I see that all the JSH muses are out and about trying to breath life into an otherwise gruesomely boring thread.



((( Lee )))
((( Jax )))
((( DD )))
((( Debbie )))
((( Jeannie )))
((( Willy )))



Willy ????

I am starting to feel addicted too. I need to be building websites and jogging.. something.

I know, you could start a thread on what we could do other than posting drivel on JSH.

Jeannie

((((Abra)))). And Willy too???

I think that was Jax's Disco dance partner.

I am tired, I think I sort of shot my wad on this thread.



See ya' ll, I gotta go to work.

Jeannie

Now, every time I look at this thread all I see is,...

Do We Have a Free Willy?

Willy was freed by his sheer free will......oh yea

HAPPY DANCE


YEA

YEA

HAPPY DANCE

CUZ IT'S MY FREE WILL TO DO SO

Wow I thought only boys could do that....

I guess feminism has advanced more than I thought...

And now we have free willys too?

Oh wait we always had those didn't we... I mean they are "free" in so far as the predetermined constraints of the course of the timeless all now, all god, universe will allow (there is some flexibility I believe) and in as much as modern society and our individual physical and mental strengths and talents will allow us to take advantage of then our will is free...

Peace and joy to all.

One must know of a choice in order to make that choice.

Experience conditions thought, which thereby determines perspective, which thereby recognizes choices, which thereby affects just how 'free' ones will is.

Free of any influence and or determining factors? Cannot happen. Does not happen. Will never happen. Conditioned response starts before birth, and continues until death.

All of one's choices are willed by previous influences, which will the next choices, which will the next, and so on and so forth.

'Free will?'...

I dunno...

yeah Willy..he was a whale..

free your willy and see what influence on others free will that has..

I dunno, I somehow got twins out of that the last time...

It is not how "free: one's Will is, it is how and if one decides to use the Will. The Will is self direction. Let me give you an example.

Have you ever been trying to tell a child what to do or how to do it and heard them yell, "I want to do it myself!" Or have you every heard a child scream, "You are not the boss of me!"

That is a child realizing his free will to direct his own actions.

Jeannie

Willy has a whale????????

Where?

Can I pat it??? Puhleeeeease????

willy is also an R-teest. here he is hard at work on his new exhibition!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article824376.ece

Willy Wonka had a whale
as large as Moby ****
His girlfriend gave him fairy tail
and that was quite a trick!

But then one day
in a willful way
Willy’s will was broken
So Wanda waved her magic wand
and from her lips was spoken,

“Will Willy Wonka’s willy work
when Wanda wants to wank it?
Or will the free will of his wand
require that she spank it?”

Well Willy Wonka’s Wanda
may seem a bit naïve
But that’s because she used free will
despite what he believed

Jenniebean,

Alrighty then, I have spent some time checking out some of the material you have suggested.

I’ll begin with:
Volume One Power of Will
By FRANK CHANNING HADDOCK, M.S., PH.D.
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF A GROWING WILL;
DIRECT CONTROL OF THE PERSONAL FACULTIES;
AND SUCCESS IN THE CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS.
THREE-HUNDRED-FIFTH EDITION (25,000 copies) 1919

Which originally copyrighted in 1907.

This was a very early psychological dissertation. I enjoyed going it though it for a couple reasons; first it gave me a feel for what the field of psychology was like 100 years ago, and second, I admired the man for the effort he put forth in a field that had little scientific methodology and almost no medical knowledge of the actual physiology of the brain.

I totally fail to see any substantiation, in this reading, of the philosophical viewpoints you adhere to, as it has almost nothing to do with your philosophy at all.

You stated:


While Channing Haddock says “The Will, therefore, is under law for it is a part of the universal system of things. It must obey the general laws of man's being, must be true to the laws of its own nature. A lawless Will can have no assignable object of existence. As a function in mind it is subject to the influences of the individual character, of environment and of ethical realities. But in itself it discloses that all Volitions are connected with motives or reasons, that every Volition has its sufficient Reason, and that no Volition is determined solely by any given reason.”

Then there is this quote from the text:

“Remember this, all that you will ever know in this world, every iota of knowledge you will ever possess, comes to you through your Five Senses. A child without Sight, Hearing, Touch, Taste or Smell never would gain any knowledge, it would be but a physical machine absolutely devoid of the ability to know, think, reason or understand.”

These quotes do not substantiate your claim.
Haddock further writes:
“The Will is "the Soul Itself Exercising Self Direction." And “The Will is the soul's power of self direction; yet the soul must decide how and for what purposes this power shall be exercised.”

There is never a definition of what the “soul” is, but there is an abundance of explicit, information explaining that “will” is ONE THING – it is action “Volition”.

The entire rest of the text is discusses the importance of “volition” to a healthy mind and body. As I said, it is psychological rhetoric of the times. At one point “will” is equated to “ego”. This makes sense, considering, at the time, Freud and psychoanalysis were the going thing.

