Playing with ideas!

[Ruth]

I guess by that you meant, free will can't be violated. Not even by the "dark side".

Actually the 'Service to Self' (STS) or 'dark side' spends a lot of time doing violation and manipulation. 'Service to Others' (STO), on the other hand, will respect anothers free will.

The one thing I had wrong from the start was my beleif of what the defenition
'free will' is, now I know that It was not whwt I though it was. Of course I'm open to
What else it can be.

I have a tough time respecting other peoples free will when it comes to them knowing the truth. It took time for me to realise that people have the free will to be uniformed; to believe all and any nonsense that the 'Powers that Be' tell them; and to pay the ultimate price for their ignorance, too.

Only a small group of people REALLY want to know what's going on in the world. The people that run the world will do anything to prevent knowledge from spreading because it harms and undermines their power base. They will actively encourage the larger group of people on this planet who WANT to remain ignorant. It gets very frustrating to see this problem and to try and interact with those people who chose (via their free will) not to know anything and to remain completely ignorant.

 

[hungrig]

Actually the 'Service to Self' (STS) or 'dark side' spends a lot of time doing violation and manipulation. 'Service to Others' (STO), on the other hand, will respect anothers free will.

I have a tough time respecting other peoples free will when it comes to them knowing the truth. It took time for me to realise that people have the free will to be uniformed; to believe all and any nonsense that the 'Powers that Be' tell them; and to pay the ultimate price for their ignorance, too.

Only a small group of people REALLY want to know what's going on in the world. The people that run the world will do anything to prevent knowledge from spreading because it harms and undermines their power base. They will actively encourage the larger group of people on this planet who WANT to remain ignorant.

Let me ask you, what is the violation according to free will according to ignorant minds?
What has 'prevent' to do with your free will?

You can't grasp my question, or do you follow?

We are very much alike Ruth.

 

[hungrig]

If this is what you think 'freedom' is, then, boy oh boy do 'they' have you where they want you. You don't want 'freedom', hungrig - you want control.

I'm not holding on to my idea any more. But I will just admit to the reader here, the term 'they' are abstract as it could be replaced with 'me' 'you' or anyone. And I for instance would respect that one's "freedom" if it so chooses. But according to the spirit of this forum, as I understand it, freedom are understood same as free will, Anart were of course then, totally right.

 

[Ruth]

Let me ask you, what is the violation according to free will according to ignorant minds?

Can you not conceive of a person who does not want to know the truth? Who does not want to be informed? Who choses to be ignorant and live in a world of dreams and nonsense? What right have we got to challenge their right to chose ignorance if that is what they want. It's like the movie "The Matrix" people who take the blue pill, not the red one. They want to go back to their life in the illusion. They prefer not to see what's really going on.

What has 'prevent' to do with your free will?

As in the movie "The Matrix" - the system will not only maintain and encourage the illusion of reality for those who take the blue pill, but actively attack anybody who takes the red pill. It is a quite a good analolgy.

You can't grasp my question, or do you follow?

We are very much alike Ruth.

I don't know if I do, or even if we are alike. :) One difference if very obvious! English is not your first language, but it is mine (unfortunately it is the only language I speak).

 

[hungrig]

The people that run the world will do anything to prevent knowledge from spreading because it harms and undermines their power base.

What has 'prevent' to do with your free will?

As in the movie "The Matrix" - the system will not only maintain and encourage the illusion of reality for those who take the blue pill, but actively attack anybody who takes the red pill. It is a quite a good analolgy.

Sure, the "Matrix" 'attacks' anybody who takes the "red pill", 'The people' that run "the world" is different, for instance,
if I were living in denial I would not spread real knowledge, if that harms me, well I (he) don't know. Some say their world are theirs
some say it's their backyard, some people don't see their world as their world or as the world at all. Some prefer lies over truth.

You could very well conceive that an person who don't want to know the truth, don't want to know the truth. The question is,
what truth in question? I specifically were talking about free will.

The matrix movie was an good analogy in relation to hyper dimensional realties etc. But it could be applied, if you want to, the living in denial vs. openness. It's your choice, to choose. But there is also Work. No one are going to prevent you,
or do you gon' say you were are at defeat? Perhaps you took the blue pill in such an scenario.

