swilow
Bluelight Crew
Turk, I see god/deity as implicit in the idea of 'fate'. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices
- Thread starter swilow
- Start date
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
I think fate (as it exists, broadly) is being confused with traditional / theistic fate.
Fate is just as much a component of physics as it is a component of any theistic belief structure.
Destiny doesn't imply intelligent design; predestination does: fate is synonymous with inevitability.
If you subscribe to the idea of free will, then you're going to have trouble accepting this.
But, fate doesn't imply predetermination by God or anyone else.
If you line up a bunch of dominoes, the final domino in the line (assuming it runs in a direction) is fated to fall last. But, assuming that you don't believe in God or intelligent design, let's say the dominoes are just there (randomly arranged into a line). If so: the last domino is still fated to fall; whether or not it was intended to do so is irrelevant.
The question of whether or not there is a God doesn't affect the nature of causality.
We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are (extremely complex, non-linear) dominoes (read: reactionary bodies).
Traditional theistic fate is not fate; fate observably exists.
Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?
Chance itself has to be governed by something... and if all outcomes exist, then that (infinity) is fate as much as this (finite) universe is.
I think people need to believe that they have free will, which is why it (the illusion of free will) exists in the first place.
It is an oversimplification to assume that fate and/or destiny have anything to do with God or religion.
If you subscribe to causality (which I hope you do) then I don't see how you can (rightly) discount fate.
Fate is just as much a component of physics as it is a component of any theistic belief structure.
Destiny doesn't imply intelligent design; predestination does: fate is synonymous with inevitability.
If you subscribe to the idea of free will, then you're going to have trouble accepting this.
But, fate doesn't imply predetermination by God or anyone else.
If you line up a bunch of dominoes, the final domino in the line (assuming it runs in a direction) is fated to fall last. But, assuming that you don't believe in God or intelligent design, let's say the dominoes are just there (randomly arranged into a line). If so: the last domino is still fated to fall; whether or not it was intended to do so is irrelevant.
The question of whether or not there is a God doesn't affect the nature of causality.
We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are (extremely complex, non-linear) dominoes (read: reactionary bodies).
Traditional theistic fate is not fate; fate observably exists.
Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?
Chance itself has to be governed by something... and if all outcomes exist, then that (infinity) is fate as much as this (finite) universe is.
I think people need to believe that they have free will, which is why it (the illusion of free will) exists in the first place.
It is an oversimplification to assume that fate and/or destiny have anything to do with God or religion.
If you subscribe to causality (which I hope you do) then I don't see how you can (rightly) discount fate.
Last edited:
Many still seem to be missing that what will be your "destiny" is something worked out by your higher self before you come here. You may consult God but in the end it's down to you. Then when you find yourself confined in a human body and feel overwhelmed by your challenges you can turn around and blame God.
But we're all sovereign beings and not actually as disempowered as that. Sometimes we may choose a difficult path for ourselves, but we have our reasons for it. This can get in the way of our love for God while we're here, but as soon as we disembody we see things how they really are.
At least that's how I understand it. Your higher self is a god in its own right compared to the expression of yourself you are here, and this is who the conflict is really with.
But we're all sovereign beings and not actually as disempowered as that. Sometimes we may choose a difficult path for ourselves, but we have our reasons for it. This can get in the way of our love for God while we're here, but as soon as we disembody we see things how they really are.
At least that's how I understand it. Your higher self is a god in its own right compared to the expression of yourself you are here, and this is who the conflict is really with.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Foreverafter, I feel like what you are describing is something different to fate, or different to mainstream idea's of fate. I know very little on this subject except for that which I've thought about myself so forgive me if I am missing the point...
I don't think that analogy works if you scale it up. Lets remember that cause and effect are essentially non-dual; they are aspects of the same thing. You can't have one without the other in this universe. Earlier, it was mentioned that people are fated to play certain roles (as meat-eater, or 'upset thread respondent' for example). The last domino falls (effect) after the first domino falls (cause). People don't eat meat (effect) because they are fated to (cause). That's a tautology. You can't describe a thing with reference to itself. I might be misunderstanding this though.
Inevitable action as you describe doesn't really work when you discuss the subtle nuances of human behaviour. It makes sense when you discuss directly perceivable causal relationships, but falls down when you try to apply it to our behaviours and ideals. The domino will fall if its pushed. But what is the cause behind people adopting certain attitudes or living certain types of lives?
But the dominoes cannot fall without impetus. That is a fact of the physical universe; you cannot have an effect without a cause and vice versa.
