Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:...And one ring to bind them.

lancek4 wrote:...And one ring to bind them.

lancek4 wrote:...And one ring to bind them.

lancek4 wrote:Ah yes; I did not have the exact quote at hand.

"And in the darkness bind them".

The all seeing eye of absolute truth will not allow a hero, draws all foreign into itself an creates a unity of common effort.

And even as one may use the one ring for good, the wielder is thwarted in his effort by his own effort, and thereby becomes the very thing he was attempting to avoid or overcome.

Great mythology!

And yet there cannot be one without the other, good and bad; only in the reference to a beginning and end, as to a story or novel in this case, does 'good' win out, but evil will never be erradicated and will inevitably arise again to allow for the hero and the great battle.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Ah yes; I did not have the exact quote at hand.

"And in the darkness bind them".

The all seeing eye of absolute truth will not allow a hero, draws all foreign into itself an creates a unity of common effort.

And even as one may use the one ring for good, the wielder is thwarted in his effort by his own effort, and thereby becomes the very thing he was attempting to avoid or overcome.

Great mythology!

And yet there cannot be one without the other, good and bad; only in the reference to a beginning and end, as to a story or novel in this case, does 'good' win out, but evil will never be erradicated and will inevitably arise again to allow for the hero and the great battle.

Only for those that make it so, through their belief.

If you say you can, or you say you can't, you're right!
--Henry Ford--

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Ah yes; I did not have the exact quote at hand.

"And in the darkness bind them".

The all seeing eye of absolute truth will not allow a hero, draws all foreign into itself an creates a unity of common effort.

And even as one may use the one ring for good, the wielder is thwarted in his effort by his own effort, and thereby becomes the very thing he was attempting to avoid or overcome.

Great mythology!

And yet there cannot be one without the other, good and bad; only in the reference to a beginning and end, as to a story or novel in this case, does 'good' win out, but evil will never be erradicated and will inevitably arise again to allow for the hero and the great battle.

Only for those that make it so, through their belief.

If you say you can, or you say you can't, you're right!
--Henry Ford--

Indeed; those who have made themselves not accountable to this world by their 'free will', has asserted the maxim of our world and has inadvertantly conformed with the opposite of free will in that his 'freedom' has been informed by that system of individual freedom. In this, the contradiction involved posits Our world, and the foreclosure of such freedom is come upon just as the novel, so that ethicaly the individual can only be free within a morality of the group. The 'hero' of freedom only exists as the counterpart to that which would call upon a wholeness, a common heroic endeavor, as opposed to the free individual hero, by which to bring about the unity of the 'one ring' the 'all seeing eye' that is the common ethics, the common cause.
The hero would ironically bring about the common ethics by his own cause, his own purpose and reason, but the 'all seeing eye' will not recognize this individual; it only recognizes the individual in the group of a common purpose and so subsumes such 'free will' unto itself. And proclaims the free will of group conformity.

What Maxim?

And I 'believe' you have it twisted around, the all seeing eye sought power over everyone for it's own selfish needs, but it would 'seem' that you liken it to the absolute truth, which is not seeking anything at all, it has nothing to gain or loose, it's just the conditions of which we are bound; the nature of our being, in essence, it is us, though many 'seem' oblivious.

Lance I 'believe' that you sometimes get caught up in your jargon such that you loose the train of thought such that the cars end up at various unintended destinations, or so it would 'seem!'

I 'believe' you need to stay away from the thesaurus for a while. Say no more, say no more, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

If I error in interpretation, please advise, with explanation.

Thank You!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I believe that my perspective is pure, because it is born of nature, the absolute truth, as well as equality and fairness for all. My thoughts are not selfish, and are in fact selfless, so NO! Most emphatically NO! My gain shall be the worlds salvation.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I make a habit to use words such as: assume, believe, think, seems, feel, appears, could, etc. to show that it's just me and my minds eye. It lends to the fact that I know that NO ONE knows, unlike those that are always making declarative statements, in the face of this fact, as if they actually know. I try and convey the fact that they are not necessarily wrong.

