ellion,
not self doesnt need to be a an entity. the rock below me is not myself neither the sky above. all is important and all is god manifest.
Too broad, lacking discernment.
I mean that if we relate to God, define ourselves in relation to God, then we can identify ourselves as imperishable and eternal as well.
yes and that is what we do. we do. but some of them dont
And? So their identities are, to them, more fleeting than ours.
But I want colours! A completely different way of seeing things.
then you are disatisfied with what you are looking at or how you percieve it.
I meant that I do not want black, white and grey.
Don't let my professionalism mislead you.
If you knew me personally ....
no worries, i am not mislead.
If you think "i imagine that it is not as you have a much more cognitive process a mental not emotional processor. not that you dont process emotionally but your predominant mode is mental, you also appear very willful,(dynamic energy, activity)", then you are mislead by my professionalim.
then it is just an unconcious process that you are somehow attached to.
almost like a string on a marrionette. it is and you are connected to it, it is your free will. so how are you connected to it, or it to you?
I am not separate from my free will.
* * *
cole grey,
water said - "A person may believe he has no free will, but if he does so, he will continue to act as if he would have no free will.
If a person is convinced he has no free will, then he has no free will.
Cole Grey, what say you? "
I thought we were aiming for a universally held quality, as in "God gave mankind free-will."
I agree that a person can perceive a lack of free-will and its effect will probably be the same as not having free-will, but as for something given to humankind, this piece of the definition will not work, I think.
I see your point.
Solution:
All people are endowed with potential free will. This potential can be recognized and acted upon, or not.
P.S. I am convinced I have very little free-will today, by ellion's definition as a thing we have some of, but I think I have a similar ability to choose as i did when I thought anything was possible.
You said you colour swans. If I'd bring you my geese, would you turn them into swans?
* * *
Light Travelling,
If everything in the universe is interconnected and is all the result of cause and effect then there can be no freewill, as all is the product of cause and effect.
This supposes that in such a universe, free will would exist only if phenomenon P could either happen, or not, in necessary conditions NC. Meaning, if this would be a universe that would be inconsistent by default.
Which is actually a productive train of thought -- because it's not like we could say whether the universe is consistent or not. We have no way of proving either way.
The only complete freewill that is possible, is the original freewill that set the first cause in motion.
If everything in this universe is illusion.
Then the first freewill choice that made the first cause that started the illusion could have been started by us. In this case it would be possible to make that freewill choice again.
In this case in a universe of cause and effect there is only one excercise of freewill possible: to see the illusion or not: to give the first cause or not: and at any time the first cause may be withdrawn and the universe of illusion will diappear. - enlightenment!
No no no no no.
You are talking about power, not about will.
The reason why we tend to think in terms of determinism is because we realize we are not all-powerful. Tsunamis strike, volcanoes errupt, asteroids can hit Earth, the Sun will burn out -- and there is nothing we can do about it, we cannot prevent it. We are left to the mercy of conicidence and cosmic powers which leaves us thinking we are "determined". When in fact, we just have limited power.