Of course, I find it unlikely that there is a god similar to typical theistic god. I struggle with the concept of a personal god. Fate is utterly personal. For a human to live a fated life, every event around them must be tailored specifically to manifest a certain outcome. I cannot describe exactly how counter-intuitive this is to me, how at odds it is with my experiences inside the universe. Its a compelling illusion
Without a personal god or entity to dictate fate, from where does it originate? If not from god, can it therefore be superseded?
Isn't the very nature of chance something random and uncontrolled?
My dissociative experiences have really altered my perception of free will. I think that we have it, to some extent, but that it is very different to what we might consider. I think the reality of free-will would probably appear un-free to many. I am hesitant to share any more because my idea's might seem quite strange so I might hold them close for now.
I'm enjoying where this thread has gone. I think we discuss something important here.
I don't think that analogy works if you scale it up. Lets remember that cause and effect are essentially non-dual; they are aspects of the same thing. You can't have one without the other in this universe. Earlier, it was mentioned that people are fated to play certain roles (as meat-eater, or 'upset thread respondent' for example). The last domino falls (effect) after the first domino falls (cause). People don't eat meat (effect) because they are fated to (cause). That's a tautology. You can't describe a thing with reference to itself. I might be misunderstanding this though.
Inevitable action as you describe doesn't really work when you discuss the subtle nuances of human behaviour. It makes sense when you discuss directly perceivable causal relationships, but falls down when you try to apply it to our behaviours and ideals. The domino will fall if its pushed. But what is the cause behind people adopting certain attitudes or living certain types of lives?
But the dominoes cannot fall without impetus. That is a fact of the physical universe; you cannot have an effect without a cause and vice versa.
Of course, I find it unlikely that there is a god similar to typical theistic god. I struggle with the concept of a personal god. Fate is utterly personal. For a human to live a fated life, every event around them must be tailored specifically to manifest a certain outcome. I cannot describe exactly how counter-intuitive this is to me, how at odds it is with my experiences inside the universe. Its a compelling illusion
Without a personal god or entity to dictate fate, from where does it originate? If not from god, can it therefore be superseded? Isn't the very nature of chance something random and uncontrolled?
My dissociative experiences have really altered my perception of free will. I think that we have it, to some extent, but that it is very different to what we might consider. I think the reality of free-will would probably appear un-free to many. I am hesitant to share any more because my idea's might seem quite strange so I might hold them close for now.
I'm enjoying where this thread has gone. I think we discuss something important here.
Last edited:
murphythecat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 812
I am very in live with causality, karma, conditioned realities, ect. I used to be obsessed by that fact that if I am not, you are not
.how can you talk about causality and then talk about fate and destiny
its like, causality is automatically refuting any believe in fate or destiny imo.
can you tell me why fate observably exist? perhaps we dont have the same definition
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
The domino thing is an imperfect analogy.
Obviously, there needs to be somebody to push the first domino.
And, without God, there isn't. So, look beyond that...
I don't have the energy to come up with anything better.
As for whether or not I misunderstand fate, look it up.
There are two definitions of fate.
No.
(If your entire understanding of chance is based around a dictionary definition, then yes.)
Probability is never random or uncontrolled, unless - maybe - you're running a random generator... I'd have to think about that... But, normally, like when you roll a dice, there are many many factors that contribute towards the result: the position of the dice as it hits the table; the speed of your release; etc. And, before you jump on that and tell me it is an imperfect analogy.. I know it is. Because, again, if you take it literally, there is no God "throwing the dice". So, what are the factors that contribute towards the result of the universe? I don't know. But there is no "random chance" in a causal universe. Maybe at first there is, due to the formation/orientation of whatever sets of the big-bang.
Probability - chance - is how we determine the likeliness of any given event, not knowing the factors that are contributing to their occurrence or lack thereof.
...
Murphy, you're asking me to prove something to you that: a) I can't; and b) I couldn't be bothered.
The domino analogy will have to work for you.
I will repeat it, and tweak it a little bit.
Once the dominoes are already in action (forget about how they start to fall), and assuming that they are set up perfectly, the final domino is fated to fall last. Fate and causality overlap; the latter exists within the former. One is long term. The other is short term. A domino hitting another domino and causing it to fall is causality. And so is the first domino hitting the second, hitting the third, hitting the fourth, and so on, until it hits the final domino. Short term causality is a subset of fate. Long term causality is fate. The only thing separating causality and fate is the illusion that we are in control of our destinies (the illusion of free will). But, you are only in control as much as fate has allowed you to be in control (as, I think, willow suggested*). This is part of the illusion. We are free to act in certain ways, but we're only free to act in those ways because events have paved the way for that freedom (of ours).
