R' Yid,
You write;
'' You said that if one awareness will contain only his hand opening a door he won't have a choice but to do it. I'm sure that you can see the absurd of this situation. Before being aware of opening the door there are so many details one should be aware to . But more significant- no one can imagine knowing just one fragment of his knowledge. Its like trying to visualize a broom with just one edge.''
I was envisioning an awareness that obviously encompasses all necessary data for opening the door but only that, nothing more.
My point is simple, if you have no knowledge of any other option how could you not do it?
We sometimes look at the relationship between my mind and my actions in a manner of 'my mind is telling my body what to do' but if we will look at this approach more clearly it will fall apart. My mind is telling whom, my hand? Does my hand have the capacity of consciousness, of 'understanding' the directions of my mind?
Imagine a person with no want whatsoever; what do you expect this man to do? You'll probably say that he just won't do anything he'll just rest. But remember, this man has no wants; he has no want to rest either, he wants absolutely nothing. So again, what should we expect the actions of this man to be? I suggest that whatever course of action comes to his mind will be acted out. If he sees himself as jumping he'll be jumping without further ado. It wouldn't be a process of 'ok I should jump now'; it will just be a manifestation of his thought in the physical, acting out of what he's aware of at this moment.
Habit, too, is about acting out what you see in your mind as happening, You walk into a room and your hand automatically goes to the light switch although you have changed the layout of the room 2 weeks ago and the light switch is not there anymore. Your mind sees a course of action, doesn't see any other options and poof it's done.
נשלח ב-20/9/2005 14:32
Veto and Poor at the Door…
Due to many reasons - things I'm occupied with, and the effort I have to put in to understand and respond to the many deep points and thoughts you've raised above .
It will take me a while
But just one comment, Ani_ Ba'Passach, , what you wrote in your last post is pure speculation.
In order to imagine a door one need thousands of details .
A man without will, rests . Resting in this case means: static- not an outcome of wanting. I'm not talking of going to lie on the couch. But being motionless.
And – you askd for an example of an ethical value that dose not mean " valuing others as you value yourself" . I have at least one: defending yourself even by killing someone else.
תוקן על ידי - מנהלמשנה - 20/09/2005 16:19:48
נשלח ב-20/9/2005 17:17
Mr. Cosmopolitan
You wrote,
A man without will, rests . Resting in this case means: static- not an outcome of wanting. I'm not talking of going to lie on the couch. But being motionless.
Ok so this hypothetical 'man of no wants' will rest. How will he rest? Sitting in a chair? Lying in bed? Or maybe even leaning against a wall. But wait, don't we all know how many millions of actions is necessary in order to accomplish any of the above.
True rest would be lying in a crumpled heap on the floor with every body-part being completely loose (chin hanging, tongue sticking out etc.)
Yet our hero here does none of the above, do you know why? Because he didn't realize that he's doing something he thinks he is not doing any action.
Sure, action means change and there is no change unless a force is acting upon it hence your point about 'static'. But in his world (his mind is his world) there is no change, he isn't aware of any other option.
Looking at it from a different angle, let's give our man a limitless supply of energy, there is no effort whatsoever for him to do anything, it's just as easy for him to act as to rest. Now although they are both equal, I agree that there still has to be a force to make a change [Just like the general law of inertia where continuing in a straight line is as easy as staying put, yet once the object is in one position it won't change unless acted upon] The key here is that the change is in the mind, I wouldn't apply the Law of Inertia in it's typical formulation saying that this man will continue walking forever, because if in his mind he sees it as action then every step is actually a change from the option of the static position for in order to see it as action he sees the position prior to action and how the action changes it. Action is change.
But if he doesn't realize the prior position and for some reason he will just think that this is how 'it is', then this man with limitless energy will continue doing (or rather 'not doing' from his perspective) forever, until he will realize that there is an option of statis.
The issue is a bit confusing because we are talking about action which means change, which is the opposite of inertia, but we forget to realize that this man has his own world and in his world it isn't change, for change is only if there is the option 1 and 2, but in his world there is no option 1. It's action from our perspective but not from his.
Dear Veto,
I'll try to respond to your points later.Thanks for your constant input,
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 20/09/2005 17:20:25
נשלח ב-21/9/2005 03:38
I wrote in one of my above posts the following;
We sometimes look at the relationship between my mind and my actions in a manner of 'my mind is telling my body what to do' but if we will look at this approach more clearly it will fall apart. My mind is telling whom, my hand? Does my hand have the capacity of consciousness, of 'understanding' the directions of my mind?
Let me add one little point;
At the end of the day, the only thing the mind does to facilitate action is 'being aware'. Can you disagree with that? If you can, please tell me what more the mind does.
You claim that "will" is the what constitutes our individuality I would say that if you take away the emotional part of 'will' you stay with a person thinking 'I see that this belongs over here' it's again an awareness. I already explained (I think) what is meant when saying "I see this belongs here". One is just saying "I have a picture in my mind of and this goes here in that picture"
I'm not sure if I'm bringing my point across well enough or maybe it's that I don't understand it well enough, who knows
נשלח ב-21/9/2005 04:18
Mr. Cosmo,
I challenged you to find an ethical act that is not about equalizing yourself with others. You claim you have one, namely, defending yourself even by killing someone else.
I don't think that you've met the challenge.
I still say that Ethics is all about Equalizing yoursef with others, it's about getting rid of this illogical 'me first' mentality, but it's not about making others more than you, the keyword is 'equalizing'.
I maybe should've phrased the general idea of ethics as follows,
Do unto others what you would have done to yourself and , in turn, do unto yourself as you would do to others.
But I think that the second part doesn't need to much coaxing. It's the first that is what we try to get ourselves to do.
נשלח ב-20/10/2005 01:19
Dear Ani (in Hebrew ani means poor but also speaker...)
Where shell I start?.... mmm…
Let's begin with what I believe is the core of our disagreement; you argue that a human is awareness or in your words: "there is only awareness" and I argue that what defines us is "will".
I have to be honest that both opinions are speculations. Humanity steel didn't fully comprehend the brain and what humanity is.
Nevertheless awareness doesn't define the deference between two people. What defines them is 'will'. Particularly when the subject is ethics. Ethics are human will.
Bear in mind that my thesis simplifies the question regarding here (according to Occam's razor). Without drive even awareness won't exist because nothing drives it. And of corse it answers the question you've raised in this tread "why be ethical" as will is preliminary to every thing the questing is not legitimate.
Notwithstanding I respect your way of thinking and I do not reject what you say I jest don't think it gives us an accurate picture so our world. Let us first try to figure out that issue than we shell precedes step by step to the other matters.
