Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[timtofly]

If that's addressed to me, I'd say no since experience is a likely way for such traits to be "tacked on." In my interpretation, negating experience implies a person who is invariant with respect to the events in their life.

If character is already there, it may be shaped, or it may never be developed in certain experiences. The point, if I am correct, is that they are saying we are who we are despite experiences and the blank slate was not really blank.

 

[JohannaK]

drawing from Kyriakos' analogy (which I'm not getting), I believe that what Schopenhauer meant was that our character is the full building, but that in the beginning we see only the top of it. As we make decisions, more and more floors are unearthed and discovered to us, and this newly gained knowledge of the own character allows the person to try to arrange favourable circumstances or to modify its future decisions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yep.

I hope you will agree with me that in order to understand something you need to study it, though.

I also hope you will agree with me that in order to experience something understand how you feel about it, you participate in or try to engage whatever it is you're trying to know understand better.

I also hope you will agree that both of these are completely different in terms of what you can accomplish with them.

Absolutely! With edits above. "Understand your feelings" does not equal "experience".

I know that poetry can be beneficial. What is there about this poetry that sets it apart from any other? I am not downplaying anything beneficial that was the result, but how can you say that their writings were purely from a mystical experience? They both seemed to be well rounded individuals with more than one interest in life.

I tend to downplay religion a lot, because I think that it sometimes takes away from an individual finding their own inspiration through life, and they just do religion out of habit. I am not even going to say that one cannot find God through religion. More than not, it is despite religion.

I just don't see how mysticism can be that ground breaking. That is coming from one who takes the Bible as literal, so that may have something to do with it.

Sufism is a mystical experience and its poets were all about trying to capture the experience. Wine in Sufi poetry is the intoxicating experience of god which is why so much of it is about being drunk. Omar Khayyam was a Sufi.

If you have never had a mystical experience, it is very easy to dismiss them insignificant. But they can be life changing (Saul on the road to Damascus?) and have the power to move millions of people.


Rumi:

Teachings

The general theme of Rumi's thought, like that of other mystic and Sufi poets of Persian literature, is essentially that of the concept of tawhid — union with his beloved (the primal root) from which/whom he has been cut off and become aloof — and his longing and desire to restore it.

The Masnavi weaves fables, scenes from everyday life, Qur'anic revelations and exegesis, and metaphysics into a vast and intricate tapestry. In the East, it is said of him that he was "not a prophet — but surely, he has brought a scripture".

Rumi believed passionately in the use of music, poetry and dance as a path for reaching God. For Rumi, music helped devotees to focus their whole being on the divine and to do this so intensely that the soul was both destroyed and resurrected. It was from these ideas that the practice of whirling Dervishes developed into a ritual form. His teachings became the base for the order of the Mevlevi which his son Sultan Walad organized. Rumi encouraged Sama, listening to music and turning or doing the sacred dance. In the Mevlevi tradition, samāʿ represents a mystical journey of spiritual ascent through mind and love to the Perfect One. In this journey, the seeker symbolically turns towards the truth, grows through love, abandons the ego, finds the truth and arrives at the Perfect. The seeker then returns from this spiritual journey, with greater maturity, to love and to be of service to the whole of creation without discrimination with regard to beliefs, races, classes and nations.

In other verses in the Masnavi, Rumi describes in detail the universal message of love:

The lover’s cause is separate from all other causes
Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries.

 

[timtofly]

Would that be the same as being consumed by God in your perspective? There are many groups that have formed from a human writing about his mystical experiences and they have effected the course of human history. However at the end of the day it is still the results and the way humans have been affected that determine whether such writings are great or not. That still leads us back to the point that if one is being used by God, is it God working or the mystic?

The Gospel of Jesus was framed as "to make" disciples, but not by human means and human understanding, which most people tend to default to. I don't see the original purpose being a discrimination against beliefs, races, classes, and nations. It was not forced on any one. And people who were added came on their own free will. Even if that reason was for self aggrandizement. Any attempts to weed people out tended to eventually change the church from all encompassing to intolerant. That was/is not the gospels fault, that is just the nature of human governance.

Love is also the giving up of free will, and one's own desires. My whole point being, it is not the mystic but the fact that the mystic has given up control of his life to God.

 

[Kyriakos]

On my part i view "giving up control of life" to god/other as something quite dangerous to begin with. It is a bit like automatic writing, when (if taken to the extreme) the author will keep very little consciousness of what he is actually writing. In the distant past i was experimenting with automatic writing to some degree, in the end i gave up due to the conclusion that it was neither productive in the long run, nor safe either.