*It's hard to know whether or not he did suggest it, because he doesn't "want" to say what he thinks about free-will.
Or, maybe, he's not free to discuss his thoughts on free will?
Then again, maybe this is the push he needs?
Maybe now he is "free".
People who fate delivers as heroes are free to save lives, but not to destroy them.
People who fate delivers as villains are free to destroy, but not to save.
Obviously, this is an imperfect categorization.
I'm simplifying things.
I have to.
It's impossible for any of you to prove (in any way) that we're free to act in more than one way.
There's no point discussing it, because I can't prove that we're destined to act in a certain way.
It just seems obvious, to me, given what we know.
No, dude. For fuck's sake.
You're still thinking about fate in the simplified narrative way.
The events aren't tailored, necessarily. That implication doesn't exist.
You keep suggesting that there must be a God or a plan for fate to exist, but that's not the case.
Maybe you're fated to not understand this, due to your issues with God/religion.
Here's another bad analogy.
People say the big bang is like an explosion.
It isn't. But, let's just say it is. An explosion in a vacuum.
There are a shit load of factors that determine where the pieces will go.
Those factors do not tailor specifically to the resulting position of any single piece.
No, it isn't. Personal fate is personal. Fate - as inevitability - is not.
Here's (yet another) bad analogy:
If a man is on an airplane that has run out of gas while flying over an active volcano, he is going to die.
It is his fate, from that moment, at least, to die on the plane (or while attempting to evacuate the plane).
You might argue that it was his decisions that led him to being in the plane at that moment in time.
And, you might be right. But that doesn't change the fact that (beyond the point of no return) he is fated to die.
Were the people who died on 911 (specifically: the passengers on the plane) fated to die?
If not, how were they not fated to die? How could they have avoided it?
Fate observably exists, all the time.
Nobody has answered these questions, adequately.
Obviously, there needs to be somebody to push the first domino.
And, without God, there isn't. So, look beyond that...
I don't have the energy to come up with anything better.
As for whether or not I misunderstand fate, look it up.
There are two definitions of fate.
No.
(If your entire understanding of chance is based around a dictionary definition, then yes.)
Probability is never random or uncontrolled, unless - maybe - you're running a random generator... I'd have to think about that... But, normally, like when you roll a dice, there are many many factors that contribute towards the result: the position of the dice as it hits the table; the speed of your release; etc. And, before you jump on that and tell me it is an imperfect analogy.. I know it is. Because, again, if you take it literally, there is no God "throwing the dice". So, what are the factors that contribute towards the result of the universe? I don't know. But there is no "random chance" in a causal universe. Maybe at first there is, due to the formation/orientation of whatever sets of the big-bang.
Probability - chance - is how we determine the likeliness of any given event, not knowing the factors that are contributing to their occurrence or lack thereof.
...
Murphy, you're asking me to prove something to you that: a) I can't; and b) I couldn't be bothered.
The domino analogy will have to work for you.
I will repeat it, and tweak it a little bit.
Once the dominoes are already in action (forget about how they start to fall), and assuming that they are set up perfectly, the final domino is fated to fall last. Fate and causality overlap; the latter exists within the former. One is long term. The other is short term. A domino hitting another domino and causing it to fall is causality. And so is the first domino hitting the second, hitting the third, hitting the fourth, and so on, until it hits the final domino. Short term causality is a subset of fate. Long term causality is fate. The only thing separating causality and fate is the illusion that we are in control of our destinies (the illusion of free will). But, you are only in control as much as fate has allowed you to be in control (as, I think, willow suggested*). This is part of the illusion. We are free to act in certain ways, but we're only free to act in those ways because events have paved the way for that freedom (of ours).
*It's hard to know whether or not he did suggest it, because he doesn't "want" to say what he thinks about free-will.
Or, maybe, he's not free to discuss his thoughts on free will?
Then again, maybe this is the push he needs?
Maybe now he is "free".
People who fate delivers as heroes are free to save lives, but not to destroy them.
People who fate delivers as villains are free to destroy, but not to save.
Obviously, this is an imperfect categorization.
I'm simplifying things.
I have to.
It's impossible for any of you to prove (in any way) that we're free to act in more than one way.
There's no point discussing it, because I can't prove that we're destined to act in a certain way.
It just seems obvious, to me, given what we know.
No, dude. For fuck's sake.
You're still thinking about fate in the simplified narrative way.
The events aren't tailored, necessarily. That implication doesn't exist.