Who choses to be ignorant and live in a world of dreams and nonsense? What right have we got to challenge their right to chose ignorance if that is what they want.

That's their choice, simply. It doesn't violate your free will. What challenge are you talking about, and who are challenging who?
The fact that you have an tough time respecting such an choice, are not in sync with, what right you think we have, what 'rightness' are you referring to?

English is not your first language....snipp

True. I must admit that it's not easy to see everything plainly as in when I read and type in Swedish. :/
But in being active in English speaking forums, is/has been an improvement.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

You seem to know, "what" "they" "want", so what is it? Just curious.

I thought it was pretty obvious that "they", the PTB, want control.

You are where you fit. You also evidence an amazing concern for yourself - while lacking a concern for others. For instance, your having to 'follow rules' pales in comparison to the woman who was just raped in Iraq after watching her husband get killed in cold blood.

I don't compare Anart. [...] You are tryingh to get an emtional response of me, by sying I compare specific people.

I don't understand how you got that from what Anart said. I think what she means is that you could benefit from considering the conditions that others exist under, compare them to yours, and see that maybe you're not in as horrible a situation as you may imagine.

Have you ever tried it - telling people what is against their beliefs and what they don't want to hear, no matter how true?

Sure, some go pissed others go hallelujah, but that was no what my idea were about.

Hallenujah? Not in my experience - unless they were ready and asking for the truth already which would mean what you're saying is not against their beliefs and they don't want to hear it.

And you suspect they'll make no attempts to retaliate and keep their power? They'll just sit there?

Not if the masses know whats going on

How do the masses obtain that knowledge? Knowing something does not just happen from hearing it be said on TV by someone. It takes work, personal effort to learn and know something, which means also interest to know and ability/willingness to question programming and sacred cows. Not many people are at the point where they are able or willing to do that.

But "we" are not the "Earth". Also, did you consider that minds are taken away by violating/limiting free will in the first place? This would then make it impossible/contradictory to give minds back by violating free will too, wouldn't it?

That is exactly the opposite of what I believe, but I won't discuss it, I no longer can do that on this forum.

It seems the recurring theme in this thread is beliefs. You get identified with your thoughts and you form beliefs from them, and as a result you're closed to hearing what others are saying, leading to confusion, misunderstanding, and noise. Interestingly, you do discuss what you just said you can no longer discuss:

I guess by that you meant, free will can't be violated. Not even by the "dark side".

If you truly thought you could no longer discuss it on the forum, why are you discussing it now? I think the problem is not whether you can or cannot discuss it, but how and why you're discussing something. In my understanding, there is very very little, if anything, that you cannot discuss on this forum, but the devil is in the details. It seems when you said that you "cannot discuss it on this forum" it was a self-pitying remark, and when you got over the self-pity, you no longer felt that way, and you proceeded to discuss it anyway. I could be wrong, but either way it looks like an example of your machine being in control.

But to comment on what I meant, I actually meant the opposite, that free will is violated all the time by those who don't care to respect it, so it would make no sense for the "other side" to use the same methodology, since part of what constitutes the "otjer side" is respect for free will as much as reasonably possible in a given situation.

But if you stated as you did just to make me think further, I'm totally agreeing.

Didn't you just totally disagree?

If you are with me sofar, I think it can be dangerous to say 'your inability to think' to me, or to anybody.

Interesting coming from someone who confidently speaks about "minds being taken away" and brainwashing. So if you agree that people's minds can be, let's say "compromised", why would you assume it would not apply to you?

Also, I could be wrong again, but your English seems to have gotten worse since your first post, perhaps because you're not taking as much time to correct grammar etc? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could take some more time to check what u write for grammar etc.

My idea were an example, I stated that in my first post.

But it was a poor example, and the approach you took is full of assumptions and emotions with no consideration of facts and logic. So what is the purpose of this example? An example is something that is meant to be followed to an extent - at least in an abstract and general/structural sense. Ironically what you presented was an example of what *not* to do and how *not* to approach the issues facing us. And this was pointed out to you, but you were so identified with your idea that you chose to argue without listening. What is the point of your post? To think up ideas about how to address the "terror of the situation"? Well this entire website/forum is dedicated to this question. Unless you wanted this to be an exercise in fiction - come up with unrealistic and imaginary ideas just for fun that cannot be practically applied and be useful, and therefore should not be critiqued since they are not meant to be serious? If so, it would've helped if you just stated that right from the beginning.

