...
Are threads, here, never closed for business ? What about a wrap-up party ?

[SpheresOfBalance]

To Kim, You must be taking this seriously, or you wouldn't be posting. Would it make a difference as to the value you place on your argument, with your constant condescension, via among other things, your emoticon usage, if visually I looked much like Stephen Hawking, in a wheel chair, connected to a computer via a little stick that I control with my mouth, such that it takes me all day to answer one of our long winded posts, and that I've suffered from multiple vascular problems including DVT which is actually what those lumps in my scrotum are, that these blood clots have migrated throughout my body and as a result, yesterday after reading your nastiness about me and my father, the mental anguish caused me a physical setback in my brain, which is nothing new, as I have suffered many mini strokes to date. I mean you are victorious, as you have managed to physically do harm to me. Does your victory taste very sweet? You say that I am no philosopher, yet I say that the odds are that you've failed to grasp the essence of the point I've just made, and shall continue to "fight" people as you do, not seeing what is really important. So called human knowledge is merely an illusion afforded by ones current perspective such that it only exists in ones own mind as a product of what they currently do not know, which actually only gives way to what the think they know. And that in the face of this truth you apparently think that statements like the following about Godfree are warranted, and I quote:

A fucking BA(Hons) Degree in Philosophy and a MSc degree in AI is where I get my arrogance to judge you dipshit! Where do you get yours?

and:

I think you the most confused dipshit I've chatted to on this forum for a long time. And that is saying something.

And for those that did not witness this, it can be found in the thread titled "Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion." I want to add that at no time did Godfree treat her with so much disdain, and contempt!

But I guess that was just the limitations of your free will that reared it's ugly head. Just go on hurting people, because obviously, all that matters is that you think you're right at all costs, I can only imagine what kind of mother you were.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watch you destroy your carefully constructed 'balanced' persona.

Again you project your self upon me. I have carefully constructed nothing, it is you that carefully constructs your image, your persona. Like I have told you in the past "I AM AN IDIOT!. I do not even think. Absolutely all of this that you have ever read of me is not example of me thinking, it just comes out, as I read what it is that you have written. The things that I actually think about are boring day to day things, like what I'll make for dinner and such. I see myself as merely a recording device, that takes everything in and my subconscious organizes it, and makes sense of all the connections, and then when I read something, it just comes out pre-formatted and ready to go. Does this truth somehow qualify the essence of your faith in the strength of your argument? Do you feel as though your time and energy are justly rewarded? If you, being of perfect body, won a race against a man with no legs below his knees, how would you quantify your victory, how would you express that to the world? How would all that differ if you perceived that you were equally matched instead, and what is actually held within this belief of equality?

But I am no philosopher.

Remember, Spheres of Balance absolutely, never had anything to do with me. It's just a nym. At no time did it occur to me, as you see it, until you mentioned it. I coined it in 1994, I believe, I can't remember, and it was to something totally unrelated to this forum, philosophy, yes, but me, never!

You enjoy watching a man destroyed, and now we come to the crux of your matter.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...spewing his psychological issues out in a philosophy forum. Who gives a shit about your past mate?

Yes I believe it's true that you care for no one but yourself, as evidenced by how you treat people here. Why do I find myself feeling sorry for your children? Who has hurt you that bad, was it an ex husband, yes I seem to remember something as to that during your talks with Satyr. Did a man hurt you so bad that you hold all men accountable on some level? I'm sorry, for anything that I've said, to demean you, in my frustration in dealing with you, as I'm just now understanding the brunt of your ills, I apologize!

[SpheresOfBalance]

For Notvacka, NOT Kim: As to free Will, I had said:

Thanks for this summary SOB and whoever/whatever prompted it - like some others, I haven't been following the thread from the start, so I appreciate it. I'll try to respond and hope that it hasn't been addressed before.
I, SOB, follow you in purple for rapid delineation's sake.

It's a ridiculous assertion, as all reasons are your choice. The scales have been calibrated by you and therefore you can tweak the scales at any time and in any direction you choose. Of course we are bound by our humanity, in that one cannot choose to fly to the moon "on the Silent wings of Freedom."

