And where did the source get their information from? I suppose even the source is just notes. Even if you were to study the inner workings of a plant, you're just learning from what the plant does with the laws of nature, not the actual laws of nature. — TogetherTurtle

The source, more or less, is a self-written law.
When you study the plants, you're learning how nature has manifested itself as the plant, but there's plenty of other things; and the understanding of those things compiled with the understanding of the plant would be the understanding of nature.

To paraphrase your last sentence - you wouldn't be learning the recipe for the cake, but taking a slice and examining that; which would still be learning of the cake.

There are things we like to do that aren't sinful, yes? — TogetherTurtle

Aye.

So you're always free to an extent, but rarely wholly free. — Shamshir

Man can sin, but not necessarily so.
Think of it as one leg already in the pitfall.

In his book, "On Not Leaving It to the Snake" theologian Harvey Cox interprets the temptation story this at least somewhat heretical way: Adam and Eve were meant to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. However, for the fruit to be beneficial, they needed to proceed in a forthright manner, on their own recognisance, so to speak.

They didn't.

They bought into the serpent's seduction, and let the snake talk them into eating the fruit. Their failure to act on their own volition is what spoiled the apple. — Bitter Crank

That's an interesting interpretation.
I'd put it thus - they were supposed to grow the fruit as opposed to eating it.
And this very mistake is seen repeating itself in history, over and over.

The story of The Tower of Babel is just another version of this same con.

The distinction is - the object opposed to a reflection.

That's fair. Poison and medicine differ merely in application after all.

Possessing the knowledge of the fruit innately, will remove the bars.
The con lies in that the knowledge gained from the fruit is second hand, so it is easily manipulated - which is how illusionists con the public.
You're essentially reading someone else's notes, rather than reading from the source.
Maybe you've heard the saying "Like the Devil reading scriputre"? This is the reference.
As if man is truly free, how can he be tempted to sin? I find it impossible; so the con with the fruit was a necessary impediment to man's natural freedom. Just like the fruit called money, for instance.

Aye.
If I had to be concise, freedom is right-being. You have everything, but don't need anything; akin to a dream.

Which is why, just like how a dream can turn sour if you don't roll with it, man is largely free but tends to deny being wholly free.
To go off on a tangent, that has to do with attachments, as attachments produce setbacks. Freedom is merely playing the game with nothing in mind; no win or lose, hence harmonious. It's ultimately a still joy.
And that's what's discussed in Genesis; the con with the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil robs man of freedom and provides the artificial prison bars' barrier I mentioned.

Sorry buddy, but you're wrong on that account.

Any such theory necessitates existence to function. And that specific one begins with everything being compressed to a single point of existence. But there is existence a priori and the theory offers no claims as to how and when it came about.

...or perhaps a Finn? — Theologian

Or Tibetan, or Danish or Bulgarian, etc.

That theory only explains the transmutation of existence in to its current state.

It will pass.
Don't feed the fire and it will pass faster.
Don't just vent your problems, go do something that actually makes you happy.

I'm thoroughly fed up. People act like I'm on America's Most Wanted. Honestly, I think it might as well be illegal to be both dull and troubled in this masters of the universe setting. — THX1138

The problem doesn't lie with what happens to you, but what you do with it.

And in your own words:

I don't know what to make of anything. — THX1138

Take a breather. Your own overassessments are what's going to cause you to snap, not some mook who thinks lesser of you.
The responsibility for the rescue of the drowning, is before all else - the drowning's.

I'm not underestimating anybody. The president is strictly a poster boy, and this one happens to be doing his job quite well - barking up a storm, but having little to no teeth.

One thing I am sure of is that whatever happens for Trump it will be personal. He has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to see any issue in any light other than how it reflects on him. Perhaps he is already making plans to build a TRUMP Tower on the rubble. — Fooloso4

His plans don't matter, he's a poster boy.

I think you're working in reverse. :meh:
Space tourism is just one example for why it won't work like that.

Touché.

I am a philosopher, there is nowhere I won't go — Merkwurdichliebe

Then go nowhere. :cool:

Well, I simply think, if we were to take cogs as an example - that working for others and yourself is the same to the free man.

Whereas stressing on helping yourself or your neighbour puts up the cage bars.

Going with the flow is good for everybody and everybody who's ever looked at the sky knows this, though it may not be apparent - and that unstressed realisation is essentially freedom.

I don't think it's difficult.

I grow corn, feed the sheep corn and fertilise the cornfield with the excrements.
To me it's an effortless unity and grants me peace - by that I would deem I'm free.

An effortless unity, where no individuality is artificially strained.

The hint is water. The answer is ironically solution.

Thinking about blue as opposed to thinking blue.

See the difference?

The difference is the oft repeated wedge 'about'.

Remove it - non linguistic.
Add it - linguistic.

Then I repeat there's no grounds for linguistic thought, but merely making references which holds the possibility of communication but does not instigate it.

What about Helen Keller? — Merkwurdichliebe

Record player.

What about jellyfish?

Nevertheless, capable of linguistic thought, simply through their natural capacity for conceptual abstraction. — Merkwurdichliebe

Tell me what you mean by linguistic thought, as I find no grounds for it in the above.

This makes sense. — Merkwurdichliebe

Does it?

What about telepaths and mutes?

Freedom is harmony. So you're always free to an extent, but rarely wholly free.

He's not allowed to, after going on parole from the thought police.

I told him not to take the animals' thoughts away, but he didn't listen.

Eh, to an extent.

don't store or recall thoughts other than immediately during thinking — Shamshir

The duration of the correlation doesn't matter. — creativesoul

Well, it matters if it's what @Janus means when he refers to holding thought. As he'd then be right that they can't hold thoughts, but clearly can have thoughts, which is different when looking at thinking as a river.

@Janus Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just mean that animals don't store or recall thoughts other than immediately during thinking, right?

Just one of Janus' many powers.

Why would a mind independent world impede your ability to act upon it freely?

It just means that the world is self-sufficient and works regardless of free will.

I definitely don't think it's too similar, but it's your call.

The HGG is definitely an apt suggestion; try probing with references to see if she's read it.

I'd be inclined to recommend Marcus Aurelius if you can find a proper translation.

Daring is caring and caring is sharing.

Dare on, my friend.

I'd also like to add the Popol Vuh to the list. :)

A value of five. They contribute one thumbs up. :up:

That Canada does not equate the territory, just as how musical notes don't equate tones, even though that's what they refer to.

Shell and filling.

I do not have it in hand, but I am pretty sure that Aristotle remarked that philosophy isn't for children. — tim wood

How childish of Aristotle.

You said this is wrong. So when we use "Canada" that way, you'd say that we're simply using the word wrong? — Terrapin Station

I don't think he means to say that you're using the word wrong, but that what Canada references is separate from itself, as it seemingly cannot reference itself.

Assuming these attacks were indeed ordered by Iran, what could be the strategic considerations behind them? — Echarmion

Iran has other things in mind than to instigate conflicts.

You match the prints to the culprit, Bananno. :ok:

Captain Nemo, Panchatantra and A Thousand And One Nights.

Your mailman is however a mediator between you and those you don't physically contact, which is no different.