anart said:
uno said:
anart said:
uno, you appear to be getting defensive and judgmental for no reason. This does not serve you well.
I'm not sure how you've come to those conclusions. Do you see the exchange as an argument or a discussion?
I came to these conclusions by reading your reactions to what people are trying to say to you. It's quite clear.
By that reasoning, one might say, from your previous reactions and direct statements (some being unnecessary), that you are being far more judgmental. By declaring my responses defensive/judgmental based on assumptions and therefore responding in a disciplinary fashion, you are putting wood where there is no fire. And since you continue to answer in a confrontational way, as seen below, I immediately move along after posting this. It would also have been nice, not required, if you had taken the time to address each of the points I made. I think after doing so, you might have contemplated and your delivery this time would have been more in the spirit of teaching rather than winning what you perceive to be an argument.
uno said:
Again, I'm not sure how you came to that. On the issue of free will, we'll have to disagree. The issue of free will is everywhere, including this thread. For the benefit of guests, what you quoted me saying is that since knowledge is nonlinear and we are on a quest of learning from the topic posted, free will is abridged when one jumps from a more elementary question to a more complex one.
That is patently false. Free Will is not abridged when one "jumps from a more elementary question to a more complex one" - that's a rather ridiculous premise, actually. Free Will does not equate with control, uno. You are basically stating that if a conversation doesn't remain within the strict parameters that you dictate then that is a violation of free will. That is not true. What that is, is a violation of your sense of control over the conversation.
See the difference? Can you at least consider the idea that you lack relevant information and understanding, resulting in an error in your perception and thinking?
Have you read the Wave Series yet? If you intend to participate on this forum, it will be much more beneficial for you to have some basic concepts under your belt, otherwise you're going to be very uncomfortable with what you perceive as a lack of control over the conversation that results from your lack of understanding of the basic premises of this forum.
[/quote]
Instead of "is", I should have said "can be". The key word here is 'assumption'. If you jump far ahead with big assumptions, I believe it to be abridging of free will. To answer your question, I am in the process of reading the Wave series. Now, is it guilt you want from me?
If I am indeed incorrect about how I apply free will in this instance, I am not wrong in perception, but incorrect in concept. It is apparent that there is still something wrong with the approach I described. Whichever the case, I did say my mind was open and I am here to learn. With that admission, your teaching cap should have come on. Instead, your approach is that of 'scolding'. Therefore your message, whether correct or not, is lost in me. And there lies the tragedy.