I'm not sure what the assertion was, so I'm not sure that I understand 'all reasons are your choice'. What 'scales' are you talking about?
I forgot, I could retrieve it for you, but you can do that as well. Some of this comes from the thread titled: "Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve" Created by: "Philosophy Now," the rest is from this thread. Obviously some of this is contextual, so I ask that anything I fail to address in this post that you'd like me to address, that you find it contextually in the appropriate thread, and if you still require explanation attach it to that thread with a quote.

So human free will does exist, within the bounds of what it is in being human.

AND:

What some of you seem to forget, is that your subconscious is you.

I agree that we have free will up to a point; with many restrictions either externally or internally imposed.
I don't see them as restrictions per-say, I see that this is a part of the definition of humanities free will, otherwise one see's "free Will" as an object, in and of itself. Since we are talking of humanities free will, what it is to be human binds it's definition.

Don't know enough about the subconscious; but would have thought that the idea of 'self' would include all physical and mental aspects.
Please refer to the specific context.

Since you were conceived/born you have been building it as per the environmental stimulus of your exposure, for the first 5 years, especially the first year.

This suggests that we actively build our own subconscious; I thought that it would be more of a passive thing.
This of course is why I talk of a total loving environment until 5, but obviously the baby responds to the stimulus, giving way to the psyche (ego, self) I should make it clear that I am of the school of thought that babies have only instincts at birth, it's the instinctual response to a given stimulus that causes either a calm, cool, collected child, or one in disarray, full of internal conflict, and confusion, thus curbing it's free will.

This is why I see the importance that absolutely 'no' extraordinarily harsh situations are experienced during this time period. The first year should be nothing but love, soft and sweet as in touch, sound, smell, taste and finally sight, nurture is the buzzword. Anything that is extreme, shall taint the formation of the subconscious psyche, and destroy the full potential of that life. This includes a slap on the ass and circumcision, birth is traumatic in and of itself. At no point should we experience shock no matter how slight during that first year. During the next four it should be held to the bare minimum, but there is a little room for an ever so slightly more harsh environment.

I agree that the early years of nurture are important in our formation. However, if there is 'nothing but love' then this too is 'extreme' and it could be argued that this is as likely to 'taint' the formation in only providing the 'good'. This would lead to being less aware of any 'bad' and poor preparation for what is to come. What might be provided as 'loving in sight' might prove traumatic - thinking of big bearded Santa Claus - or the masked clown.
Sure, you or anyone can argue it, but I see that I'm correct, if one believes that 90% of the human psyche if formed in the first year of life with the last 10% being formed during the following four. I had said elsewhere that after the first year they can be introduced to slight negativity, but the adult must ensure that their (adults) selfishness is not a factor, the negativity must be solely for the babies own good, thus not actually negativity from he babies perspective, and the child must be made to understand as much, that the negativity actually behooves them.

This is the method to ensure you have the freest mind of purity that shall be more capable to weather the storms of adulthood, as their foundation, in their dealings, shall be free and calm, with singular resolve.

I don't think that any such method will ensure anything.
Obviously, I believe I know otherwise.

In the other extreme the subconscious is a swirling mass of confusion born of internal conflict in response to negative, conflicting external stimuli, that thwarts the freedom of will that would have been a pure self supporting system, otherwise.

I don't understand this; could you please explain, thanks.
I'm merely stating that of the opposite as I present above.

The argument of subconscious versus conscious, in a balanced life, as I've indicated above, is a moot point, as they are both one in the same, at least as much as possible, because a calm, clear and free life is what we all want,

I'm not sure that you can state what we all want; some love to argue and love the buzz of chaos. It would be pretty boring if we were calm all the time and pretty much dangerous if everyone had a 'free life' to do as they pleased. Also, can't see the connection here to the 'argument of subconscious v conscious', whatever that is ?
Again this was a contextual thing, so you'd have to see the original thread, but as to the "what we all want" bit, I see that your objection is a product of thing's not being as I've suggested they should be, in your life's experience, and I see that the only way one could possibly judge it's validity, would be to travel down both paths, the one of their current life, and the one I present above, and while one could say the same of me, the one that coined such an assertion, I believe that if it possible to travel down both paths and give honest unbiased report, "all" would then agree with my assertion, obviously it's my belief, but I am confident that my view truly supports each individual and their best interests.

and it all starts from day one, if the parents understand and implement this clearly loving, positive and consistent method, of psyche formation.

