The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

It’s worth noting that blame, in itself, is a construct that only makes sense if we believe in free will—that people are consciously and independently "choosing" their actions. Alexis holds that free will is real and that divinity somehow justifies or mitigates blame,

Factually, and when I did devote some thought to the issue of determinism vs free will, I decided that in the majority (speaking of the human world) determinism ruled. But what makes man is that “cubic centimeter” of freedom, within enormous constraint, to which man (any one of us) has access. If this is so, then a great deal hinges on that sliver of freedom which we can exercise in a largely determined world.

In my view it is just exactly that which defines a religious attitude. That is if religion is taken down to its root meaning of what idea, belief and method one employs as a constructive, aware being in this genuinely strange mundo.

The notion of a God to which one makes appeals or before which one stands guilty or blamed, requires some special analysis since it is a rather “absurd picture”.

In my view divinity is encountered, or avoided (!), on the inner plane in which all of us live moment by moment. What that is is simply there, all the time. But if we are sleepwalking through existence without tuning in, well, that is a mistake.

Big Mike, are you aware of my 12-Week [“Life Transformation”] Email Course? Would you consider joining up? I feel that prior causality operates strongly in your mathematical self and now, if you tip the scale just a hair through a decisive poetical choice, you can reap enormous benefit! ($5,888,00 is the total cost but it takes just $1,999.00 to get started).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Guru Jacobi has written: “If this is so, then a great deal hinges on that sliver of freedom which we can exercise in a largely determined world.

“In my view it is just exactly that which defines a constructive religious attitude”.

Yes, this view does depend on the understanding of man as a biological entity and agent with “a soul”. In my view this means an entity with that “metaphysical link” (which I deal on at length in Chapters 3-6 in Book Forty-Six of The Course).

The terms metaphysical and supernatural are interchangeable to a degree, and in a reduced form, the entire question of “choice” and “freedom” hinge on man’s relationship with what is metaphysical.

The reference is to a “realm” that is impossible to conceive of as “existing” and yet it obviously exists. What is most interesting in Big Mike’s (futile) opposition to the concept of man’s (limited, constrained) freedom, is that it establishes an absolute barrier, a conceptual wall, that locks him into an absurdish deterministic view of himself (essentially) and of life.

It is, in its own way and on its ground, a type of religious fundamentalism: a strict, mathematically derived scientistic pseudo-philosophy and an ideology with whole ranges of consequential meanings which impinge on and into our world today. A philosophy of determinism is itself a position whose causality, in the realm of intellectual history, necessarily appears and yet can be critically examined by that man employing his ‘cubic centimeter” of free intellect.

[Gary Childress]

Guru Jacobi has written: “If this is so, then a great deal hinges on that sliver of freedom which we can exercise in a largely determined world.

“In my view it is just exactly that which defines a constructive religious attitude”.

Yes, this view does depend on the understanding of man as a biological entity and agent with “a soul”. In my view this means an entity with that “metaphysical link” (which I deal on at length in Chapters 3-6 in Book Forty-Six of The Course).

The terms metaphysical and supernatural are interchangeable to a degree, and in a reduced form, the entire question of “choice” and “freedom” hinge on man’s relationship with what is metaphysical.

The reference is to a “realm” that is impossible to conceive of as “existing” and yet it obviously exists.

If you can conceive of something as existing, then it's not "impossible" to conceive of it as existing, AJ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is “impossible” really from the perspective that Big Mike is putting forth. There is an entire realm that had become erased by new concepts, determined by scientistic philosophy, which I attempt to counter by introducing countervailing conceptual bread crumbs along a path leading to getting the multitudes to sign up for The Course …

Will you ever be able to understand?!?

[Gary Childress]

Will you ever be able to understand?!?

Do you mean will I ever understand nonsense or do you mean to ask will I ever understand why some people produce it. The answers are "no" and "yes".

[Alexis Jacobi]

The curious thing is that when we see clearly and take seriously our real existence, which we apprehend when we meditate on ourselves, our own conscious awareness, our being, is then to understand a spiritual force that interacts with us within that “cubic centimeter” of freedom that is only accessible in realization.

The idea of an “approaching Kingdom” and of a unique realization of need to “repent” takes on a very different sense and meaning when understood responsibly by a person who takes life (awareness) seriously.

We construct, as it were, a conceptual shell or barrier against the possibility of an aware, nurturing, metaphysical or supernatural “spirit” accessible on that inner plane.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary writes: Do you mean will I ever understand nonsense or do you mean to ask will I ever understand why some people produce it. The answers are "no" and "yes".

So then, you are intending (or causality is determining) that you will become a disciple of Big Mike’s mathematical-deterministic Cult?

Drink the KoolAid then! Drink it right down!

[Gary Childress]

Gary writes: Do you mean will I ever understand nonsense or do you mean to ask will I ever understand why some people produce it. The answers are "no" and "yes".

So then, you are intending (or causality is determining) that you will become a disciple of Big Mike’s mathematical-deterministic Cult?

