To be clear: I was not advocating for or against determinism in my comments yesterday, or commenting on ‘no I’ – I was just trying to understand why you thought Gary’s conflicting opinions were incompatible with determinism.
There is `determinism` … which does not have thoughts, or shout at people on the internet. D1
Gary is not in conflict with this determinism.
There is `determinism` … which is a concept in the brain, that is referred to in decision making. D2
Gary is in conflict with this determinism.
D1 is a scientific law of nature that makes everything happen.
D2 is a brain concept.
Gary is not in conflict with D1, but `his` D2 is in conflict with logic.
Gary being in logical conflict is controlled by D1.
The logical conflict is also controlled by D1.
Just because the logical conflict is controlled by D1, does not stop it being a logical conflict.
You can say that it is not a logical conflict `because` it is controlled by D1 … but, if you do, then you must accept that no words actually make any sense at all.
I think this sort of thing is caused by not understanding the `no I` thing.
People (Richard here) think of other people operating like themselves.
The trouble is that people don’t know how they operate.
To `solve` the above problem is easy.
Gary holds (and says) one opinion – Determinism.
Gary holds (and says) one opinion – Shouting at people on the internet can change the world.
The two opinions are mutually exclusive … they contradict each-other … the two used in the same breath is stupidy stupid.
Richard can understand the deterministic DVD idea.
Richard can understand the shouting at people to change the world idea.
Richard then gets confused.
From the deterministic pov … determinism is understandable.
From a non-deterministic pov … shouting at people can change the world.
From a deterministic pov … nothing can change.
Now … has anyone ever heard of – Meta Concepts~?
Meta concept 1. Determinism.
Meta concept 2. Shouting at people on the internet, so as to change the world, gives my life meaning.
So, having espoused determinism, how to justify shouting at people on the internet~?
You can say that `it is on the DVD that I shout at people on the internet` … Gary does this.
You can say that `other people, shouting at people, in the past, changed the world’ … Gary does this … but is wrong to do so.
Can you see the difference between the two~?
I was going to leave it there, but can imagine that you won’t get the answer.
The problem is in the word `change`.
Why do you think I have used the idea of the DVD~?
DVD’s do not change.
We are all in a DVD movie.
Things happen, things change … but the acting out does not make them happen, or change.
Darth Vapour’s acting never made Luke do anything.
Whether you can change the world by shouting at it, comes down to the question –
Which is the more Meta of your concepts~?
Note: You are going to get yourself all confused with experiments that show `cause and effect` is at work in the world (which should show you that Meta concept `determinism` is the higher concept … but, you will be too confused by then).
It is looking like I think that the `fact` that there is no `I` is more important than any POM considerations.
I think that warning you that … the more you listen to me, the more you will understand my view about the no `I` …
… and … that this understanding may diminish your POM, rather than increase it.
There is a real problem here –
I believe that there-comes-a-time-when the understanding of `no I` will probably increase POM …
… but … around this time also comes the possibility that the understanding may turn you into a nihilistic fuck-wit.
Let me quote the Manson trial a bit.
Manson did not `do` the `Sharon Tate and friends` murders. He got his followers to do them.
There was the question about why the girls did it.
It was decided that they were `gone wrong` even before they met Manson (so they were all sentenced to death).
Linking the two parts above –
I am sure that the people who comment, are not `gone wrong` … so they will not turn nihilistic fuck-wit.
I cannot be sure about the people who read … but do not comment.
My `need` for doing these posts is not great … and I am a natural worrier.
I ask myself if it is worth my while to keep going `in public` with this line of argument.
Normally, say for any of us, it is hard to say why we do anything.
Basically, because we never do anything that would make the calculation worthwhile.
What Manson did, was worth the calculation … and the calculation was a simple A-B-C …
I realized, that if we did anything worthy of analysis, we could also be worked out the same way.
I have said many times that this was theoretically the way things are …
… but I was shocked to see how right it is.
I have not seen enough of this guy, but what I think he `sees` is that Western Civilization has gone all-wishy-washy.
I don’t know if he has noted the parallel, but it would be like the time between the World Wars.
This is also part of what shocked me.
I realize that I am a very small cog in the world-thinking-machine, but one never knows when a `butterfly cog` is spinning.
What I have insisted on … the no `I` … looks to be absolutely bang on right.
This puts me in a spin.
As a non-I … there is no me, to stop or continue anything.
Basically … the Mystic-Nick-Thing will either stop or continue.
But, the M-N-T will also have internal thinkings … spinning thinkings of whether to stop shouting stuff on the Internet, or to continue.
… The Mystic-Nick-Thing is now so spinning …
Peterson is right, that `morality` needs good, solid meta-concepts to anchor it, especially in troubled times.
We don’t live in troubled times at-the-moment, but may soon (especially if this wishy-washiness continues).
I have said many times … that `If I ruled the world, I would encourage a religion`.
The `no I` position is as close to the truth as truth can get, but the world is not ready for it.
The trouble is, that most of the West has already moved away from the underpinnings of Civilization.
I could say, that people should be left to find their own POM as best they can, but, I fear that that is what Western Civlization is already doing.
My `no I` truth, is not going to set anyone free. It is not going to do anyone any good.
The idea was (if there was one) that freed from `thinking you have to strain out every decision` there may be more POM.
I see now that it is way too far out. The tide of history is not washing that way. There will always be `wishy-washy selfishness` first.
Bottom line – I don’t think the fucking people will ever get to the `no I` place, because they have to go through `wishy-washy selfishness` first … and will always bump into the annoying little fact that `fucking people doing the wishy-washy` leads to disaster.