Overall the text is basically explaining that the literal physical actions we take based on our conscious thought and reasoning are “will” or “volition”. The fact that we are not ‘bound’ as a tree or other ‘rooted’ physical form, means we are, not only capable of “volition” but it is part of our natural state to take this action. So naturally “will” drives us to “act”, but only in accordance with all the physical and mental health of the body. Thus, will is free or “freedom” of action. We choose whether to act or not.

Further in the reading Haddock discusses “Mood” and how it affects our decisions to “act”.

“The Mood of Righteousness.
In this mood a person is bent on ascertaining the moral quality of actions. It is the loftiest of
Moods having reference to Will. It has developed some of the greatest Wills of the ages. It clears
the mind, uncovers all motives, illumines the judgment, inspires resolution, induces perseverance, arouses the understanding and guides the reason. By nothing is the Will so easily disorganized as by the opposite Mood, that of Evil.
The Mood of Righteousness governs the universe, that is its superiority, and exhibits the strength of an Almighty Will. He who nourishes and holds to the fore this Mood is infallibly sure of a
good Will; which may err in directions really unimportant, but cannot err in the direction of an
ultimate power of Will that guarantees success against all the assaults of evil forever.”

Previously he discusses morality, though Righteousness and morality are socially and culturally dictated, but this was not something understood 100 years ago.

And the following, I think you quoted some of this one:

“Will may be weak, but within the limitations of weakness, freedom nevertheless obtains. No bondage exists in the power of person to will somewhat. Bondage may obtain in the man, by reason of physical disorders, or of mental incapacity, or of moral perversion, or perhaps, of environment. For the Will "does not sensate: that is done by the senses; it does not cognize: that is done by the intellect; it does not crave or loathe an object of choice: that is done by the affections; it does not judge of the nature, or value, or qualities of an object: that is done by the intellect; it does not moralize on the right or wrong of an object, or of an act of choice: that is done by the conscience (loosely speaking): it does not select the object to be chosen or to be refused, and set it out distinct and defined. known and discriminated from all others, and thus made ready, after passing under the review of all the other faculties, to be chosen or refused by the Will: for this act of selecting has already been done by the intellect."

This paragraph shows that “will” (the act of volition) is not free (or it is stifled) when there is physical or mental impairment. Secondly, you believe that the mind has ability to repair what is wrong; by will. Will, however is only action, it has no other function and no other power. Will, according to this entire text is the inherent capability of free motion and from its natural desire to want to act, it is ever ready to be utilized by a healthy body and mind. What the author is saying is that we can best utilize “will” by finding ways in which to continue to be motivated. We do this by using every one of our senses to their greatest potential, even if that counters a “lazy” mind.

I did find some redeeming qualities in the work, regardless of its age. There are many good suggestions, especially toward the end, that our current society could still benefit from. We overeat and under exercise. The couch potato syndrome that leads us to ignore the desire of “will” to be active even if it’s only is using our senses to go outside and walk.

Although, I’m not in agreement with some of his very long list of how to “properly” determine the best use of “will”, or the best course of “action”, I still think he has some sound advice, even for today.

(Karl Popper, 1975)



This was from one of the websites you had suggested. Karl Popper introduced a great number of challenging ideas to the scientific world, but I just can’t see where they substantiate much of what you believe. Instead of continuing to read, as his stuff can get pretty involved, I thought I’d ask you to point out a few sections that support your conclusions.

I also did a bit of research into Gregg Braden, whom you also suggested.

I always try to determine “credibility” before I take too much time reading. I was not impressed at all with what I found. Basically there is no scientific body of acceptance for his works.

A broad search of the internet gave me a number of websites which he is ‘himself’ affiliated with in one way or another. I have read some reviews of his books, but they certainly did no reflect well on him.

This was one:

“The crux of The God Code is that our DNA sequence, when read by assigning Hebrew characters to the base sequence, spells out the words of our Creator. His mystical justification for this comes from the Sefer Yetzirah (The Book of Creation) which is one of the central texts in the Kabala tradition. Braden gives us a quote from this mystical text which says, "Within the letter is a great, concealed mystical exalted secret… from which everything was created."

But his next step is to say that code is literally translatable into Hebrew! And he bases this grand hypothesis on just single and very dubious 4-letter correlation. (There is exciting new evidence suggesting that the 90% "junk DNA" in our cells actually has grammatical structure and so may well be a language of some sort, but this is a far cry from Braden's puerile reasoning.)”

I did find one that was absolutely a glowing report that began like this:

“internationally renowned as a pioneer in bridging science and spirituality. His ability to find innovative solutions to complex problems led to successful careers as a computer geologist”

But upon further review of the website, I realized it was the publisher of his most recent book.

I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to read that kind of stuff.

As you have said, there is nothing required that will make one believe, but faith itself.

The amazing thing to notice is this date... 1673!!!!!

As soon as one completely understands Spinoza's first principle, one can 'add' something to it...

Flawless when concerning a priori inductive reasoning...

Flawless...


Hey Di!!!