That which exists is a cause, that which reacts to existence is an effect, so, a subject in this sense is both cause and effect but, the subject is not cause to itself, as part of the physical world the subject is cause for the reaction of other subjects, including incrementally the physical world.

"Thoughs who know the most, must mourn the deepest, orr the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life."

Self-control of the collective must be the goal of humanity, or as Leaky stated in his advice to humanity, change or perish.

The A and B are a denial that either exists, otherwise we are in agreement.

We already do delusion and denial, no argument here, but, can we not shake it and move on. Are we as mindless as the beast, and must wait for nature to clean house. Perhaps collectively there is no mind, but we are rather doomed if we cannot enact a greater skill at self-control. Perhaps nature needs to take out her wrath before humanity could rise to the occasion. I suspect that will be the bell that tolls for humanity.

Please expand, what should it look like. Do you reject the lack of free will, and do you reject the idea of chaos Please, help me to understand.

According to the religious, God is not to be found in time and space. All matter is found in time and in space, this is what is meant by the term exists, thus, God does not exists.

Perhaps the answer is in the fact that all people are more at ease in commonality. People tend to speak of racism as something that is the property of the white man, is this so, is it not found in all cultures, all peoples. The racist desires purity, commonality of a kind to the point of hatred and violence but if the problem of racism was solved, and the great melting pot of variety played itself out, the outcome would be a purity of kind, the commonality, we would after a time, all look alike and possibly behave alike. The racist would then be in nirvana.

I have a hunch that the lack of free will is not due to fate or determinism, but to profound chaos, perhaps not properly chaos, if humanity had the intellect to understand such profound complexity, but it does appear to be unfathomable which we tend to think of as chaos.

The most obvious way to check whether our choices make sense is to check them against the physical world as to whether the consequences of our choices are having the logical effect which was intended. Our perception in checking this out of course could be defective, the choice may have been a result in the first place of a misconception. One could be on the safe side and gather a consensus, as reality does seem to be appreciated as agreement. Even this method is not full proof and a lone opinion does not mean one is wrong, perhaps just unpopular.

Social media I think might in many cases increase the level of fragmentation, scattering the mind to a greater level than a population has ever experienced. Fragmentation of information could do nothing but fragment the thinking, I fear this may be so, any thought on it out there?

What I meant to say was we call our community home, its comfortable, and we often forget the natural world that supports it. Unawareness is similar in its effects as indifference, and here, it has been deprimental to the natural world.

Good point, your thinking personal achievement, as apposed to being functional in a given context?

Hi, I am a white guy who lived in a black community for five years, One thing I noticed, accommodations were less than ideal. I knew a number of blacks who could be living under better circumstances but, they were more comfortable living with black people than living with white people. This is unstated, but if a white person stated that they were more comfortable living with whites, wouldn't they run the risk of being called racist? A certain commonness of many aspects I suggest is at least, less stressful than dealing with many differences.

In the span of one individual's life, there can be much understood that went into the behaviours of a given individual. We can be more intelligent and compassionate when we have concepts that are at least acknowledge about the complexity of it all. Can we afford such speculations when dealing with those who break the rules, I don't think society is going to real soon. Unlike yourself, I believe it can be somewhat possible, certainly to a greater degree than is presently realized.

The mere complexity of so many variables acting through time is a job for the new science of chaos, butterfly effects all over the place. Humanity might not be able or willing to deal with the overwhelming complexity that is the human experience. An experience that conditions and molds the individual. To say an individual is responsible, accountable for his state of being at any given time is simply absurd. The full realization of the truly overwhelming complexity would reek havoc with the ideas of sin or being legally accountable to a legal system.

We'd be in free fall, how is a society to function without sin or full accountability for the individual's behaviors, it would be chaos itself, and perhaps it would be a little to frightening. I think if humanity ever embraces this challenge, it would be a new step in social evolution, a brave new world. Chaos theory and neurology I believe will lay this out, so as to be undeniable. When you express bewilderment, as to how to discern a science of all these variables mentioned, it just state to me, the absurdity of the concept of free will.