You keep suggesting that there must be a God or a plan for fate to exist, but that's not the case.
Maybe you're fated to not understand this, due to your issues with God/religion.
Here's another bad analogy.
People say the big bang is like an explosion.
It isn't. But, let's just say it is. An explosion in a vacuum.
There are a shit load of factors that determine where the pieces will go.
Those factors do not tailor specifically to the resulting position of any single piece.
No, it isn't. Personal fate is personal. Fate - as inevitability - is not.
Here's (yet another) bad analogy:
If a man is on an airplane that has run out of gas while flying over an active volcano, he is going to die.
It is his fate, from that moment, at least, to die on the plane (or while attempting to evacuate the plane).
You might argue that it was his decisions that led him to being in the plane at that moment in time.
And, you might be right. But that doesn't change the fact that (beyond the point of no return) he is fated to die.
Were the people who died on 911 (specifically: the passengers on the plane) fated to die?
If not, how were they not fated to die? How could they have avoided it?
Fate observably exists, all the time.
Nobody has answered these questions, adequately.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
You're right really. This conversation is pointless. I understand why you don't want to answer certain questions because I totally feel the same way. I think we have different idea's of what is meant by fate. I feel like I am (mis)using the mainstream interpretation which differs from your own more complicated one and I don't have the energy to try and understand both. I found your post interesting though.
I find this to be an eternal, recurring problem. Not only is it that people tend to misunderstand, many also seem unwilling to see something differently or annoyed to be asked to. It's like (in their mind) they have worked out their reasons why some concept or other isn't valid and then to hear it defined in a different way makes it kind of useless (many haven't really looked into these things in too much depth).
This is especially the case with those who want to uphold the old-fashioned divide between science and religion, or theism and atheism, that they might have an emotional attachement to and feel a self-identification with. Although people like this, who are virtually religiously anti-spiritual, resembles more someone belonging to a religious group than someone just being without a spiritual dimension in their life.
The truth is that it is a form of belonging and self-identity for many (on both sides) and that can be seen as more important than search for the truth or even what makes sense. Esoteric Christianity or mystery versions of other religons are a good example in that they can have a system of thought that is almost the opposite of the mainstream version of it, so if someone aren't familiar with that they don't really know what to say.
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
Give me the questions. Nothing else. Just 1/2/3/4/5/etc.
I'll answer them. I've been thinking about it.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
No, I really don't want to have that sort of discussion. What I meant is that you've made a few statements that you then go on to say you don't wish to discuss. That's fine; I feel the same about some things too. I don't agree with your notion of fate. It doesn't make sense to me. But its all good, despite what might be thought, I've genuinely gained something from this conversation. Even if its only been affirmation.
In short, no sane person would have a problem with ethical/merciful slaughter on animals. I support euthanasia for humans and animals.
My main problem is with factory farming. Its the life of sufferring that I find distasteful. Killing can be fair. But I see an inherent lack of justice and mercy in the natural world; or moreso, I see that humans have invented these things. Its for that reason that I think they are important qualities for all. Without us creating mercy and justice, they are absent.
I have no feelings about the aesthetics of meat eating. It doesn't disgust or appeal to me. The farming does disgust me. It can anger me that I played a part in that.
You're right, we have discussed this. But only madmen would have read this entire thread...
I think that all living creatures have rights, me included. Animals rights shouldn't be defined by their utility to me. Nor is a plant. They have inherent utility to themselves. There is no such objective quality as "rights" in the universe. We take our rights. They are not given to us. But if we wish our rights to have objective meaning, we cannot overlook the majority of earthly life-forms and their rights too.
If a house was burning, and a human and a gorilla and a tree were inside and I could only save 1, I would save the human. I think a human has the greatest capacity to experience life fully, so the loss of a human life represents a greater loss then that of another. It is arbitrary, I admit, but its the truth. I think that the capacity for sufferring descends according to the intelligence and self-awareness of the subject.
I think there are safe and sustainable ways to consume animals products, but I think we are neglecting these. Until that point, I am personally not going to eat something of whose lifes-quality I cannot verify. I am not interested in bearing responsibility for making anything on earth worse then when I found it. I will probably do so anyway; it is my nature as a human to shape my environment; but I am going to try and I cannot understand why people find that offensive. (not saying you do, just in general). But I also cannot care about offending people if I am being true to myself.
Incunabula
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,861
I think you are talking about determinism, and not fate? Am I right?