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I believe that my perspective is pure, because it is born of nature, the absolute truth, as well as equality and fairness for all. My thoughts are not selfish, and are in fact selfless, so NO! Most emphatically NO! My gain shall be the worlds salvation.

amen? do you sound a true believer or not?
I'm sorry, but you're talking to the wrong person, I don't believe in any religion. I've stepped into a church only for the architecture, and once to be married, but it wasn't my idea. I've never prayed, I have no denomination. I have never listened to a sermon except that of a television show/movie. I do not believe in mans god. So what the hell are you talking about. You sound like a fanatic, so what does that make you? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Sounds are in the ears of the beholder and say more about them than it does the object, or in other words we hear what we want to hear, nothing more.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I make a habit to use words such as: assume, believe, think, seems, feel, appears, could, etc. to show that it's just me and my minds eye. It lends to the fact that I know that NO ONE knows, unlike those that are always making declarative statements, in the face of this fact, as if they actually know. I try and convey the fact that they are not necessarily wrong.

do you assume, believe, think, feel, that it seems, appears, could be that you know that no one knows? do you feel it like fifty-fifty? or are you sure more like 78,9%, 99%? dont say its more like 10% knowing it, and this too? divine 100% is absolutely too much for the humans?
I'm sorry but you've failed to understand my point, you seem to be full of sarcasm, fueled by your lack of understanding of my meaning, I can't help you! Reread if you care to, that's the best I can do for you.

lancek4 wrote:Would you not say that the free individual is the ethical maxim of our world? That everyone should be free, which is to say, in what they think and do so far as it does not impinge upon another's same freedom?
Sure, but that's a bit grey, don't you think? Exactly what constitutes impinging upon another's freedom? Should breathing clean air be considered a freedom?

Yet by this same freedom are you not saying that this is not absolute, that such freedom needs answer to others freedom, in that if one does not recycle or if one only thinks of himself only then he is not ethical?
Look Lance, like it or not we're in this together, and we effect one another through our choices, and it shall only get worse with increased population. And believe me If I had my way, my wife and I would leave all the fools here and travel to a fresh new planet and ensure that it's never ruled like the fools of earth have done. But of course I'm only dreaming!

Retorhically this would be a contradiction, but as the world procedes it seems only sensible.
Yes, I agree that it's sensible, but kind of late in the game to be considered.

If one were bound by darkness, would not he think, believe, and behave as if the darkness were true and right?
Sure, but why dwell where we dare not go, all my thoughts are of the light, I assure you! Whats the point?

Indeed, it is the contradiction between the discourse of freedom and the belief of freedom that works upon a confinement, a limitation of what freedom should mean, and is thus freedom only with reference to others, and does not rely upon a truely free individual, but rather only one which is so in limitation, which is not really free.
Of course it's free, so sayeth the 'Golden Rule' (or better yet, my Fundamental Social Axiom). The limitation is set only to save them and thus oneself, two birds with one stone.

So what are we advacating when we say 'free thinker'? Does not this only gain meaning in the effort which corresponds with the aims of the group?
There is a big difference between thinking and doing, No harm in thinking all you want, but when it comes to doing, well that's a different story, isn't it? I don't mind if someone thinks of doing me harm as long as they don't do it!

It's not about a group, it's about you, so sayeth my 'Fundamental Social Axiom.'

lancek4 wrote:Refering to sob "those who make it so through belief".

This is exactly what I refer to: how does one have a 'free' belief ? How do I have a belief that is not conditioned by what 'beliefs' there already are, by which I come to my opinions?
How can I be an independant agent?
In my self, am I free to think against my own opinions? May I spontanously change my view when I believe something is true?
Sometimes you blow my mind, what's the point? You can do what ever you're capable of. Your thoughts are yours, to the extent that they are yours, I see no sense in dissecting their origins. If you believe something is good for yourself and all of mankind, who cares where it came from? It could be 'Love and Miracles out of nowhere,' who cares. No one controls me, whether it's been thought before or not, I could care less. I know that deep down in my soul, if you will, I'm a great human being, sure I'm flawed to some extent, but I have never in my life thus far, nor shall I ever, purposely set out to do anyone any harm.

I am not a clone, if my thoughts are similar sounding to others it's because we have similar taste for goodness, what's the problem?