Does not your statement, "How to determine an appropriate reading of these influences.", just underline the absurdity of the concept of free will.? Being, its sins and responsibilities need to be reframed.

Life is struggling, sufferings, and joys; only death is no trouble.

Morality must be based on the well-being of a class of organisms, morality must be based on our common biology. Society, civilization, is founded on a compassion for like organisms, like biologies. This must be a common purpose, for if one is to abide by a common biology-based morality one cannot at the same time, claim to be autonomous. Organisms form into these groupings in reaction to what is felt perhaps subjectively as an indifferent nature, an environment sometimes experienced as hostile to the continuation of life. Whereas a community is felt to be supportive of the life of the individual.

To have compassion for ones fellows one must identity with, for it is upon this that compassion arises. It is if you like, an expansion of the concept of self, perceived differences tend to make this identification more difficult, more abstract you might say. It is upon this reality, that one culture builds its ethical foundation as the glue holding the unit of society together. When one rules out morality and ethics founded on the supernatural, morality and ethics based upon our common biology is the only rational choice, which should have been realized in the first place.

One's goals, as well as most things about humanity are largely conditioned, context defines you might say. The goals of a free agent in nature to would be defined by context, thus giving over time the agents nature. So, society defines us, but we in identifying with others in this synthetic environment have violate the very nature or foundation of all things, the natural world. Civilization in context. Your thoughts?

Ok, will do!!! Thanks!

Try controlled breathing, as the Buddha said, marry your breath. Control your breathing and you control your emotions. Not being sarcastic!

Your examples given, just underline the fact that differing biologies perceive different apparent realities. Perception is biological reaction, so too perhaps, is consciousness. The mechanics of it, the workings, is what is, the hard problem.

Tom,
What was it about the book that you did not find impressive. I am in wonderment that anyone could read the book and still buy the warren commissions interpretation. Please, enlighten me.

Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake, could you clarify how your post relates to my own?

Tom,
As I said, when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy, sometimes a duck is just a duck, and not a reasonable facilely. Read, L. Fletcher Prouty, X CIA man. His book is a wealth of inside knowledge. Book: "JFK - The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to assassinate John F Kennedy." It was this book that inspired the making of the movie JFK, by director Olver Stone. Perfect, if your going to kill someone, try to be heading the investigation of your crime. The book left no doubt in my mind that the powers that be that pulled this off, would have no trouble framing that poor soul Oswald. Much has come to light about Oswald's activities, he was true a patsy.

There is no logic to that which is unknown.

Being is a manifestation of pure energy degraded, manifestation itself is being in the form of matter.

I would think that conspiracy is indicated when abundant circumstantial evidence indicates the impossibility of it being the willful act of one person. As in the murder of John F Kennedy, when so many of the standard precautions for protecting a presidential motorcade were suddenly missing. Considering these abundant circumstances, the story later presented disrespects the intelligence of the American public, or does it?

Excellent, but, alas, I am a poor man. The nearer to god I be - - lol!!

HI Fool---lol!! What do you think of the idea that there is an ultimate reality from which apparent reality is discerned, and that the method of discernment is biology. Such that, only certain aspects of ultimate reality are sensed by our biology. In this way of thinking, pain certainly is a sensing by ones biology that indicates that there is something of ultimate reality that is depremental to our biological nature. Much of ultimate reality is not sensed by various organisms, where you have a somewhat differing biology, you have a somewhat differing apparent reality. Reality does not come in discreet packages, where there is no separation, there is nothing which is an absolute other.

Yes, you have a point, we need to define our terms. Philosophy created Science, there is a similar relation between myth and ritual. Myth is the story, ritual is the story enacted, so too, philosophy is the story, science is the story enacted. Differing processes of trying to relate knowledge/understanding to replace ignorance or bewilderment, to give an orientation. I need to give defining our terms a bit more thought, if you wish to kick it off with your thoughts feel free.

