At the very least..."The Big Bang Theory" needs some advertising help. I mean...is "The Big Bang" the best line they could come up w/ to describe the creation of the universe?
sounds more like a porno then a scientific theory......
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
Ok, there are a few points to take into consideration to understand this idea. Basically it goes like this:
1) The choices we make can be reduced to chemical processes occuring in our brains.
2) All chemical reactions can be reduced to collisions between atoms, which occur in much the same way as the collisions between balls in a game of pool.
3) The potential for any two particles to collide with sufficient energy to react with each other depends on their existing trajectories (ie speed and direction of motion). And these particles can only interact within the bounds of the laws of thermodynamics.
4) Big Bang theory (as I understand it) proposes that all the matter in the universe started its motion at the same instant. So, just as the outcome of the break in a game of pool is decided the moment your cue makes contact with the white ball, the outcome of the cosmic pool game that we call the universe was decided at the moment of big bang, when all particles of matter set off on their intial trajectories.
That is the basic understanding of determinism as it applies to physics. The beauty of determinism is that it is falsifyable, applicable across disciplines and with thousands of years behind us, it still stands. Determinism has a place in physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology and philosophy.
I read a paper by a philosopher Searle. He said "philosophy is good until we can actually test it, then it becomes science.". Science is determinism. All of science uses a deterministic model of things. Indeterminism, free-will, has remained only a theory of philosophy. Indeterminism has no place anywhere, except philosophy. And in my opinion indeterminism has been falsified.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Philosophy and religion/spirituality. It's the spiritual aspect of our nature that recognizes our free will.
Do you believe that humans have a spiritual capacity, Ahnimus?
Nope.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Do you acknowledge that religion/spirituality embraces free will along with philosophy?
Within philosophy. Spirituality is a philosophical belief.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Within philosophy. Spirituality is a philosophical belief.
Just like science and philosophy are differentiated and hold separate functions, religion/spirituality and philosophy are distinctly separate. There is a reason religious/spiritual studies are quite separate from philosophical studies.
Philosophy relies on logic. Religion/spirituality is specifically beyond logic, utilizing other brain functions that are right-brain functions--ie: synthesis (opposite of analysis which is left-brain) and the gestalt or outline of the whole of any concept, which is the opposite of logic. Because two things are opposite, they cannot be the same thing, nor does one cancel the other out, as they are different. One is not valuable and the other "wrong", unless the perspective veiwing them is skewed.
I will grant you that all such disciplines are different ways up the mountain of understanding the meanings/purposes of life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Just like science and philosophy are differentiated and hold separate functions, religion/spirituality and philosophy are distinctly separate. There is a reason religious/spiritual studies are quite separate from philosophical studies.
Philosophy relies on logic. Religion/spirituality is specifically beyond logic, utilizing other brain functions that are right-brain functions--ie: synthesis (opposite of analysis which is left-brain) and the gestalt or outline of the whole of any concept, which is the opposite of logic. Because two things are opposite, they cannot be the same thing, nor does one cancel the other out, as they are different. One is not valuable and the other "wrong", unless the perspective veiwing them is skewed.
I will grant you that all such disciplines are different ways up the mountain of understanding the meanings/purposes of life.
I would personally describe philosophy as the study of unexplainable phenomena. It doesn't matter if philosophy is logical, illogical, or just a plain guess. It's philosophy, it's all about guessing and imagining alternatives. Religion and Spirituality fit nicely into that concept of philosophy.
Then, we come to actually observe the phenomena and we no longer call it philosophy, we call it science. Because we can test our philosophical theories on an observable, perturbable thing.
To me, that is the dividing line between science and philosophy. Observable truths on the scientific side, creative guesses on the philosophical side. Religion and Spirituality are as you described creative guesses and hence they are philosophy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"The problem of creativity is beset with mysticism, confused definitions, value judgments, psychoanalytic admonitions, and the crushing weight of philosophical speculation dating from ancient times."
