Yap, funny. Who knows maybe that realistic influence is shielded by other parties playing in multi-person chess party? So the superposition of all those influences as physical as well as metaphysical comprises the reality.

If man helps the Great Old Democrate in His chess party by his Free Will the outcome can be fantastic, then the influence you are speaking about will be quite realistic. If man does not have Free Will then the Great Old Democrate has to work as hard as he can to change something, because maybe the Forces are balanced. You see …

Speaking shortly, if e.g. I am the Great Old Democrate living and walking among the men I need to find gentlemen who will persuade (but certainly by their Free Will) the common cause. But it may turn so, that the other parties do not relay on human Free Will in their operations on this planet. That is called unfair game. In this respect the Great Old Democrate differs from Selfish Archaic TyrANt.

Who knows, maybe when the United States were created the Great Old Democrate could find and talk with Ben, George, John, and Tom having the Free Will? E.g. like he could find and talk with Solon, Numa Pompilius and Pericles in the old times. Maybe in our days He looks for gentlemen having Free Will to make the world better as well?

Certainly in our days the Internet provides new opportunities for the Great Old Democrate. The Kids must understand that, they must...

Any other questions?

I like to look at freewill in the way it is already used. Many diffrent sects from government to crazed cults have experimented with freewill. If one has no freewill, functioning is virtually ceased without the permission of the handler, no real insights or knowlege can be gained. This is the conondrum for the government, the reason why I doubt they will ever dare to take away the masses freewill entirely. If they have no freewill you HEAVILY slow down any advances, inventions, insights and possibly kill future geniuses. If Albert Einstine didnt have his freewill to think about relativity, then the Theory of Relativity wouldnt of been brought into existance. This, above all I think is the reason to keep freewill, it is not only the ethical thing to do, but from this freewill great insight can be found.

I do agree with you in many points.

In my opinion the Free Will is a quite specific concept.
I can talk about its peculiarities for days. Whatsoever...
Certainly the Free Will is linked with creativity as well.

But sometimes people are creative not due to their own Free Will but due to some specific options. The matter is that the options can be created by someone to make men creative. Now we come to the most difficult question: does that someone created opportunities or just preconditioned (constrained, confined) the Free Will of men by Mastering the environment men live in?

Speaking clearly who has much Free Will: man born and living in a desert or man living in a city where symbols carved on stones are looking at him every day, where his nature is affected by the architecture of the buildings designed by great masters of the past with certain aim and purpose?

Or if he speaks Language edited my a magician, then does a man possesses a Free Will? These questions are very important philosophic questions.

It was nice to chat with you. I am sorry, I have to go by now. I will be back later.

Yeah, certainly creativity is biased to environmental factors. For instance, reading a book requires much more creativity and visualization than a movie. Just as imagining you are on a vacation requires more creativity than actually going on one. Other possibilities include how much 'free time' you have on your hands? How much entertainment is available to a person? This is just like increasing or stimulating intelligence, when you have a calculator do math for you, you cause less logical stimulation. Just as when you have a video game entertain you rather than do roleplaying or something to that effect. When there is a lack of entertainment, one is forced to create it themselves, when their is lots of 'free time' one is forced to create something to fill the gaps.

Exactly.
The roses to grow should be planted in a proper soil, in a proper place protected from winds, in a sunny shiny site near a spring of pure waters.

In answer to these important questions, I will offer the only thing I have the right to offer, my personal opinion.

BASICS PRINCIPLES FOR A CREATIVE DIALOGUE
But, before I do this, I need to state some basic principles I always try to keep in mind whenever I get involved having a dialogue about serious matters with people I do not know all that well. And, by the way, I prefer dialoguing to debating. With this in mind, I
1) try to keep a sense of humour, even about serious matters.
2) I would like for all discussants involved to agree that there is no one among us who is infallible.
3) I would like to think that if there is any dispute about the meaning of words we agree to consult a standard dictionary.
4) I would like to think that we would be willing to do the same regarding generally accepted facts. Let us, generally speaking, agree to accepts facts as reported in a standard encyclopaedia, or, as provided by accepted experts in the field under discussion.
5) Finally, if after a fair discussion of the topic at hand, we still find ourselves in disagreement, let us, even before we start, agree to disagree, agreeably. In this way it is to be hoped that we can learn to accept all enriching differences and rejoice in all satisfying similarities.
===============================000000000==================================
Max asks

IMO, GØD—note the way I spell the divine name—is not A human-like and personal being who happens to be omnipotent. I like to think of GØD as being omnipotence itself—whatever omnipotence is. Not being omniscient, I do not pretend to know. I use words like 'omniscient', 'omnipresent' and 'all loving' in the same way.