Michael,
Consider the organism/humanity as a reactionary creature, this at least is pointing in the right direction.

Probably the 1% are not the evil power elite, they are too visible. I think in this dialogue however we do not have the same concerns. I am concerned about America's crimes against humanity, its true mafia-type behaviour internationally. So I'll bow out here. This one percent through, must be tied tightly to the corporate world.

A most interesting post-Michael, but as with Victor Frankl, the search goes on. This is why Nietzsche's fear for humanity was so great in the face of Nihilism and his statement that he was not at all sure that humanity could live without its myths, read delusions. A great deal of philosophy goes down the tube when one realizes that the notion of free will, is just that, a notion, it has no foundation in reality. Nietzsche was once a great fan of Schopenhauer, he made his bones in critiquing Schopenhauer, he owes much to Schopenhauer, and that negative mess Christianity. Intent and purpose, one can have intent, but one cannot intend what that intention is going to be, that has an evolutionary history along as the first replicating cell. This is mind blowing I realize, what is society going to do in the face of no sin and no real guilt, the holy men will be seen for the frauds that they are, the judicial system will be turned upside down, but just maybe, humanity will begin a new evolutionary development, one that faces the true mind blowing complexity that reality is. Two areas to watch, neurology and chaos theory in the unfolding complexity of a greater reality/humanity. Meaning is a subjective quality, a biological readout, it forces it way into greater objective understanding, which again must be interpreted through biology.

Sushi,
I am not concerned with the morality of keeping up with the Jones. I was just wondering if this 1% is the power elite that runs America like an international crime family. Most Americans are not even aware of the crimes against humanity that this hidden power elite forces upon the rest of the world. At this stage, it would be funny if it was not so tragic, that most Americans do not even know their country is a hated empire, an excellent metaphor for evil in the world.

As God is not a legitimate topic for science because it is unfalsifiable, so to I think philosophy should stop treading water with an object of the human imagination. The topic itself is absurd.

According to Schopenhauer, the will is a blind force. Personally, I think one can see this in all things of necessity and instinct, mindless sex and procreation, hunger-killing and consumption to stay in being. I think Schopenhauer made his case. So, what's to wonder about will, well, do we have free will, personally I think not. We have a sense of free will, but, it is delusional, and when closely examined its structure is shaky at best. Simple cause and effect says no. Today however they are making great headway in neuroscience. I'll not go into detail for which I am not qualified to make, but if your really interested in these advances, which seem to negate any idea of free will, it is well worth the trouble. In the absence of free will however, it has to shake the very foundation of society, for guilt and sin are then seen as absurdities. The world just got a great deal more complex.

The one percent, I believe are the power elite, which makes war for corporations and is the terror of the earth. The Vietnam holocaust made a lot of millionaires, war for America is big business and the corporations keep the patterns of explotation and war working for them. America has become a world cancer. This power elite is untouchable, anonymous, and amoral.

"To God, all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus
"There is no such thing as right or wrong, but only thinking makes them so." Shakespeare."

All meaning is a biological readout of one's experience of ultimate reality, providing us with, an apparent reality. Apparent reality is then biological re-action, as consciousness itself is biological re-action.

Presently, the frame is toxic to the world at large. Today we cannot afford the divisiveness of that frame they call religion. In a world of nuclear weapons, it's grow up or die.

In the absence of fear, there would be no religion. Does religion today fulfil this function of relieving the stress of fear, for a thinking people.I think it does not. Today, it is divisive in a world which cannot afford it's divisiveness, it well may be our demise if humanity refuses to grow up. Do we not prep our children for living lives in delusion, with Santa and the tooth fairy. How in the world are the adult delusions different that religion offers. Must we live by the lowest common denominator and walk that righteous path of ignorance? Do we raise to the needs of the time, or do we embrace a blue print for a twenty five thousand year old elementary society that was bounded on all sides by ignorance. God needs to die.