Philosophy Now Forum

I believe I covered both cotingencies of the Past:
1. The past as a physical state of actual existence, and
2. The past as a condition of the knowing subject

I contiually choose what constitutes all factors of my self. I am absolutly free.

lancek4 wrote:I believe I covered both cotingencies of the Past:
1. The past as a physical state of actual existence, and
2. The past as a condition of the knowing subject

I contiually choose what constitutes all factors of my self. I am absolutly free.

Saying it does not make it so.

How can the past be a state of existence?
How can the past be a condition? Surely it can only be the object of imagination?

You still have not really said what you mean by free. Free from, free of, free by ?

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I believe I covered both cotingencies of the Past:
1. The past as a physical state of actual existence, and
2. The past as a condition of the knowing subject

I contiually choose what constitutes all factors of my self. I am absolutly free.

Saying it does not make it so.

How can the past be a state of existence?
How can the past be a condition? Surely it can only be the object of imagination?

You still have not really said what you mean by free. Free from, free of, free by ?

I was just covering the possibilities of the past; it is not of conern if there is a 'physical-actual' past or not.
But to address your questions:
A state of existence would be analogous to, say, water: gas, liquid, solid. If existance has a "water" quality about it, then the past, present and future could be states of existence similar to gas, liquid, solid. In this way, we could speak of the past as being a state of existence.
Or,
If existence is entirely constituted in the present, and the present in knowledge, then we could say that the past is a condition of knowledge: a condition of existence.

Either way the meaning to choice is the same: either way I am choosing to orient reality in such a way for such a purpose which suits my free choice.

Free Choice is the activity of the individual that is separated from the contigency of the rest of the universe; the free choice implicates itself in and upon the universe but the universe only offers itself to the individual.

And you have to be kidding about the 'imagination' bit, surely.

lancek4 wrote:I believe I covered both cotingencies of the Past:
1. The past as a physical state of actual existence, and
2. The past as a condition of the knowing subject

I contiually choose what constitutes all factors of my self. I am absolutly free.

Saying it does not make it so.

How can the past be a state of existence?
How can the past be a condition? Surely it can only be the object of imagination?

You still have not really said what you mean by free. Free from, free of, free by ?[/quote][/quote]

I was just covering the possibilities of the past; it is not of conern if there is a 'physical-actual' past or not.
But to address your questions:
A state of existence would be analogous to, say, water: gas, liquid, solid. If existance has a "water" quality about it, then the past, present and future could be states of existence similar to gas, liquid, solid. In this way, we could speak of the past as being a state of existence.
Or,
If existence is entirely constituted in the present, and the present in knowledge, then we could say that the past is a condition of knowledge: a condition of existence.

Either way the meaning to choice is the same: either way I am choosing to orient reality in such a way for such a purpose which suits my free choice.

Free Choice is the activity of the individual that is separated from the contigency of the rest of the universe; the free choice implicates itself in and upon the universe but the universe only offers itself to the individual.

And you have to be kidding about the 'imagination' bit, surely.[/quote]

You are not even starting to sound convincing.
Neither knowledge nor the past are conditions of existence, and existence is not watery.
I fail to see why you are saying these things. None of this makes any sense.
But worst of all, none of this supports your claim of freedom.

"Free Choice is the activity of the individual that is separated from the contigency of the rest of the universe."

I do not accept the existence of transcendency.
If Free Choice is separate then it has no meaning or effect; no existence. It is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.
QED: Determinism rules okay.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I believe I covered both cotingencies of the Past:
1. The past as a physical state of actual existence, and
2. The past as a condition of the knowing subject

I contiually choose what constitutes all factors of my self. I am absolutly free.

Saying it does not make it so.
yes it does

How can the past be a state of existence?
How can the past be a condition? Surely it can only be the object of imagination?

You still have not really said what you mean by free. Free from, free of, free by ?