 

[anart]

It seems when you said that you "cannot discuss it on this forum" it was a self-pitying remark, and when you got over the self-pity, you no longer felt that way, and you proceeded to discuss it anyway. I could be wrong, but either way it looks like an example of your machine being in control.

You are not, to my understanding, wrong.

 

[hungrig]

I thought it was pretty obvious that "they", the PTB, want control.

Ok.

I don't understand how you got that from what Anart said. I think what she means is that you could benefit from considering the conditions that others exist under, compare them to yours, and see that maybe you're not in as horrible a situation as you may imagine.

I just accept it as it is. I would not compare me with those. If I could in any case compare any one with anyone?. But specifically I would just come up with assumptions. But I can image myself to some extent what it is like. I'm not that mother, child or father.

edit: I think we are onto the same thing with different words?

Hallenujah? Not in my experience - unless they were ready and asking for the truth already which would mean what you're saying is not against their beliefs and they don't want to hear it.

I think that what I meant was that those I spoke to, I did not know if they wanted to listen or not.
No they did not ask, I just talked because I felt to. I was of course lying to you, couse I really didn't know what they wanted to hear.

How do the masses obtain that knowledge? Knowing something does not just happen from hearing it be said on TV by someone. It takes work, personal effort to learn and know something, which means also interest to know and ability/willingness to question programming and sacred cows. Not many people are at the point where they are able or willing to do that.

You are right.

It seems the recurring theme in this thread is beliefs. You get identified with your thoughts and you form beliefs from them, and as a result you're closed to hearing what others are saying, leading to confusion, misunderstanding, and noise. Interestingly, you do discuss what you just said you can no longer discuss:

I was not seeing clearly, I really though I knew something, that I had obtained it. I just realized
I was wrong about that "idea". I saw 'free will' for instance as something solid.
My confusion led to that what I though my idea was, really was not what I though. I grasped
Anart's comment, that I should take it elsewhere. So what I said I could not discus was not what I
later discussed.

If you truly thought you could no longer discuss it on the forum, why are you discussing it now? I think the problem is not whether you can or cannot discuss it, but how and why you're discussing something. In my understanding, there is very very little, if anything, that you cannot discuss on this forum, but the devil is in the details. It seems when you said that you "cannot discuss it on this forum" it was a self-pitying remark, and when you got over the self-pity, you no longer felt that way, and you proceeded to discuss it anyway. I could be wrong, but either way it looks like an example of your machine being in control.

Well, I did feel self pity, and will probably feel sooner or later. On this issue, I really fooled myself.

But to comment on what I meant, I actually meant the opposite, that free will is violated all the time by those who don't care to respect it, so it would make no sense for the "other side" to use the same methodology, since part of what constitutes the "other side" is respect for free will as much as reasonably possible in a given situation.

I don't believe free will can be violated. If you are right, which I don't know. My realization I just had, might as well be another layer of confusion.

Didn't you just totally disagree?

Yes I did. And I changed my mind.

Interesting coming from someone who confidently speaks about "minds being taken away" and brainwashing. So if you agree that people's minds can be, let's say "compromised", why would you assume it would not apply to you?

I did though it also included me, that's what I were scared about.
But it was an assumption. Here I do not disagree or agree, It might be my
free will at my current level of being to be manipulated. Here I don't mean free
will are violated, at all. It's just what is. This might give rise to further sacred cows I have?

Also, I could be wrong again, but your English seems to have gotten worse since your first post, perhaps because you're not taking as much time to correct grammar etc? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could take some more time to check what u write for grammar etc.

I will try to take my time to it.

But it was a poor example, and the approach you took is full of assumptions and emotions with no consideration of facts and logic. So what is the purpose of this example? An example is something that is meant to be followed to an extent - at least in an abstract and general/structural sense. Ironically what you presented was an example of what *not* to do and how *not* to approach the issues facing us. And this was pointed out to you, but you were so identified with your idea that you chose to argue without listening.