lancek4 wrote:If you are free, what prevents you from doing things you believe is wrong? Your decison about what right? I submit that you are not free. If you are free then decide to do what you think is wrong. Why will you not? Is it because you believe it is wrong? And you have made a choice to do what's right ? Do you not believe its right? But do you not believe you are free? I submit this is a hypocritical position to assert. Freedom should be a state of existance, no ? And what is right a decision? So I ask you to prove the vertacity of your proposed freedom and decide to do something you believe is wrong. Does not your belief have a possibility of being incorrect? What would happen if you did such a thing? Is not the answer also only a belief you have? Where is your freedom? Is it that you choose to confine yourself to a limited freedom on ethical grounds? How could you have another opinion? Nuclear war - I challenge you to have a different opinion of it that you presently have. Do you choose not to? Why? How? Are not the very things you have made a choice upon deciding for you? No? Then choose differently, I say.
I say, if you really are free beyond the conditions of the world then change your opionion right now. Change what you believe. Right now. Do it. I submit you won't because you cannot, because your are not free in truth, but are confined. I submit that you are utterly incapable of choosing against what you believe is right and true. But you say you have chosen such belief? So then you have chosen to choose? When did this begin? Was there a first choice upon which your choice into freedom began? So have you chosen to beleieve and now choose from what you believe? Or do you believe and then choose to believe and then choose? Or did you make a grand first choice which established your belief, where you chose which factors should determine what your choice was between? Did you decide to be good? Why? Did you set up the situation and the elements such that cost and bennefit was distributed equally, and then you chose to be good? How were you so priviledged and fortunate to be situated that you chose the good, and others were not so they chose the bad? Did you weigh your good beliefs against all the other possible beliefs and decide to adhere to what your beliefs are now?

Again I say: freedom is a justifier of position, an ideological construct, that is all. It has no substantial quality beyond the person who believes in freedom. (Of course, there is the freedom from oppression and slavery - but are you a slave now? Are you oppressed? I am speaking of the 1st world here, not those who wish to achieve the status of the West but are not able to.).

Are there individuals who have more freedom than you? If yes, How did that happen? Would you not choose to have the most freedom and would not your beliefs bring for you the best and most satifying freedom and most benneficial decisions?

I still say, what's the problem? I've often said that: 'No one can make you do something that you don't want to do. The only thing you have to do, is be born and die. Someone can put a gun to your head and tell you to do something or they'll blow your brains out, and you can say, fuck you!' And it's absolutely true. Of course the opposite is true as well, as you could be on the opposite side of the open ended barrel, in my above example. You do have total freedom, always!

I think it's funny that you seem to begrudge your choices. Or at least, that's what it seems. If you're saying that the only reason you are good is because you fear the consequences of not being good. That's merely where you hold yourself. The Golden Rule is doing it's job in that you've decided to do unto others because then you shall not have un done to you. It's quite simple, you still have been free to make that choice. Sure there are consequences, and you are free to face them as well as not.

I have chosen to be good because it's in my nature. As a child I have been abused, such that I know what it's like to be victimized. Do I hate the victimizer? I don't know that I'd say that I hate, because I understand that they too were victimized, so a part of me places them in my shoes as victims. Do I like what they've done, or had done to them, hell no! Now that I'm an adult shall I allow anyone to victimize me, hell no! In defense I shall kill, if need be, but of course I hope it never comes to that, as I do not want blood on my hands. It goes against my nature.

Why does one have a specific nature, either good or bad or somewhere in between? Who's to say? I for one believe that it's a product of physiology first and psychology second. If one is born with a defective brain then there you go. If one is abused excessively, especially during the first year of life, then on to the fifth year, then there you go! Because that is the time when a humans psyche is formed, 90% during the first year, the other 10% during the period between years 2 and 5.

Just because you self regulate (balance yourself) somewhere between the extremes doesn't mean you're not free. You don't have to balance yourself there! I choose to, because I for one, absolutely love life. Sure mine kind of sucks right now, but I'm hopeful that it shall get better. While I was not born in the lap of luxury, I have had some grand moments, not that money can necessarily buy you anything related to happiness, You could build a golden house and still be sad inside.

To be honest with you, music has played an important role in helping me maintain balance. I've found that I tend to like music with an upbeat tempo and positive lyrics. Rush says it best:

"Begin the day with a friendly voice,
A companion unobtrusive
Plays that song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood

Off on your way, hit the open road,
There is magic at your fingers
For the Spirit ever lingers,
Undemanding contact in your happy solitude.

Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free...

All this machinery making modern music
Can still be open-hearted.
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question of your honesty, yeah,
Your honesty.
One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity.

Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free

For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall,
Concert hall
And echoes with the sound of salesmen, of salesmen, of salesmen!"
--Peart--

Music has allowed me to be free of mind and is actually the agent that has lead me to philosophy, for real!
As in freedom, I have picked and chosen those that I listen to, and have found that the music more often that not draws me in to lyrics of sound meaning, (pun intended via truthful iteration).

Sure, freedom comes at the price, of freedom for others, which ensures your freedom!
I see it as the viscous circle of freedom, merely another example of "Spheres of Balance!"