Self

[Resolute]

1 hour ago, mts said:

I don't like watching football, perhaps because I don't like team sports, and because for me it symbolizes masculinity here. (I didn't feel like I measured up to other men.)

I live in the UK, football is a national obsession.

how much masculinity can it really symbolize? i mean even small watches the tournaments, and he's not that masculine lol.

[mts]

-

[Victimorthecrime]

Disagree. 

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

here's my explanation of why we may feel free. not to appear cocky, but it's rather simple. an example is best;

if someone/something controlled our bodies from birth to death, we would feel coerced and would never question determinism, accountability, responsibility etc.. however, if someone/something controlled our minds/wills, we (the majority) would be oblivious to this and would believe that we are the ones calling the shots. it wouldn't occur to most of us to ask where our initial thoughts, fears, desires, feelings, views, likes, dislikes, passions and so on come from. most of us simply assume that we are intentionally* the initial source of these, and therefor responsible for them.

 

* when in fact it is impossible for something to be the initial cause of any of its own attributes, including its own--initial--intentions as it would be circular reasoning.

 

btw, there's nothing inappropriate about your post.

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

lmao!

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

39 minutes ago, mts said:

Here is my opinion on responsibility. If we are creatures of error, and not just action but in thought, then the ideal self is the closest to say, the lion, who decides with appropriate (to his perceptions, for us to our overall wisdom) certainty. I would say the amount of responsibility is proportional to how close we are to our true selves.

I think there is a "degree of freedom" (a feeling of freedom), to which we may or may not have potential to achieve, and with it, a "degree of responsibility".

The fool, the deviant, criminal (and many / most other situations), can never be truly (100%) responsible in my opinion, as they necessarily abandoned themselves, but the situation demands a response regardless.

We are never the initial cause, but the majority, active, cause, that is, either our most essential personality (or error), caused the effect. We are agents, various genetic systems of mathematical complexity; or "life", which was the initial cause, and it's escape from death (suffering) seems to be what we perceive as freedom.

For example, a cat lying in the sun feels free, in that there are no constraints (like rain, making him suffer cold / dirtiness) limiting his desire to lay there.

I suggest we are forced to feel free (or not). I don't know about the responsibility stuff, maybe I'm talking crap.

indeed, we are forced to feel free, when in reality we have absolutely no actual freedom whatsoever. and therein lies the problem.

no one is suggesting that there be no response to a given situation (we literally can't help but respond), but any response would be predetermined. and even doing nothing is a response. what i'm talking about is ultimate responsibility/accountability; metaphysical responsibility/accountability if you will. not the so called responsibility we face here in this shitty life, which is never going to be just or fair anyway.

[Resolute]

i'm going to link this freewill conversation to my thread, just in case someone misses it here. i hope you don't mind.

[Resolute]

how the hell does one link to a specific post in this new format?

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

8 minutes ago, mts said:

I don't think you can.

is that a challenge?

[Resolute]

well, mts, i've done it! lol

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

4 minutes ago, mts said:

I think from reading your well written response, you have a clearer understanding of this than me.

flattery will get you everywhere.

 

4 minutes ago, mts said:

Do you believe in evolution? I seem to remember not. If not, where did humans come from?

i used to reject evolution completely when i was religious. now, i'm simply undecided about it. what's your position on the matter?

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

13 minutes ago, mts said:

My position is always to sit on the fence. I admit, I haven't read anything about evolution, with the exception of what I might have learned in school. But I don't know any other non-religious theory so I guess I believe in evolution, which seems conceivable. I suppose there are counter arguments?

i, too, know very little about evolution. of course if i did believe in evolution, i'd have to believe in devolution as well lol.

 

Quote

To clarify btw, I don't argue for free will, I'm just trying to understand why it's such a strong belief for others; I wonder if I'll keep my beliefs if my life changes, or if given situational responsibility they fade into philosophical apathy.

because most people have difficulty grasping the concept of determinism divorced of coercion.