It is far easier/healthier in my view to just do what seems to satisfy you, as long as that is not hurting anyone else (by and large). There is no reason to think that anyone has no ability at all to know what they like- although many people have diminished consciously the sense of what they like.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Cosmic Consciousness

I have wrapped the wide world in my wider self
And Time and Space my spirit's seeing are.
I am the god and demon, ghost and elf,
I am the wind's speed and the blazing star.

All Nature is the nursling of my care,
I am its struggle and the eternal rest;
The world's joy thrilling runs through me, I bear
The sorrow of millions in my lonely breast.

 

[Gatsby]

You say you've wrapped the wide world in your wider self, but to me you look the same as you always have. Which is moving, the flag or the wind?

 

[timtofly]

On my part i view "giving up control of life" to god/other as something quite dangerous to begin with. It is a bit like automatic writing, when (if taken to the extreme) the author will keep very little consciousness of what he is actually writing. In the distant past i was experimenting with automatic writing to some degree, in the end i gave up due to the conclusion that it was neither productive in the long run, nor safe either.

I think that it is in our nature to abhor any thing that resembles slavery. Yet some humans have no qualms in making slaves of other humans. I don't think that God for one bit wants us to be robotic slaves, and I am sure that no one will yield up control to an unknown or a known with out some guarantee that all will be well and no one gets hurt.

It is far easier/healthier in my view to just do what seems to satisfy you, as long as that is not hurting anyone else (by and large). There is no reason to think that anyone has no ability at all to know what they like- although many people have diminished consciously the sense of what they like.

That is perhaps the easiest way out. It may not be the way that produces the most good though. If one is purely set on it all being deterministic, then good is going to prevail unless the deterministic drive is actually evil. I do not see that as being historically the case.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Would that be the same as being consumed by God in your perspective? There are many groups that have formed from a human writing about his mystical experiences and they have effected the course of human history. However at the end of the day it is still the results and the way humans have been affected that determine whether such writings are great or not. That still leads us back to the point that if one is being used by God, is it God working or the mystic?

The Gospel of Jesus was framed as "to make" disciples, but not by human means and human understanding, which most people tend to default to. I don't see the original purpose being a discrimination against beliefs, races, classes, and nations. It was not forced on any one. And people who were added came on their own free will. Even if that reason was for self aggrandizement. Any attempts to weed people out tended to eventually change the church from all encompassing to intolerant. That was/is not the gospels fault, that is just the nature of human governance.

Love is also the giving up of free will, and one's own desires. My whole point being, it is not the mystic but the fact that the mystic has given up control of his life to God.

Mysticism is highly personal and not very translatable to others. Words try to explain the mystery. Consumed by, in, or with; lost, bound, enslaved. The Lover and the Beloved are bound to one another in selfless sacrifice. There is no "using" by one or the other. The Lover only seeks to please the Beloved who only seeks the company of the Lover. The separation between the Lover and the Beloved is not real and only an artifact of their limitations. Mystical moments reveal the truth of unity and the falseness of the perceived separation.

Any influence that a mystic has on others is secondary and a distraction from the longing they feel for the Beloved. Love is all about giving oneself to an other something.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You say you've wrapped the wide world in your wider self, but to me you look the same as you always have. Which is moving, the flag or the wind?

Im sorry, I didnt mean to mislead. Here is where I have got the poem from: http://www.poemhunter.com/

To answer your question: Neither. Here is an analogy:

"To the senses it is always true that the sun moves round the earth; this is false to the reason. To the reason it is always true that the earth moves round the sun; this is false to the supreme vision. Neither earth moves nor sun; there is only a change in the relation of sun-consciousness & earth-consciousness."

 

[warpus]

Absolutely! With edits above. "Understand your feelings" does not equal "experience".

Great!

The logical conclusion of that is that if you want to understand how the universe works, you have to study it, but if you want to experience it, you have to.. well, experience it. Partake in it, etc.

Are we still in agreement?

 

[timtofly]

Mysticism is highly personal and not very translatable to others. Words try to explain the mystery. Consumed by, in, or with; lost, bound, enslaved. The Lover and the Beloved are bound to one another in selfless sacrifice. There is no "using" by one or the other. The Lover only seeks to please the Beloved who only seeks the company of the Lover. The separation between the Lover and the Beloved is not real and only an artifact of their limitations. Mystical moments reveal the truth of unity and the falseness of the perceived separation.

Any influence that a mystic has on others is secondary and a distraction from the longing they feel for the Beloved. Love is all about giving oneself to an other something.

Thanks, I agree with all of this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Great!