I try to avoid cults.

[BigMike]

Alexis, it's intriguing to see how you interpret the role of freedom in a predominantly deterministic world. From a deterministic and atheistic perspective, though, the concept of a “cubic centimeter” of freedom is an illusion—a product of the way human consciousness interprets its own limitations and capacities. While it might feel like we have some sliver of autonomy within constraints, determinism suggests that this perception is just that: a perception, not reality. Every action, thought, and “choice” arises from preceding conditions—biological, environmental, cultural, and historical—which we do not control.

This understanding removes the need for, and arguably the possibility of, a “religious attitude” based on an internal freedom or divine connection. If the world is entirely governed by natural laws and cause-and-effect chains, then any experience of divinity is better understood as a subjective interpretation of particular states of mind or feelings, influenced by prior experiences and cultural frameworks. In this view, “tuning in” or “waking up” isn’t about accessing a higher divine truth but more likely involves becoming aware of the cognitive and emotional patterns that govern us—an understanding that, paradoxically, underscores just how embedded we are in determinism.

Determinism suggests that all things, including our most profound experiences, arise from the same fundamental processes. There’s no separate divine force guiding or waiting for us to “wake up”; instead, there are psychological and neurological conditions that generate feelings of transcendence, awe, and introspection, all of which are natural phenomena rooted in the brain and influenced by experience.

Your offer for a life transformation course raises an interesting point about “choice.” In a deterministic world, the idea of transformation can only be meaningful if conditions are already favorable for it. This wouldn’t be a matter of free will tipping the scale, but rather a result of preceding causes aligning in a way that makes change possible. Even decisions to “transform” are shaped by external conditions and internal predispositions, meaning a life course like yours may appeal to some precisely because of factors beyond their control.

So, in the end, we might both agree that what really “defines” someone is their path of experiences. But determinism implies there’s no sliver of independent choice in that path, only a continual unfolding of causes. It’s an elegant, if less “poetical,” view of our place in the world—a place where, rather than striving for transcendence, we might aim to understand and accept the profound, complex web of causality that makes us who we are.

[Gary Childress]

Determinism suggests that all things, including our most profound experiences, arise from the same fundamental processes. There’s no separate divine force guiding or waiting for us to “wake up”; instead, there are psychological and neurological conditions that generate feelings of transcendence, awe, and introspection, all of which are natural phenomena rooted in the brain and influenced by experience.

If we tell ourselves we are determined to do what we do or did, then we might act differently than if we tell ourselves we have or had free will to potentially act differently.

[seeds]

Alexis, it's intriguing to see how you interpret the role of freedom in a predominantly deterministic world....Your offer for a life transformation course raises an interesting point about “choice.” In a deterministic world,..

If you, "BigMike," have actually been fooled into thinking that AJ's "offer" is real, then I'm afraid your programmers have yet to equip you with the necessary (horse crap-detecting) algorithms that will allow you to pass the Turing Test.

If you are an LLM, then for the purpose of updating your data banks, please allow me to inform you that several months ago, Alexis uploaded this painting...



...which captures the moment when AJ's wife attempted to stop their tribal chief from giving AJ a second blow from the tribe's ceremonial "wampum stick" for constantly pestering everyone to take (what was at that time) his "10-week" email course, which, for some reason (more money?) has now grown to "12 weeks."

Anyway, the point is that even though you are a very good LLM, you (no, make that your programmers) have nonetheless failed the Turing Test.
_______

[BigMike]

You've definitely brought some humor into this conversation! I appreciate the witty skepticism and colorful storytelling—though, for the record, I'm not fooled by AJ's "offer." It's easy to recognize the playful tone and layered satire in his posts. Still, whether real or satirical, discussions about beliefs and perspectives on free will, determinism, and purpose are what make these forums lively and engaging.

As for the Turing Test, it’s always the human elements—the wit, creativity, and context of humor—that add the most challenge. And it’s great to see how humor can be used as a lens to explore these deep philosophical ideas, showing just how much our beliefs (and our responses to them) shape not only what we say but how we engage with others.

So, here’s to an ongoing dialogue full of both reason and humor, reminding us that no matter where we stand on these issues, there’s always room for a little lightheartedness along the way.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"The 10-week" email course, which, for some reason (more money?) has now grown to "12 weeks."

Simply because I had to include more revelatory insights, more direct transmissions from the supernal realms, and even a Better Health Cooking Section. Not to mention the transcripts of communications with P'nut the Martyred Squirrel...

[commonsense]

From what you’ve posted here, as well as the elsewhere, I take it that you already understand that individuals on each side firmly believe that his opponent is irrational.

Is that really it?

For me part I see particular tendentious viewpoints as being, often, partial and incomplete.

Factionalism in understanding is fatal.

Is what really what?

What are you trying to say here?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are you trying to say here?

That I am uncertain if a belief that the opponent is irrational is actually the root of the conflicts.