-- Albert Rothenberg
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I would personally describe philosophy as the study of unexplainable phenomena. It doesn't matter if philosophy is logical, illogical, or just a plain guess. It's philosophy, it's all about guessing and imagining alternatives. Religion and Spirituality fit nicely into that concept of philosophy.
Then, we come to actually observe the phenomena and we no longer call it philosophy, we call it science. Because we can test our philosophical theories on an observable, perturbable thing.
To me, that is the dividing line between science and philosophy. Observable truths on the scientific side, creative guesses on the philosophical side. Religion and Spirituality are as you described creative guesses and hence they are philosophy.
Some schools of thought rely soley on left brain processes. Other systems of preference value the whole-istic interaction of integrating and allowing the left and right brain to work in harmony together as nature intended, holistically. Those who support and use holistic standards feel that the total of functioning of integrated left and right brain functions see the whole picture and that the total is beyond the sum of the parts.
Considering the right brain sees the whole picture at a glance, and the left brain can tease out and analyse details and their relationships, it makes sense that both are two sides of the one coin. Further, some might say that to only acknowledge one side of the coin would cause one to see a limited view of the whole.
You may not discern the numerous lines between disciplines that you don't value. That doesn't mean those very distinctions do not exist.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Some schools of thought rely soley on left brain processes. Other systems of preference value the whole-istic interaction of integrating and allowing the left and right brain to work in harmony together as nature intended, holistically. Those who support and use holistic standards feel that the total of functioning of integrated left and right brain functions see the whole picture and that the total is beyond the sum of the parts.
Considering the right brain sees the whole picture at a glance, and the left brain can tease out and analyse details and their relationships, it makes sense that both are two sides of the one coin. Further, some might say that to only acknowledge one side of the coin would cause one to see a limited view of the whole.
You may not discern the numerous lines between disciplines that you don't value. That doesn't mean those very distinctions do not exist.
That's an overcomplication of what creativity and logic are. Creativity is a logical thought process. By which we develop new ideas. Science would be nowhere without creativity, science needs it, but we call it philosophy if we can not test it at current times.
Creativity and Logic are not seperate things. They are divided in the brain, but still interoperate with relative consistency. Science acknowledges the value of creative philosophy, however, it's not falsifyable and therefor not science. Yet, scientists use their whole brain when they are developing reseach and experiment methods. People in general are always using their whole brain. There is no seperation of creativity and logic as you speak of. There is only the seperation of philosophy and science.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's an overcomplication of what creativity and logic are. Creativity is a logical thought process. By which we develop new ideas. Science would be nowhere without creativity, science needs it, but we call it philosophy if we can not test it at current times.
Creativity and Logic are not seperate things. They are divided in the brain, but still interoperate with relative consistency. Science acknowledges the value of creative philosophy, however, it's falsifyable and therefor not science. Yet, scientists use their whole brain when they are developing reseach and experiment methods. People in general are always using their whole brain. There is no seperation of creativity and logic as you speak of. There is only the seperation of philosophy and science.
If we fuse the right brain purposes in with serving the agenda of the left-brain logic and analysis, we do not have two fully operating interactive sides of the brain being utilized to full capacity. This is where scientism reaches beyond the actual reach of the true ideal of the scientific method, and strangles full understanding, vision and ultimately our health on many levels (mentally, emotional, physically). This lack of human balance that has been fostered through hundreds of years has huge, far-reaching ramifications. It has blinded us on numerous levels. Our precepts have been determined by this blinding to a great degree.
By definition the holistic vision of right-brain synthesis is the opposite of logic and therefore not logical. Logic operates from the left-neocortex, only. We can logically explain all processes, however they remain non-logical in action.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If we fuse the right brain purposes in with serving the agenda of the left-brain logic and analysis, we do not have two fully operating interactive sides of the brain being utilized to full capacity. This is where scientism reaches beyond the actual reach of the true ideal of the scientific method, and strangles full understanding, vision and ultimately our health on many levels (mentally, emotional, physically). This lack of human balance that has been fostered through hundreds of years has huge, far-reaching ramifications. It has blinded us on numerous levels. Our precepts have been determined by this blinding to a great degree.