[/quote]

I was just covering the possibilities of the past; it is not of conern if there is a 'physical-actual' past or not.
But to address your questions:
A state of existence would be analogous to, say, water: gas, liquid, solid. If existance has a "water" quality about it, then the past, present and future could be states of existence similar to gas, liquid, solid. In this way, we could speak of the past as being a state of existence.
Or,
If existence is entirely constituted in the present, and the present in knowledge, then we could say that the past is a condition of knowledge: a condition of existence.

Either way the meaning to choice is the same: either way I am choosing to orient reality in such a way for such a purpose which suits my free choice.

Free Choice is the activity of the individual that is separated from the contigency of the rest of the universe; the free choice implicates itself in and upon the universe but the universe only offers itself to the individual.

And you have to be kidding about the 'imagination' bit, surely.[/quote]

You are not even starting to sound convincing.
Neither knowledge nor the past are conditions of existence, and existence is not watery.
I fail to see why you are saying these things. None of this makes any sense.
But worst of all, none of this supports your claim of freedom.

"Free Choice is the activity of the individual that is separated from the contigency of the rest of the universe."

I do not accept the existence of transcendency.
If Free Choice is separate then it has no meaning or effect; no existence. It is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.
QED: Determinism rules okay.[/quote]
no its not

Aahhh indeed
How could we be separate from the universe of which we are a part?
How is it that I can know I have a free choice? That I am sufficiently separated to proclaim - ah: know - that I have a true choice?

How might I be free 'enough' to know there are subatomic, basic particles of the universe that 'determines' me? To choose that there are such particles? Such randomness?

because...because...because...aaAHHH!!!!!

BE_CAUSE!!

attofishpi wrote:because...because...because...aaAHHH!!!!!

BE_CAUSE!!

Be Cause: being and causation. Because of the wonderful things he does?

It is still a little insulting for you to assume I don't know what you mean with all the spiritual reason and coming to know 'god' and stuff.

God has told me to not stop and rely upon platitudinous existential statements of spiritual epiphany. He told me to go go go question question question and do not lapse into the comfort of "it is the way it is". He told me that to question is my plight.

So does that fit into your scheme of Truth very well?

lancek4 wrote:

attofishpi wrote:because...because...because...aaAHHH!!!!!

BE_CAUSE!!

Be Cause: being and causation. Because of the wonderful things he does?

It is still a little insulting for you to assume I don't know what you mean with all the spiritual reason and coming to know 'god' and stuff.

God has told me to not stop and rely upon platitudinous existential statements of spiritual epiphany. He told me to go go go question question question and do not lapse into the comfort of "it is the way it is". He told me that to question is my plight.

So does that fit into your scheme of Truth very well?

You shouldn't find it at all insulting. You presumed i assumed. I did ask you whether you were a\theist?

That is your scheme of Truth...to question inc. fellow posters. Go right ahead.

Are we ions? Quest_ion at will. But i will be rather short in relation to personal experience.

You could do worse than look at the structure of the English language. LAN gauge?

Ok so we agree on the BEing stuff. So what else? We have to engage with people somehow. Are we looking for converts?

lancek4 wrote:Ok so we agree on the BEing stuff. So what else? We have to engage with people somehow. Are we looking for converts?

Yes...i am working on a project to be released end of Feb to do just that...

attofishpi wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Ok so we agree on the BEing stuff. So what else? We have to engage with people somehow. Are we looking for converts?

Yes...i am working on a project to be released end of Feb to do just that...

Wait wait wait -what??? your are working on a project to be released for the purpose of conveting people to your belief system?
you have got to be joking!!

Right?

Well, thats just great.
So, Anyways -

Please tell me why you think you have come upon the "Truth" of the matter.

and BTW: how did we get here:

can we get back to An Argument about Free Will?

I assert that I entirely choose my reality at all times.
I have chosen to have this veiw; freely.

lancek4 wrote:Please tell me why you think you have come upon the "Truth" of the matter.

Please be patient.

attofishpi wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Please tell me why you think you have come upon the "Truth" of the matter.

Please be patient.

Hell has already frozen over