Agree, I were identified. But I tried to listen to you. Could not see. It took some self realizations and
time. So in the process, you sort of pointed things out to me, it just took time.

To think up ideas about how to address the "terror of the situation"? Well this entire website/forum is dedicated to this question.

I see.

Unless you wanted this to be an exercise in fiction - come up with unrealistic and imaginary ideas just for fun that cannot be practically applied and be useful, and therefore should not be critiqued since they are not meant to be serious? If so, it would've helped if you just stated that right from the beginning.

If I wanted that, I would have stated it. Put you can grasp it that way also, because I said it was 'ideas'. But I were serious, it was not for fun.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I don't believe free will can be violated.

Before we get hung up the details of precisely what constitutes the definition of free will and exactly how free will can or cannot be "violated", perhaps it would be more useful to look it like this: Deciding what is good for another is inherently self-serving, since you're not allowing the other person to make that decision for themselves. Would you not agree? Just because I may want truth does not mean someone else does. How do you feel when someone tries to convince you of something without caring whether you are interested or not?

Yes I did. And I changed my mind.

Well it didn't seem like you were open to question that belief, since by definition a belief is a conviction that is not necessarily based on any data. But a working hypothesis is something that can change with new data. So either it was a working hypothesis and you mistakenly called it a belief, or it is a belief and you still have it, but another part of you has the opposite belief, and sometimes one part has control of your conscious mind, and sometimes another?

I did though it also included me, that's what I were scared about.

But why be scared of that possibility? If you're really scared that you might be wrong, then this fear could very well be the thing that makes you react so defensively if someone disagrees with you or points out issues with your ideas. Maybe it would help to look into what part of you is scared of being wrong and that you may not be as objective as your mind tricks itself into assuming. That's why we have this network because none of us are objective on our own and without help from others to correct our subjectivity, programs, and other blind spots, we wouldn't get very far.

Agree, I were identified. But I tried to listen to you. Could not see. It took some self realizations and
time. So in the process, you sort of pointed things out to me, it just took time.

And I understand that because it was clear from the onset that your first post contained a lot of emotional involvement. You put a lot of effort into it, you did your best to correct grammar and spelling, you seemed very optimistic about this idea and you expected a positive response where people contributed ideas just as you asked. But things did not go that way, not at all. And it seems that because of this involvement in your own post and anticipation about how the thread would continue, you were not truly open. And in a way, that was because you were not considering the free will of others, you made a very narrow/limited judgement about what kind of responses are "acceptable" and you were therefore surprised not just to see that things went in a completely different direction, but that the very integrity of your thinking process and your intentions were put into question.

The idea of deciding what is good for someone else also applies. In a sense you did decide that your idea of how this thread should proceed is "good" for others as well. But that decision backfired, osit.

To me this thread ironically looks like a "small" but potentially very important/powerful lesson about what is free will, what it means to not consider the free will of others, and the consequences of this. Perhaps another lesson is that regardless of what we believe about what free will is or isn't, objective reality does not change. In this case the consequences are relatively minor (though nevertheless important), but in the greater context of life, they can be much more serious. At least that's what I took away from this discussion, and it's always a good reminder.

 

[hungrig]

Before we get hung up the details of precisely what constitutes the definition of free will and exactly how free will can or cannot be "violated", perhaps it would be more useful to look it like this: Deciding what is good for another is inherently self-serving, since you're not allowing the other person to make that decision for themselves. Would you not agree? Just because I may want truth does not mean someone else does. How do you feel when someone tries to convince you of something without caring whether you are interested or not?

I'm open to what free will might be by definition.

How do you feel when someone tries to convince you of something without caring whether you are interested or not?

How do you?

Well it didn't seem like you were open to question that belief, since by definition a belief is a conviction that is not necessarily based on any data. But a working hypothesis is something that can change with new data. So either it was a working hypothesis and you mistakenly called it a belief, or it is a belief and you still have it, but another part of you has the opposite belief, and sometimes one part has control of your conscious mind, and sometimes another?

I don't know.