By definition the holistic vision of right-brain synthesis is the opposite of logic and therefore not logical. Logic operates from the left-neocortex, only. We can logically explain all processes, however they remain non-logical in action.
But, you are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Creativity is a logical process. The result is not always logical, which is why we use logic to determine what creative thoughts we use.
As an example.
"What should I get my dad for his birthday?"
Creative process begins.
• A kick in the balls
• A stick of gum
• A shot in the mouth
• A turnip
• A wedgey
• A BMW
• A coconut
• A book
No word of a lie, I just typed out everything that came to my mind during the creative process. Retrospectively I can see why I thought all of those things, even if there is only one logical choice.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But, you are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Creativity is a logical process. The result is not always logical, which is why we use logic to determine what creative thoughts we use.
As an example.
"What should I get my dad for his birthday?"
Creative process begins.
• A kick in the balls
• A stick of gum
• A shot in the mouth
• A turnip
• A wedgey
• A BMW
• A coconut
• A book
No word of a lie, I just typed out everything that came to my mind during the creative process. Retrospectively I can see why I thought all of those things, even if there is only one logical choice.
I'm not referring to creativity. I'm referring to our ability to perceive an overview of life, which is different than being able to prove or test it. This ability stems from perception that is alogical. If we try to squeeze this perception into the category of logical, we cripple what this perception does and we imbalance our own understanding. Philosophy, itself, understands we cannot logically undertand this alogical understanding, because it remains beyond logic. Religions/spirituality experiences this awareness and accepts the direct empirical understanding of what "is" without having to prove/distort it with logic. Our distortion of the whole picture has happened for hundreds of years due to scientism and the reach of a mutated version of science reaching beyond its abilities. And we have huge imbalances to show for it. When I say scientism, I refer to something very different than the pure scientific method which when used with balance and a true setting aside of bias, has an amazing and very necessary place in the big picture.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm not referring to creativity. I'm referring to our ability to perceive an overview of life, which is different than being able to prove or test it. This ability stems from perception that is alogical. If we try to squeeze this perception into the category of logical, we cripple what this perception does and we imbalance our own understanding. Philosophy, itself, understands we cannot logically undertand this alogical understanding, because it remains beyond logic. Religions/spirituality experiences this awareness and accepts the direct empirical understanding of what "is" without having to prove/distort it with logic. Our distortion of the whole picture has happened for hundreds of years due to scientism and the reach of a mutated version of science reaching beyond its abilities. And we have huge imbalances to show for it. When I say scientism, I refer to something very different than the pure scientific method which when used with balance and a true setting aside of bias, has an amazing and very necessary place in the big picture.
Science is our innate ability. The concept of spirituality doesn't arise until we begin to consider death. Congnitive Dissonance suggests that spirituality will typically prevail over non-existence. However, there is no innate ability to interpret spirituality. That's all bogus stuff.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are also now saying that spirituality is not logic and it's not creativity. You can't quantify it, you just keep changing your story to try to work around what is quantifyable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are also now saying that spirituality is not logic and it's not creativity. You can't quantify it, you just keep changing your story to try to work around what is quantifyable.
Actually, my story is staying the same regarding right brain function validity. If you are perceiving differences or nuances you had not before, I can't accept responsibility for that.
Ultimately, my clarifications regarding the value of both sides of the coin, and the distinction that one is logical, the other alogical are on the table.
The concept of free will from my understanding also stems from the spiritual, whole picture view, which is right brain, and as a different type of function from logic which is left-brain, is not molded and shaped by logical linear rules such as determinism. This poses quite a problem for those who are unable to perceive the value of right-brain functioning without crippling it and making it distortedly imitate logic. It asks that we see reality linearly AND holistically at the same time. Therefore we see it ALL at a glance, with the myriad details dancing around us in all their splendor.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Actually, my story is staying the same regarding right brain function validity. If you are perceiving differences or nuances you had not before, I can't accept responsibility for that.