Anyway, I´m sorry, but envoking quantum physics to underscore your point is totally wrong because the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum physics, which is the Copenhagen interpretation, actually states the absolute opposite of what you are saying, and that is that the world is fundamentally statistical and indeterministic..... And while there is more than one interpretation of quantum physics, they sure aren´t equal, and as wierd and as unintuitive as the Copenhagen interpretation may be, none of the other interpretations comes close to it in the same degree of experimental verification.
So far, it looks like our universe might very well be fundamentally indeterministic, eventhough it seems completely illogical and odd. But of cause, we don´t know that for sure. But what is sure is that you don´t get to use quantum physics as some kind of evidence for determinism. It´s actaually what the whole argument between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein was about, and as it appears today Borh was right: there doesn´t seem to be any hidden variables.
Classical physics and Einstein´s theory of relativity are deterministic though. But as the latter states that time is relative, does that not do away with causality as a fundamental part of our universe? I think it might, and in that case then there´s more wierdness in store for us as we discover the nature of what spacetime really is. And it´s most certainly not as it appears to us anyway.
So, I don´t undestand how you can be so sure that all events are predestined to happen and that the universe is deterministic. I really don´t see how you can be so sure about that.
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
No. Determinism overlaps with non-theistic fate. (Look at the second definition of destiny in the link you provided.) It's very rare for any terms to be completely independent of each other.
...
I get the impression that nobody really understands what I'm suggesting and I don't have the motivation to endlessly clarify my position. I'll keep my response short: I've already said that every eventuality may occur, and that doesn't interfere with my perspective of fate. If all events are fated to occur - if the multiverse branches off into different paths - then, those are our fates (plural). Although modern science suggests that our fates are not determined, in the sense that there are multiple possibilities, there are a finite number of possibilities/eventualities. I was discussing fate in the context of free will, and none of this has any impact on that discussion. There is little evidence, so far, at least, to suggest that our decisions steer us in different directions...
My point isn't "totally wrong" because I subscribe to a different interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
Whether or not the universe is deterministic on a quantum level is not clear, yet. We can observe, in the short term, direct causal relationships. And we know - through modern science - that there are causal relationships that are extraordinarily complex that we can't begin to understand. So, since we're still grappling with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, I don't see how you can - with any confidence - suggest that the universe is non-deterministic.
Although polls show that people opt for the Copenhagen interpretation over other options, that doesn't indicate that it is the "correct" interpretation. Rather, simply, that there are no better options on the poll. It DOES NOT have widespread acceptance, throughout the scientific community, as indisputably true. I couldn't be bothered looking into how popular it is, exactly, but - from what I've read - it's somewhat 50/50...
Likewise.
And I'm not so sure, for the record.
I believe strongly that in fate, because I have observed it.
You believe (to some extent) in what you believe because you believe that the majority of scientists believe it (which they don't).
...
That was a much longer response than I intended to write.
I really don't want to continue this discussion.
It's a waste of my time.
If anyone responds to me, I'm not going to reply.
Chalk that up to a win, if you like.
I don't mean to be rude.
murphythecat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 812
I think we all agree, but the different definitions of the word fate, destiny mix everyone.
for my definition, fate is that magic idea that no matter what you do in this life, if your fate is to die at 45 years old, you will die at 45 years old and no matter what you do in this life wont change your ''fate''. In this, I cannot believe that definition at all.
In that way, Id say I think we can change our fate and that the actions we make right now will change your ''fate'', therefore I dont believe in fate.
for my definition, fate is that magic idea that no matter what you do in this life, if your fate is to die at 45 years old, you will die at 45 years old and no matter what you do in this life wont change your ''fate''. In this, I cannot believe that definition at all.
In that way, Id say I think we can change our fate and that the actions we make right now will change your ''fate'', therefore I dont believe in fate.
turkalurk
Bluelighter
people delude themselves into thinking fate is a personal thing that can be changed. Just as they do with god. They pray to god hoping it will favor them, but just like fate, the Supreme Being is objectively impersonal. We can personalize it like we do everything else. You know how I know when something was meant to happen? Because it happened. This reality emanates from the inherent properties of existence. If this can all come fro? nothing then it remains a potential to happen for all of eternity. Whether it happens again in a seperate isolated universe, or whether the same one remanifests itself over and over, the outcome remains the same. In an infinite span of time, randomness is meaningless because whatevet can happen eventually will happen and will happen an infinite amount of times. predetermination of quatum theory refers to predictability of outcomes. It has little to do with fate. Our fate exists because it is woven into the fabric of being itself. We are destined to live this life because of the way the world is. Murphy, if you can change your fate, it wouldn't be your fate. As a Buddhist, how do you interpret dependent origination?
swilow
Bluelight Crew
^He did say that he doesn't believe in fate...