But why be scared of that possibility? If you're really scared that you might be wrong, then this fear could very well be the thing that makes you react so defensively if someone disagrees with you or points out issues with your ideas. Maybe it would help to look into what part of you is scared of being wrong and that you may not be as objective as your mind tricks itself into assuming. That's why we have this network because none of us are objective on our own and without help from others to correct our subjectivity, programs, and other blind spots, we wouldn't get very far.

Actually it's you that assume my mind are objective. You also state that you know what 'alone' , 'I's and 'ALL' are. Before you disagree, I haven't made any such claims of what it is.

And I understand that because it was clear from the onset that your first post contained a lot of emotional involvement. You put a lot of effort into it, you did your best to correct grammar and spelling, you seemed very optimistic about this idea and you expected a positive response where people contributed ideas just as you asked. But things did not go that way, not at all. And it seems that because of this involvement in your own post and anticipation about how the thread would continue, you were not truly open. And in a way, that was because you were not considering the free will of others, you made a very narrow/limited judgement about what kind of responses are "acceptable" and you were therefore surprised not just to see that things went in a completely different direction, but that the very integrity of your thinking process and your intentions were put into question.

I changed my mind.

The idea of deciding what is good for someone else also applies. In a sense you did decide that your idea of how this thread should proceed is "good" for others as well. But that decision backfired, osit.

Please clarify.

To me this thread ironically looks like a "small" but potentially very important/powerful lesson about what is free will, what it means to not consider the free will of others, and the consequences of this. Perhaps another lesson is that regardless of what we believe about what free will is or isn't, objective reality does not change. In this case the consequences are relatively minor (though nevertheless important), but in the greater context of life, they can be much more serious. At least that's what I took away from this discussion, and it's always a good reminder.

You claim that you know what objective reality is by those statements.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I'm open to what free will might be by definition.

The ability to choose perhaps.

How do you?

I don't like it. But if for some reason you don't mind it yourself, that might help explain why you wouldn't understand why someone would have a problem with it.

Actually it's you that assume my mind are objective.

No I don't assume that, what I said was that your mind assumes itself to be more objective than it really is. It's not an assumption as its evidenced all through this thread. I really don't have time right now to go point by point through it all and comment on all the apparent confusion and contradictions. Perhaps a good place to start to address some of it is how in one breath you claim that people are controlled and deprived of free will and in the next breath you talk about "breaking" people and doing whatever you please regardless of consequences on others.

You also state that you know what 'alone' , 'I's and 'ALL' are. Before you disagree, I haven't made any such claims of what it is.

Not sure what "alone" and "ALL" have to do with, and I have some idea about what 'I's are. But it seems you're now needlessly splitting hairs, as I'm not sure what your point is?

I changed my mind.

A very vague, simplistic way to describe it. Perhaps also a cop-out to avoid examining exactly what is happening inside your mind in more detail. After all, anything and everything that ever happens inside our mind can be described as "change". But maybe your mind is not as much "yours" as "you" think?

Please clarify.

Your reaction to the replies you received shows you did did not "accept" the replies. It has nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing but how and why you go about it.

You claim that you know what objective reality is by those statements.

No - I said "to me it looks", it's an observation.

 

[hungrig]

The ability to choose perhaps.

I don't like it. But if for some reason you don't mind it yourself, that might help explain why you wouldn't understand why someone would have a problem with it.

Why do 'like' and what you don't like has to do with understanding, what do you base your understanding on? So called "Buffers"? And how can you go from what you 'like' to what I might mind as an explanation for anything?
When I notice something by my 'like' or 'dislike' would be in my awareness I would now instantly see it's as an possible program of "predator's mind".
Your emotional feelings and feelings for others might perhaps be just that, your concern for yourself. But what you really are I can't say, and what part of you I'm talking to, I don't know.

No I don't assume that, what I said was that your mind assumes itself to be more objective* than it really is. It's not an assumption as its evidenced all through this thread. I really don't have time right now to go point by point through it all and comment on all the apparent confusion and contradictions. Perhaps a good place to start to address some of it is how in one breath you claim that people are controlled and deprived of free will and in the next breath you talk about "breaking" people and doing whatever you please regardless of consequences on others.