Ultimately, my clarifications regarding the value of both sides of the coin, and the distinction that one is logical, the other alogical are on the table.
The concept of free will from my understanding also stems from the spiritual, whole picture view, which is right brain, and as a different type of function from logic which is left-brain, is not molded and shaped by logical linear rules such as determinism. This poses quite a problem for those who are unable to perceive the value of right-brain functioning without crippling it and making it distortedly imitate logic. It asks that we see reality linearly AND holistically at the same time. Therefore we see it ALL at a glance, with the myriad details dancing around us in all their splendor.
It still sounds like a bunch of bullshit.
If anything, it sounds like you are not acceptant of logic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If anything, it sounds like you are not acceptant of logic.
Or that you're not open to what is alogical. Considering I advocate acknowledging, defining and integrating the value of both logical and alogical processes, I don't think it can be said I'm denying logic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Or that you're not open to what is alogical. Considering I advocate acknowledging, defining and integrating the value of both logical and alogical processes, I don't think it can be said I'm denying logic.
Alogical sounds like a made-up word, like metaphysical, to describe something we can imagine, but can't prove.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're free to perceive it in any way you like. It has its objective meaning independent of your opinion, however.
It doesn't mean anything. It's a fantasy. A dream.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay, and I hear your fantasy. Just like a billion other fantasies in this world. Why is your dream the right dream? Why does your "alogical" thoughts differ so drastically from everyone else's? Because it's not logical, and there is nothing to it except blind faith in one's own creative thoughts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It doesn't mean anything. It's a fantasy. A dream.
Main Entry: alog·i·cal
Pronunciation: (")A-'lä-ji-k&l
Function: adjective
: being outside the bounds of that to which logic can apply
- alog·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Main Entry: alog·i·cal
Pronunciation: (")A-'lä-ji-k&l
Function: adjective
: being outside the bounds of that to which logic can apply
- alog·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
This is, in fact, the literal definition of the word. Using this definition, it may be argued that giving one's father a "kick in the balls" for Christmas is indeed an "alogical" choice. The problem is, this guy uses the word to describe anything he himself doesn't believe or agree with. That is a grossly inappropriate use of the word.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
This is, in fact, the literal definition of the word. Using this definition, it may be argued that giving one's father a "kick in the balls" for Christmas is indeed an "alogical" choice. The problem is, this guy uses the word to describe anything he himself doesn't believe or agree with. That is a grossly inappropriate use of the word.
If by "this guy" you mean me. Then you got the wrong impression. I see "kick in the balls" for Christmas to be a perfect example of "alogical".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Illogical" and "alogical" have two distinctly different meanings as well, which seems to confuse people. Illogical means poor logic or lack of logic. Alogical includes/embraces accurate logic, and yet goes beyond it.
edit: correction: I mean "alogical" is not inconsistent with logic like "illogical" is. "Alogical can embrace and integrate seamlessly with logic (and does so in reality, itself). It is definitely beyond the bounds of logic, however.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If by "this guy" you mean me. Then you got the wrong impression. I see "kick in the balls" for Christmas to be a perfect example of "alogical".
And i agreed about the "kick in the balls". i think just about everyone would. Here's the thing though. Even in this seemingly, absurdly obvious example, let's say were talking about a guy who has a deep seeded hatred for his father who perhaps molested him and beat his mother severly before walking out one day to never return or pay one red cent of child support. To THAT guy a "kick in the balls" may seem like a perfectly logical Christmas gift for his father.