AND:

I believe that the free will issue is kind of BS.

I'm tempted to agree with you here; but then again, I'm not sure. I think that all sorts of philo issues are BS and we should move on and deal with what is important in our world right now. Can't we just presume that everyone just knows what is right ?
OK, I see that what I've presented above is one of the main reasons why we have the current problems that we do, and I see your assertion above as contradictory, because I submit that if everyone knew what was right we would not have the problems that we currently do. I'm not saying that it would cure "all" problems, just that the ones we'd experience would be ever so slight as compared to the ones we currently afford.

Of course we have free will, there is no doubt. But it's also true the our lives are a product of the legacies handed down from generation to generation, and that within these various legacies, various people pay particular attention to these various differing lessons and find their own various particular concerns.

It would be nice if we were powerful enough to contain all of the knowledge of mankind within our brains, but we can't. If we could, then no doubt we'd all choose the same things, and you could then see where free will would illuminate the best choices very clearly. Thus we all have varyingly different tool boxes, we all choose varyingly different tools, some invent varyingly new toolboxes and tools, or we could throw them all away. The choice is always ours and ours alone, we just choose to make those choices that wherein we see the greatest value, are easiest, provide what we want, are a product of tradition, etc.

Yes, I want it all; I wanted to know everything yesterday - what a good person I would be, not ! I'd cut out the best choice for me, and to hell with everyone else. Yes, I'd know that my best value - 3 for 2 - would provide exactly what I want. But would it be what I needed for growth ? My free will to choose does not necessarily 'illuminate the best choice'. And we wouldn't all choose the same things...
Again I see that you speak of what I attest from your current perspective, alien to my assertion. You would first have to understand the whole of my understanding in order to fully judge any particular constituent. In what I present there would be no "to hell with everyone else" there would only be we, us, a bonded team that loved one another, in common goal, the balanced existence of humanity rightfully situated in our biosphere. Then the true potential of humanity could be realized as our combined aim was focused. We could then truly be that intergalactic species thought to be of fiction.

Just because they are a part of the current construct, that is the current state of human kind, doesn't necessarily mean there is no free will. It's just that, at the time an individual chooses, it's from their correspondent connections to their particular world, that seems like the most logical or emotional choice, given the presented variables. Those that see us not having free will, see the things where we agree more readily. Those that see us as having free will, see the things where we disagree more readily.

I don't understand the last 2 sentences.
Just that our commonality seems to suggest no free will, while our differences seem to suggest free will, If I remember correctly, again context might be at issue.

So we each have free will, only to the extent of our own bubbles of knowledge and understanding, within the realm of possibilities, as presented by the reality of existence.

This makes sense to me.
And is kind of a summery, a general statement as to the essence of human freewill.

Sure we are all programmed, but unlike a computer we can choose to alter the code once we understand the code. I don't see our hardware as static as a computers.

What code are you talking about ?
The code I speak of is the programming we receive that forms our psyche from day one, specifically the bad code, those inputs that cause us to see and respond to things less than optimally, that of selfishness, betrayal, anger, deceit, low self esteem, the using of people, etc.

At least that's how I see it!

AND:

Funny, I've never been to a day of church in my life, and I believe in free will, within it's container, of course, which is shaped by it's individual owner.

What has you not ever being 'to a day of church' go to do with your believing in free will ?
Because, Arising_uk had said, "I thought philosophers had agreed with Schopenhauer about the Will and that 'free-will' is a misnomer created by the religious to address their problem with their will and their 'gods' will?"

Definition follows:
------------------------------------------
free will
noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
------------------------------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

All the rest is Kim and I arguing about our inabilities to effectively communicate with one another.

I'm not inclined to check back, but I would hope that there were some other positive contributions.
Well you'll have to do so if you 'really' want more.