[Small]

Well, I'm sure everyone here knows my stance on free will versus determinism. I've forgotten the jargon, but I do believe humans have some level of free will but not very much. I cite the Ego mechanism of the subconscious mind for this, and it's unconditionable nature that does seem to show some support that it has the freedom to choose between a set of mostly predecided options (the good old determinism stuff). That is my understanding of it, although I'm sure I could be wrong. 

 

I've approached it psychologically, but from what I understand it seems to be a philosophical discussion so I'm probably out of my depth. Unlike most that belong to the free will faction of the debate, I must say that I'm not so passionate and insistent. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I can't cross over though, because my understanding of the underlying mechanism seems very sound to me on a psychological level. 

 

I'm more than happy to say that in some situations we're fucked regardless of what we choose. That much seems clear. 

[Small]

By the way, I know that I've come across as quite the triumphalist in the not so distant past. Maybe I spoke over people and trivialised their situations by asserting that idleness is the key variable to failure. This was unfair & naive of me so I apologise. 

[Resolute]

23 minutes ago, Small said:

Well, I'm sure everyone here knows my stance on free will versus determinism. I've forgotten the jargon, but I do believe humans have some level of free will but not very much. I cite the Ego mechanism of the subconscious mind for this, and it's unconditionable nature that does seem to show some support that it has the freedom to choose between a set of mostly predecided options (the good old determinism stuff). That is my understanding of it, although I'm sure I could be wrong. 

who exactly identifies these "predecided options"? i.e how are they identified?

[Small]

Well, it must either be the individual faces the options, or someone that understands the situation in a thorough and seamless way. The problem with laypersons offering pseudo-choices is that they don't always exist for the person in question due to his nature, experiences, and not so apparent circumstances or limitations. 

In my eexperience though, sometimes the individual that is faced with a subset of choices tends to take the path of least resistance as opposed to most reward. This is understandable when the exertion + loss of resources (money, time, emotions) are unavailable. But where time & money are of equal expenditure in two options, most people would still choose the path that requires a lower exertion. In this situation the negative reinforcement must be carefully evaluated to see whether or not the choice they made was truly lacking of other options. 

 

A finer point is that if the resilience of someone's psyche cannot stand up to the negative reinforcement of any particular option, then it's a fair to say that the path was never truly an option. Within reason though, resilience can be developed through desensitisation, and the slightest of improvement across various areas of their life.

 

Overall though, most people can't accurately decide if another individual exercised his options because they can't comprehend the difference in intangibles between himself and the subject. Maybe though, if someone carefully went over their options, their resources & potential negative feedback, it could offer them a sense of clarity on what options truly exist,  but seem off putting because of the cost. Sometimes, if the person chooses to experience negative reinforcement he may find he has more options. SSometimes though, it just isn't worth it.

 

Who identifies the options? The logical deduction of the subject IMO, which incidentally is the primary function of the Ego.

[Small]

Off the topic. If you believe in witchcraft, and have been subjected to it, then this absolutely cripples your choices. I'm not too popular amongst my peers for this, but I do believe in witchcraft etc.

[Small]

To speak vaguely, witchcraft does to the psyche what a virus does to computer software. More specifically, it's a metaphysical collection of dark matter that envelopes the psyche by first entering through the shoulder blades, and then resting in the cavity beneath the chest. Here ot claims access to the Superego & Ego, before it attacks the pleasure principle and death drive of the ID.

When the conscious mind tries to access the preconscious & subconscious,  it is instead tapping into the collection of characteristics that forcefully envelopes the psyche. Subsequently, most of the preconscious, conscious, cognitive schemas, thoughts,  emotions and behaviours are an expression and manifestation of the metaphysical dark magic. 

This usually involves things like hatred, bitterness, anger,  anxiety, and inertia. WWhat's more troubling is that the natural components of the psyche are in a manner of speaking, buried and lost. The individual id no longer feeling or expressing himself at all.

The ego is particularly compromised because of the placement of the magic inside of the cavity beneath the chest. This cripples choice & free will, whilst pumping out all sorts of dangerous thoughts & feelings into their host that surface as severe and uncompromising psychiatric disorders.