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
I said I wasn't going to reply, but I can't help myself. (Damn fate!)
Agreed. 100 percent.
(Except for the thing about murphy. He did, indeed, say that he doesn't believe in fate. You misread it.)
We don't agree on the following:
Your ability to change (or lack thereof) - in any given situation - is determined by events preceding that decision.
People like to take credit for their position in the universe, but there are so many factors that determine your life.
Beyond your parents and your schooling. I mean every interaction you've ever had, with anyone.
And, beyond that, the entire evolution of our species. All species. The formation of the planet.
Everything leads you to a point in your life, where you "make a decision".
People like to think that they're in control, and they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Until we prove that there are multiple parallel universes, we only know - with any certainty - that we can do what we actually do.
And, like I said, if there are multiple universes, current scientific theory indicates that there are a finite number of them.
So, assuming that there are a finite number of them, perhaps we can navigate fate by making conscious decisions.
But, those decisions are limited (again, by the events leading us to the decision).
Only in an infinite multi-verse, where every possibility is played out, are we "free" to change (beyond the constraints of fate).
But then, we're fated to make every decision.
People struggle with life, I think, because they don't believe in fate.
They blame themselves for things far beyond their control.
They try to modify behavior that they cannot modify.
We need to understand, and accept, our limitations.
We judge murderers, but - really - anybody could be a murderer (given the wrong circumstances).
This is what I meant, earlier, when I said "victims of fate".
Society's perception of right and wrong is archaic and uncivilized.
There should be some acknowledgement that people who do wrong aren't monsters.
They serve a function. Wars are necessary. Everything is precisely as it should be.
It's not our responsibility to steer the universe. We are passengers.
Agreed. 100 percent.
(Except for the thing about murphy. He did, indeed, say that he doesn't believe in fate. You misread it.)
We don't agree on the following:
Your ability to change (or lack thereof) - in any given situation - is determined by events preceding that decision.
People like to take credit for their position in the universe, but there are so many factors that determine your life.
Beyond your parents and your schooling. I mean every interaction you've ever had, with anyone.
And, beyond that, the entire evolution of our species. All species. The formation of the planet.
Everything leads you to a point in your life, where you "make a decision".
People like to think that they're in control, and they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Until we prove that there are multiple parallel universes, we only know - with any certainty - that we can do what we actually do.
And, like I said, if there are multiple universes, current scientific theory indicates that there are a finite number of them.
So, assuming that there are a finite number of them, perhaps we can navigate fate by making conscious decisions.
But, those decisions are limited (again, by the events leading us to the decision).
Only in an infinite multi-verse, where every possibility is played out, are we "free" to change (beyond the constraints of fate).
But then, we're fated to make every decision.
People struggle with life, I think, because they don't believe in fate.
They blame themselves for things far beyond their control.
They try to modify behavior that they cannot modify.
We need to understand, and accept, our limitations.
We judge murderers, but - really - anybody could be a murderer (given the wrong circumstances).
This is what I meant, earlier, when I said "victims of fate".
Society's perception of right and wrong is archaic and uncivilized.
There should be some acknowledgement that people who do wrong aren't monsters.
They serve a function. Wars are necessary. Everything is precisely as it should be.
It's not our responsibility to steer the universe. We are passengers.
Last edited:
murphythecat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 812
ok, I understand your definition of fate. I agree for the most part, its hard to disagree
People struggle with life, I think, because they don't believe in fate.
They blame themselves for things far beyond their control.
They try to modify behavior that they cannot modify.
how can you know for sure what you can change in you and what you cant?
IMO, theres nothing in this universe that is stationary, everything change constantly. therefore, Id be very careful by saying what we can and cannot change in us, as that knowledge is limited so much by our own experience that we cannot know what we do not know.
People struggle with life, I think, because they don't believe in fate.
They blame themselves for things far beyond their control.
They try to modify behavior that they cannot modify.
how can you know for sure what you can change in you and what you cant?
IMO, theres nothing in this universe that is stationary, everything change constantly. therefore, Id be very careful by saying what we can and cannot change in us, as that knowledge is limited so much by our own experience that we cannot know what we do not know.