I see your text here full of assumptions based on assumptions. You are saying you know my mind for instance. Otherwise this text would be an example an suggestion to me.

Not sure what "alone" and "ALL" have to do with, and I have some idea about what 'I's are. But it seems you're now needlessly splitting hairs, as I'm not sure what your point is?

I had no point. Which was not my intention to have either.

A very vague, simplistic way to describe it. Perhaps also a cop-out to avoid examining exactly what is happening inside your mind in more detail. After all, anything and everything that ever happens inside our mind can be described as "change". But maybe your mind is not as much "yours" as "you" think?

You claim that "anything" "everything" in my mind can be claimed as an change, which it's perhaps be. But in relation to this thread, I made clear what had change, what I changed my mind about. You ignore that fact. You are perhaps trying to confuse me or yourself on this issue.

Your reaction to the replies you received shows you did did not "accept" the replies. It has nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing but how and why you go about it.

I have made it clear that I accept replies, in this thread. I don't "agree or disagree" with your replies SAO, I don't see you to be right, or wrong, in other words. I'm open. But you are insisting you are right. By claiming as you do, by saying I react, to a certain way not to 'accept'. Please clarify my reaction in accordance with my change of mind and my stand, which are open, to the replies in this thread.

In your terms, when saying it's not about me agreeing or disagreeing but the way I go about, the way I go about you see as an reaction, in your words, to a certain way, can be understood as what is not 'accept' 'to you' are because you believe you are right. Lay notice to that I'm not necessarily taking others replies in this thread in hand at this moment, but you choosed to discuss with me. If you don't have time, will not concern me.

Initially, what this thread were about are not according to what is being discussed now.
I had an "idea" which are not accepted on this forum, or was suggested to be taken elsewhere.
What I'm discussing with you now was not the idea, I for instance don't see the idea related with free will or lessons, so I see not contrdadictions in further discussions.

I will suggest to you SAO, to reflect on what's your points if that's what you want to discuss, points may seem to you as for me something different. You see me as same holding to the idea as in the first post, as I'm not seeing it anymore, you are helping me, but are going the other way by being frustrated. At least your replies gives that impression. But I' cant know, that's why ill only say it as an suggestion. Even how "right" you feel yourself to be or if you are right or what you like, it might perhaps be the way things are dealt in the long run, that matters, and are more important . Even when people changes theirs mind, having what seems to be an bad attitude. Why should it not be clear. By that I don't think you are addressing your 'points' if any in a way that it can be seen, if you claim that you perhaps could see through me, that is.

No - I said "to me it looks", it's an observation.

I don't see your answer correct according to your statement. It might be that I'm not seeing your meanings correct, it maybe the meanings in your previous statement where it 'looks to you' this thread 'looks like' issues relating to lessons of free will, but regardless, you said objective reality does not change. In the context, I'm not seeing my statement out of context. I ask to be corrected on this issue by third observers' because I'm not good at English enough to determine if this feedback are necessarily. I'm not saying that I want to be 'talked' out of things, or 'be faced' by just words. Refer to data/links or explain in words. If you want to help me, then address.

 

[anart]

Hungrig, the amount of noise in your posts on this thread has increased dramatically. You are not only not understanding what has been written to you - but your replies are, for the most part, incomprehensible - you are also 'arguing' with SAO - arguing is not allowed on this forum.

In short, your behavior in this thread is draining - I do not know if that is conscious or not - I think it probably isn't, but I cannot be sure. Either way, it needs to stop.

Please calm down and communicate clearly - which means without confrontation, without accusation, without defensiveness, without telling others what they are doing - your statements about SAO's post are so far off base, that it indicates that you are very far from thinking clearly.

if you cannot do that, it may be time for you to move along.

 

[hungrig]

I want to say I'm very calm. Anart, If you want me to move along, I will move along.

 

[Bernhard]

Anart, If you want me to move along, I will move along.

hungrig, can't you see your "self-pity" in this sentence?

I don't think anart want you to move along, but simply see yourself more clearly and, hence, communicate more clearly. And if you can't do this, it may be time for you to move along. That's a suggestion and an attempt to break this 'loop" that is going on here and resulting in noise, rather than a constructive discussion.