Furthermore lets revise your list of gift ideas a little, shall we. let's say i could give my father:
A: a book
B: a couple of new music CD's
C: a necktie the special edition, director's cut DVD of his favorite film
E: a pair of shoes
F: a new golf glove and bag of wooden tees
all logical ideas. Suppose i decide to go with choice A. i walk into my nearest Barnes and Noble or Borders, take a cursory glance and realize, "Wow, there are a lot of fucking books here in every genre imagineable". After about a hour or so i come to a decision. i've got a completely logical gift for Dad, and i had to make choices and excercises of free-will the whole way through.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
And i agreed about the "kick in the balls". i think just about everyone would. Here's the thing though. Even in this seemingly, absurdly obvious example, let's say were talking about a guy who has a deep seeded hatred for his father who perhaps molested him and beat his mother severly before walking out one day to never return or pay one red cent of child support. To THAT guy a "kick in the balls" may seem like a perfectly logical Christmas gift for his father.
Furthermore lets revise your list of gift ideas a little, shall we. let's say i could give my father:
A: a book
B: a couple of new music CD's
C: a necktie the special edition, director's cut DVD of his favorite film
E: a pair of shoes
F: a new golf glove and bag of wooden tees
all logical ideas. Suppose i decide to go with choice A. i walk into my nearest Barnes and Noble or Borders, take a cursory glance and realize, "Wow, there are a lot of fucking books here in every genre imagineable". After about a hour or so i come to a decision. i've got a completely logical gift for Dad, and i had to make choices and excercises of free-will the whole way through.
All of what you described is a logical process. There is no indication anywhere of alogic or free-will. Sorry, try again.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
sounds more like a porno then a scientific theory......
-Big Fish
That is the basic understanding of determinism as it applies to physics. The beauty of determinism is that it is falsifyable, applicable across disciplines and with thousands of years behind us, it still stands. Determinism has a place in physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology and philosophy.
I read a paper by a philosopher Searle. He said "philosophy is good until we can actually test it, then it becomes science.". Science is determinism. All of science uses a deterministic model of things. Indeterminism, free-will, has remained only a theory of philosophy. Indeterminism has no place anywhere, except philosophy. And in my opinion indeterminism has been falsified.
Do you believe that humans have a spiritual capacity, Ahnimus?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nope.
Do you acknowledge that religion/spirituality embraces free will along with philosophy?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Within philosophy. Spirituality is a philosophical belief.
Philosophy relies on logic. Religion/spirituality is specifically beyond logic, utilizing other brain functions that are right-brain functions--ie: synthesis (opposite of analysis which is left-brain) and the gestalt or outline of the whole of any concept, which is the opposite of logic. Because two things are opposite, they cannot be the same thing, nor does one cancel the other out, as they are different. One is not valuable and the other "wrong", unless the perspective veiwing them is skewed.
I will grant you that all such disciplines are different ways up the mountain of understanding the meanings/purposes of life.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I would personally describe philosophy as the study of unexplainable phenomena. It doesn't matter if philosophy is logical, illogical, or just a plain guess. It's philosophy, it's all about guessing and imagining alternatives. Religion and Spirituality fit nicely into that concept of philosophy.
Then, we come to actually observe the phenomena and we no longer call it philosophy, we call it science. Because we can test our philosophical theories on an observable, perturbable thing.
To me, that is the dividing line between science and philosophy. Observable truths on the scientific side, creative guesses on the philosophical side. Religion and Spirituality are as you described creative guesses and hence they are philosophy.
-- Albert Rothenberg
Considering the right brain sees the whole picture at a glance, and the left brain can tease out and analyse details and their relationships, it makes sense that both are two sides of the one coin. Further, some might say that to only acknowledge one side of the coin would cause one to see a limited view of the whole.
You may not discern the numerous lines between disciplines that you don't value. That doesn't mean those very distinctions do not exist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's an overcomplication of what creativity and logic are. Creativity is a logical thought process. By which we develop new ideas. Science would be nowhere without creativity, science needs it, but we call it philosophy if we can not test it at current times.