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
I cannot know, but I can observe people struggling (sometimes their entire lives) to modify certain behaviors. Addiction is a great example. Some people convince themselves that they have to be absolutely sober all the time after having bad experiences with substance abuse. And they struggle to achieve that, which causes them to relapse harder than if they just accept the fact that they like drugs. People need to be aware of their limitations. Sexuality is another example. I don't believe there is a gay gene. If there is, what about bisexuals? Do they both have the gene and not have it at the same time? This is why bisexuals piss off either side. Why people say "chose a side". Because people need to believe that - since they cannot change it - it is genetic. We struggle to convince ourselves - medically and scientifically - that we are "free" by misinterpreting data to suit our agenda... I know a pair of (male) twins who are heterosexual and homosexual respectively. They are genetically identical. Homosexuality isn't a choice, and it isn't genetic either. Because nothing, really, is a choice. (Or, at least, the choice is an illusion.)
You cannot know the future; you cannot know what will change and what won't: but, you don't need to know... do you?
Let me ask you this.
How do you know that homosexuals can't change their sexuality?
Don't we accept it (sexuality) as unchangeable (by will)?
You cannot know the future; you cannot know what will change and what won't: but, you don't need to know... do you?
Let me ask you this.
How do you know that homosexuals can't change their sexuality?
Don't we accept it (sexuality) as unchangeable (by will)?
murphythecat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 812
hi
I dont believe in gay/ straight. I believe this is very cultural. I'm bisexual myself. I therefore believe also that in the homosexual and heterosxual camp, there is some kind of a lie: you have to choose: gay or straight.
I personnaly, since I feel I am really both gay and straight, do not entirely buy the gay agenda either. from what I realize from being in contact with many gay male and female, it seems yet another way for individuals to find a identity, create a self, a ego. many gay men seem to exaggerate their sexual tendencies and make a image out of it just like machos who cannot accept that part of their sexuality (bisexual). I tend to think we are all bisexual, I may be wrong though, but thats my gut feeling and ive never talked to someone face to face about it with whom I knew he wasn't at all a bit bisexual even though he pretended he wasn't.
what I mean to say is that, you cannot know for sure anything you observe outside of you. the only thing you can know is you and what YOU have to do in this life. all the observing and thinking about something outside of ourselves is useless and more importantly, always completely or at least partially incomplete or false.
I dont believe in gay/ straight. I believe this is very cultural. I'm bisexual myself. I therefore believe also that in the homosexual and heterosxual camp, there is some kind of a lie: you have to choose: gay or straight.
I personnaly, since I feel I am really both gay and straight, do not entirely buy the gay agenda either. from what I realize from being in contact with many gay male and female, it seems yet another way for individuals to find a identity, create a self, a ego. many gay men seem to exaggerate their sexual tendencies and make a image out of it just like machos who cannot accept that part of their sexuality (bisexual). I tend to think we are all bisexual, I may be wrong though, but thats my gut feeling and ive never talked to someone face to face about it with whom I knew he wasn't at all a bit bisexual even though he pretended he wasn't.
what I mean to say is that, you cannot know for sure anything you observe outside of you. the only thing you can know is you and what YOU have to do in this life. all the observing and thinking about something outside of ourselves is useless and more importantly, always completely or at least partially incomplete or false.
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
While I tend to agree with you, somewhat, I don't think you can rule out hetero/homosexuality.
I never speak (or type) in absolutes, so when I say homosexual I mean mostly homosexual.
Most gay guys, if stuck on a desert island with a woman, would - eventually - have sex. But, I'm not sure about all of them. There are some "super gay" guys that have invested so much time and effort in their identity, I suspect they might manage to not have sex. But, this is a very small category. The same goes for heterosexual guys, stuck on an island together. The vast majority will have sex with each other, but some probably won't. There are people doing life sentences in jail who chose to be abstinent instead of having sex. I can only speculate as to why this is, but I tend to suspect that it's an insecurity issue.
I've known quite a few gay guys who've been married (to a woman) for decades and had kids. But, they still identify as gay. I've questioned a couple of them about it, because it doesn't appear to make sense. In the end, I concluded that it's not really our place to tell them that they're not gay (any more then it is there place to tell us that we're not bisexual). To say that there is no gay or straight is controversial, because people live gay and straight lives. The implication is that they're living a lie. And, you're not implying it. You're flat out saying it.
What if there is no choice?
I mean, did you chose to be bisexual: if so, how?
Didn't events lead you to being more open-minded about sexuality?
Agreed. But ego isn't a dirty word.
Sure, they're really in touch with their "gay side".
This isn't the norm from the current generation, though.
Gay guys, these days, tend to be less camp.