The logical conclusion of that is that if you want to understand how the universe works, you have to study it, but if you want to experience it, you have to.. well, experience it. Partake in it, etc.

Are we still in agreement?

Yes, until we move to one of the other threads....

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks, I agree with all of this.

It's Sufism (as well as other isms too) in a nutshell.

 

[timtofly]

Folks back then more than likely thought a lot about the same things, just like modern ism do, but with less splits and isms.

 

[CYSQUATCH9]

I dont know if everyone has noticed, but what is being discussed in this thread has very little to do with free will. The discussion is filled with basic god of the gaps arguments and subjective arguments that IMO, are dismissed by the anthropic principle.

Free Will does not equal individuality. The absence of Free Will does not excuse responsibility. Real science has something to say on this matter. And it is best articulated right now by Sam Harris. The only philosopher who has mounted a resistance to Sam is Dan Dennett, through compatibilism.

As is common these days, especially in american politics, there is little truth in words and even less discussion of the actual facts at hand. We dont rely solely on Newtonian physics or astrology when building communication satellites. We dont call upon prayer or alchemy when tackling problems in modern medicine. These fields have advanced and evolved. Why is it considered acceptable to follow in the traditions of philosophers who did not have all of the facts available to them? Philosophy has evolved as well. Into fields like neuroscience.


Link to video.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Great talk. I would have to pretty much agree with him.

From his blog:

What many people seem to be missing is the positive side of these truths. Seeing through the illusion of free will does not undercut the reality of love, for example—because loving other people is not a matter of fixating on the underlying causes of their behavior. Rather, it is a matter of caring about them as people and enjoying their company. We want those we love to be happy, and we want to feel the way we feel in their presence. The difference between happiness and suffering does not depend on free will—indeed, it has no logical relationship to it (but then, nothing does, because the very idea of free will makes no sense). In loving others, and in seeking happiness ourselves, we are primarily concerned with the character of conscious experience.

Hatred, however, is powerfully governed by the illusion that those we hate could (and should) behave differently. We don’t hate storms, avalanches, mosquitoes, or flu. We might use the term “hatred” to describe our aversion to the suffering these things cause us—but we are prone to hate other human beings in a very different sense. True hatred requires that we view our enemy as the ultimate author of his thoughts and actions. Love demands only that we care about our friends and find happiness in their company. It may be hard to see this truth at first, but I encourage everyone to keep looking. It is one of the more beautiful asymmetries to be found anywhere.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I have to say that (personally) i disliked that quote a lot. I do not like how he tries to argue about "illusion" and "this truth may be hard to see at first". In my view those thinkers who focus on such terms and phrases appear to be of the view that they actually brought some profound thought to the discussion, but this is almost never the actual case.

Also he is wrong on thinking that one hates another due to being of the view that the other person is some "author of his thoughts and actions". Hate is not a thinking process (although it can be tied to thoughts), it is an emotion that is there so that a person can instantly feel a very specific aversion to something. This, in turn, has huge significance in any case that the individual has to be shielded from the negative influence by a repulsion towards it. It probably is an instinctive way to achieve what logically is achieved through conscious and elaborate thought, only that is not always available.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@CYSQUATCH9: thx for putting us back on topic

I am down with Kyriakos on this. It looks like to be philosopher one needs just throw around nice words and complicated thesis. E.g:

-because loving other people is not a matter of fixating on the underlying causes of their behavior. Rather, it is a matter of caring about them as people and enjoying their company.

This is confused. "Fixating on the uderlying causes" meaning judging others by their motives is mental process while carring is esentialy emotional process. They are not exclusive. I can love someone and be deeply concerned with any underlying causes of their behaviour. When I love I do not need to be blinded as he suggests.

because the very idea of free will makes no sense

really?, thats not very profound way how to settle the problem in my pov.

Hatred, however, is powerfully governed by the illusion that those we hate could (and should) behave differently. We don’t hate storms, avalanches, mosquitoes, or flu.

Nonsense. I can hate everything he mentions. He is talking only about specific kind of hate and claims thats the only true hate. Thats some real mental acrobatics right there...

Love demands only that we care about our friends and find happiness in their company. It may be hard to see this truth at first, but I encourage everyone to keep looking.

Love doesnt demand love is care and affection and feeling of oneness. Love doesnt look for happiness love is our psychic expansion and joy.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I watched but short part of the talk when he says that free will is an illusion and I think thats nonsense. However I agree with him that our way of looking at and judging others is wrong but not becouse there is no free will but becouse that whatever free will we have is strongly limited in capacity and becouse we are often unconscious instruments of larger forces beyond our comprehension. That however doesnt make free will an illusion but a Goal.