This question is raised: Do atomic particles, atoms, viruses, bacteria, cells, insects, fish, birds, animals, whatever, think feel and act like human beings and look upon us as their "God"? I have no way of knowing, but I do not think of it as plausible, or possible. Therefore, at this point, in the same way that I refuse to think of GØD, anthropomorphically—that is, I refuse to think of GØD as having a body, mind and spirit like we do. In the same way, I refuse to think of atoms, etc., as being human-like beings. However, if anyone can arrange for me to meet a Mr. Atom, I am always ready and willing to be convinced otherwise.

Meanwhile, because I think of mice as sentient beings I treat them with respect. But they are not human beings. Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse cartoons, which give human-like voices and spirit-like emotions to caricatures remotely resembling people and mice, make for good entertainment for the child-like mind in all of us, but surely that is all they are, entertainment. Disney himself called cartooning doing the “plausible impossible”.

Golden words Mr. Lindsay!

But what if the mind decrypts (translates into its own language of associations and secondary associations within the neurons network in the brain) the words in quite different ways and accepts variations not implying to human Free Will and Knowledge and dictionary.
I mean that in some cases, when the brain decrypts (meaning cited above) words, while eyes read the words, then it automatically, like a ‘machine’, makes decryption (meaning like above) not following the dictionary or common sense?

The usage of word God by itself is quite questionable.

Look, e.g. you yourself use this “GØD”. How can you be sure that the true God likes this “Ø” letter? If I would be the God I did not.

E.g. Where, Why, Who, Whom, Whose, What they look similar, they all start by Wh. It is like a terminal. By choosing the terminals we predispose everything, at least it presets conditions. It is like a spell.

Another example: word Hello differs from word Hell by one letter. So when we say hello to each other does it mean that each time the word Hell (and info associated with terminal Hell) gets in some way activated in our brain? Does it mean that that each time when we meet another person and welcome him by this word we activate the terminal Hell? The same is with word Help. So when people say Help, then does it mean that the terminal Hell may get activated with some probability? So does it mean that when people look for Help they call Hell? Magic? Or what? Percolation of meanings in brain?

The human freedom is confined by the language they speak. But there are languages on our planet which have other very interesting properties. E.g. Lord Byron once named a language (I forgot which one) designed to speak with God. Maybe there are languages which are free from such a magic?

Your five points are excellent indeed. But I guess that each should have option.

The message above was posted by me, I forgot to log in, sorry.

Yours Enki

I just looked it up. Byron thought Armenian is the language to speak with God:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,...,429355,00.html

I've also heard it said that silence is the language of God.

I suspect that any language (including Armenian) impedes us all terribly. Admittedly, it's all we have. Words corral otherwise free, unbridled, boundless thoughts, creating borders, limits. A vast poetic vocabulary helps, but really can't exactly express pure (wordless) thoughts.

He remained ‘silent’ for a quite long period of time, so that some gentlemen presumably supposed that He does not exist and that they can do whatever they want.

A new language based on scientifically justified logic always can be designed. I am sure that one day nations of the world will challenge that important task and will grant true freedom to human mind, and who knows, maybe then mankind will overlord in the Universe.

Bests,
Enki

Enki,
True freedom will be granted to human mind by the nations of the world through a new language based on scientifically justified logic !?
That´s how You understand the true freedom of the mind ?
And what do You really mean by "then mankind will overlord in the Universe" ?

Ah but it was said man was created in the image of god. Anyways I feel as though God and the idea of God is more about perception of a god, lets not forget, many religions had 'living' gods. We need to look at the living god aspect as well, for we most certainly cannot hope to look at the idea of God seriously without touching all of its many branches.

The sentence you are quoting does not exhibit how I do understand what the true freedom of mind is. It sets forth an option. Just one option.

Btw, why the word "you" is used with the capital letter? Is it a sign of disrespect or fundamental disagreement with my humble thoughts? Or it comes from deep understanding of the reality?



It is a horrific secret. Can I have secrets?

I have a good paraphrased motto for such cases, which I originally have acquired from motto of Sir Humphrey Appleby: Keep in secret that you have a secret to keep [original version “He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep.”].

But there is another approach which I personally try not to implement, e.g. I know an interesting gentlemen who has a specific saying: “Words are needed to disguise thoughts.”

I am sorry.

You mention options: What are some you prefer? Feel free to share them:
BTW, I do not mind revealing that my last name is King; that I am retired--Though I prefer to think of myself as be re-directed. I prefer to wear out, not just rust out. If you would like to read a short bio, go to:
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/forum/member....stposter&tid=30
I would love to know a brief bio of all who post here. Feel free to share yours.

Enki,
True freedom of the mind is not granted by somebody, nor is it attained by any language.
You capitalized is a respectful form of addressing a person.