But we don't all live bisexual lives, and we aren't going to. I think what you mean is that we all have the potential to be bisexual. A gay guy who sleeps only with other gay guys isn't actively bisexual, and he's probably never going to be: he is gay. This comes back to fate, again. You might as well say that we're all Olympic ice skaters when we're born, because we all have the potential (from birth) to become Olympic ice skaters. I hear what you're saying, but the logic is wrong. We are what we are. The entire gay/lesbian community isn't going to suddenly realize that bisexuality is the only truth, and become bisexual. So they're not bisexual. They're gay. And, what about beastiality (cross-species sex)? It happens with a shitload of species (as does homosexuality) and (like homosexual acts in jail) adolescents brought up in the country are (statistically) pretty likely to experiment with farm animals (given no alternative).
Agreed.
Lots of people have delusions of grandeur, so clearly many people don't know what they are supposed to do with this life.
This sort of statement is where you completely lose me. If you stop observing and thinking about the external world, what kind of life are you going to live? This is why fundamentalists become monks, I think. Because they have to create an environment where nothing is "wrong". But, that's not progressive. There's no reason to be so afraid of being wrong. Yes, everything is at least partially incomplete or false. But, that's okay. We never would have developed the beautiful language we're using right now, if we didn't create (relatively) shitty languages to begin with.
Observing and thinking isn't useless, dude.
You seem to think that there's something fundamentally wrong with the world.
I've encountered this attitude in many of your posts.
Everything is precisely as it should be (including, strangely, your insistence that it isn't).
I'd love to convince you of this, because you seem like a nice person with a good heart.
I think you're over-thinking the Buddhist stuff and it is detracting from your potential towards enlightenment.
Beware of fundamental thinking. (If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.)
I never speak (or type) in absolutes, so when I say homosexual I mean mostly homosexual.
Most gay guys, if stuck on a desert island with a woman, would - eventually - have sex. But, I'm not sure about all of them. There are some "super gay" guys that have invested so much time and effort in their identity, I suspect they might manage to not have sex. But, this is a very small category. The same goes for heterosexual guys, stuck on an island together. The vast majority will have sex with each other, but some probably won't. There are people doing life sentences in jail who chose to be abstinent instead of having sex. I can only speculate as to why this is, but I tend to suspect that it's an insecurity issue.
I've known quite a few gay guys who've been married (to a woman) for decades and had kids. But, they still identify as gay. I've questioned a couple of them about it, because it doesn't appear to make sense. In the end, I concluded that it's not really our place to tell them that they're not gay (any more then it is there place to tell us that we're not bisexual). To say that there is no gay or straight is controversial, because people live gay and straight lives. The implication is that they're living a lie. And, you're not implying it. You're flat out saying it.
What if there is no choice?
I mean, did you chose to be bisexual: if so, how?
Didn't events lead you to being more open-minded about sexuality?
Agreed. But ego isn't a dirty word.
Sure, they're really in touch with their "gay side".
This isn't the norm from the current generation, though.
Gay guys, these days, tend to be less camp.
But we don't all live bisexual lives, and we aren't going to. I think what you mean is that we all have the potential to be bisexual. A gay guy who sleeps only with other gay guys isn't actively bisexual, and he's probably never going to be: he is gay. This comes back to fate, again. You might as well say that we're all Olympic ice skaters when we're born, because we all have the potential (from birth) to become Olympic ice skaters. I hear what you're saying, but the logic is wrong. We are what we are. The entire gay/lesbian community isn't going to suddenly realize that bisexuality is the only truth, and become bisexual. So they're not bisexual. They're gay. And, what about beastiality (cross-species sex)? It happens with a shitload of species (as does homosexuality) and (like homosexual acts in jail) adolescents brought up in the country are (statistically) pretty likely to experiment with farm animals (given no alternative).
Agreed.
Lots of people have delusions of grandeur, so clearly many people don't know what they are supposed to do with this life.
This sort of statement is where you completely lose me. If you stop observing and thinking about the external world, what kind of life are you going to live? This is why fundamentalists become monks, I think. Because they have to create an environment where nothing is "wrong". But, that's not progressive. There's no reason to be so afraid of being wrong. Yes, everything is at least partially incomplete or false. But, that's okay. We never would have developed the beautiful language we're using right now, if we didn't create (relatively) shitty languages to begin with.
Observing and thinking isn't useless, dude.
You seem to think that there's something fundamentally wrong with the world.
I've encountered this attitude in many of your posts.
Everything is precisely as it should be (including, strangely, your insistence that it isn't).
I'd love to convince you of this, because you seem like a nice person with a good heart.
I think you're over-thinking the Buddhist stuff and it is detracting from your potential towards enlightenment.
Beware of fundamental thinking. (If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.)