Creativity and Logic are not seperate things. They are divided in the brain, but still interoperate with relative consistency. Science acknowledges the value of creative philosophy, however, it's not falsifyable and therefor not science. Yet, scientists use their whole brain when they are developing reseach and experiment methods. People in general are always using their whole brain. There is no seperation of creativity and logic as you speak of. There is only the seperation of philosophy and science.
By definition the holistic vision of right-brain synthesis is the opposite of logic and therefore not logical. Logic operates from the left-neocortex, only. We can logically explain all processes, however they remain non-logical in action.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But, you are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Creativity is a logical process. The result is not always logical, which is why we use logic to determine what creative thoughts we use.
As an example.
"What should I get my dad for his birthday?"
Creative process begins.
• A kick in the balls
• A stick of gum
• A shot in the mouth
• A turnip
• A wedgey
• A BMW
• A coconut
• A book
No word of a lie, I just typed out everything that came to my mind during the creative process. Retrospectively I can see why I thought all of those things, even if there is only one logical choice.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Science is our innate ability. The concept of spirituality doesn't arise until we begin to consider death. Congnitive Dissonance suggests that spirituality will typically prevail over non-existence. However, there is no innate ability to interpret spirituality. That's all bogus stuff.
Ultimately, my clarifications regarding the value of both sides of the coin, and the distinction that one is logical, the other alogical are on the table.
The concept of free will from my understanding also stems from the spiritual, whole picture view, which is right brain, and as a different type of function from logic which is left-brain, is not molded and shaped by logical linear rules such as determinism. This poses quite a problem for those who are unable to perceive the value of right-brain functioning without crippling it and making it distortedly imitate logic. It asks that we see reality linearly AND holistically at the same time. Therefore we see it ALL at a glance, with the myriad details dancing around us in all their splendor.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It still sounds like a bunch of bullshit.
If anything, it sounds like you are not acceptant of logic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Alogical sounds like a made-up word, like metaphysical, to describe something we can imagine, but can't prove.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It doesn't mean anything. It's a fantasy. A dream.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Okay, and I hear your fantasy. Just like a billion other fantasies in this world. Why is your dream the right dream? Why does your "alogical" thoughts differ so drastically from everyone else's? Because it's not logical, and there is nothing to it except blind faith in one's own creative thoughts.
Pronunciation: (")A-'lä-ji-k&l
Function: adjective
: being outside the bounds of that to which logic can apply
- alog·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
This is, in fact, the literal definition of the word. Using this definition, it may be argued that giving one's father a "kick in the balls" for Christmas is indeed an "alogical" choice. The problem is, this guy uses the word to describe anything he himself doesn't believe or agree with. That is a grossly inappropriate use of the word.
If by "this guy" you mean me. Then you got the wrong impression. I see "kick in the balls" for Christmas to be a perfect example of "alogical".
edit: correction: I mean "alogical" is not inconsistent with logic like "illogical" is. "Alogical can embrace and integrate seamlessly with logic (and does so in reality, itself). It is definitely beyond the bounds of logic, however.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And i agreed about the "kick in the balls". i think just about everyone would. Here's the thing though. Even in this seemingly, absurdly obvious example, let's say were talking about a guy who has a deep seeded hatred for his father who perhaps molested him and beat his mother severly before walking out one day to never return or pay one red cent of child support. To THAT guy a "kick in the balls" may seem like a perfectly logical Christmas gift for his father.
Furthermore lets revise your list of gift ideas a little, shall we. let's say i could give my father:
A: a book
B: a couple of new music CD's
C: a necktie
E: a pair of shoes
F: a new golf glove and bag of wooden tees
all logical ideas. Suppose i decide to go with choice A. i walk into my nearest Barnes and Noble or Borders, take a cursory glance and realize, "Wow, there are a lot of fucking books here in every genre imagineable". After about a hour or so i come to a decision. i've got a completely logical gift for Dad, and i had to make choices and excercises of free-will the whole way through.
All of what you described is a logical process. There is no indication anywhere of alogic or free-will. Sorry, try again.