It is your private opinion. My experience shows that it is not so. And I do not want to discuss with you that subject. And any other subject at all.



From your short writings generally consisted of questions rather than ideas I derived feeling of scornful disrespect, hatred and haughtiness rather than any other feeling.
Henceforth be so kind to keep offffffffffffffff. And be so kind do not make me angry (it is an extreme and very, very, very strong recommendation).

I do agree. It helps to maintain flexibility of mind. But there are things which cannot be considered along with preservation of the sense of humor in principle. People have feelings, the nature of man is such that he cannot like a computer to jump from one terminal to another so easily. For a man terminals leading to databases have options, each differing from one another. The Freedom of Will is confined by that options, but the options are the keys of morals and comprise man's personality, temperament etc. Preservation of the sense of humor helps to ignore for a while the options assigned to each terminal. It makes man free from the options but damps down his personality. I think the Golden Middle should be accentuated!



I agree. But is that approach works in practice? People generally are inclined to point out at the errors of others.



I have added some discussion related with that topic above. So here I think that there are options, though the statement is quite correct in general. But for creation of new knowledge one needs to develop New Ontology and position Philosophic and Scientific categories he operates with. Sometimes new categories are needed to be created. But I agree that the fresh conservative approach is a positive things, it helps to avoid misleading and illusions.



Certainly we have to have frames of reference to avoid falling into chaos and should use data verified databases to be able to provide new stones for the construction of the temple of science. But there are very questionable points as well.

I think we must agree with facts which are experimentally verified. Statements of experts are important but not the absolute truth. Questioning authorities sometimes is an important option in scientific investigations.
I think Data verification should be accentuated very seriously.
Besides we have to define what we understand under the Generally Accepted Facts.
I think we must rely on scientific approach and basic principles of the Theory of argumentation.
Besides we should define sources that can be considered as reliable. What do we trust more Nature, Physical Review A,B,C etc, Britannica, Royal Society publications…?



Fully agree. But summarizations are needed. It is very important to make summaries. Because if disagreement exists it has inclinations to grow in any community.

It is very kind of you to provide bio. Thank you. I read the short biography from the forum profile with pleasure (the link you provided requires username and password authorization).

Unfortunately I cannot share my bio due to some peculiarities which I have to withstand to explain. The matter is that when you live in a free society you can express ideas freely, but when you live in a quite specific society you "Should keep in secret that you have a secret to keep." Please consider me as just an Enki from other continent.

[A joke]While reading the bio I have noted that your wife is a Sufi Woman. So if you are interested in my bio, then please ask her to ask God "Who is the Enki?". And if He answers back on that question, then please do not get surprised by the answer and please keep it secret. I think God has great sense of humor. [End of the joke]

Enki,
Now you really reveal your true nature -- it is your own disrespect, scorn, anger, and haughtiness that surfaced.
Are you mature enough to handle wisely differences in opinions !?
And are you mature enough to be polite and equanimous ? You said you were cool ...just on the surface ?
It would do you a lot of good to look inside yourself and try to understand why my statement made you so angry.
I noticed that you say things for the sake of saying, without being fully aware, and when I drew your attention to the deeper meaning of what you said you got angry ... because you realized that what you said didn´t make sense ?

Enki writes:"Unfortunately I cannot share my bio due to some peculiarities which I have to withstand to explain." Hmmm!!!! Perhaps I will start a bio thread. How many think this is a good idea?

I think it is a good idea. But if all put down their bio the forum will transform into a seminar. Though maybe I am incorrect, I am not sure.

Yes I am very bad cat.



The multitude of the Legions inside are roaring in anger. You see the members of the Legions are from different places and epochs and they cannot be polite and keep equanimity in principle. Especially when they encounter with such a "good" preacher as you are.



Oh I am poor bad cat not respecting impenetrable truth coming from the spring of the wisdom (known as Guest). I am poor cat, this good man (Guest) makes efforts and draws my attention trying to explain to me what I am murmuring about and I unthankful cat become angry on that "Godly" man and do not apprehend the depth of his Cosmic ideas and do not want to look inside of me.

Be so kind to f*** *ff with your stupid and self assured preaching. Go and "preach" yourself!
===================================================================
Enki: As you can see from this note, I am the BIG MAN--the King and Moderator. Wow! what power!!!

I suggest you apologize to guest! That is, unless he/she is unwilling to tell us who she/he is. If he/she is not willing, I will permit you to tell him/her to "climb up a tree and branch off", okay?
Keep in mind that all of us preachers are self-assured, okay? But we mean well. Right, guest? Is there anything basically wrong with us having confidence in who we are?
======================================================

*Meow*...

Enki,
Once again you reveal how ill-mannered and ill-natured you are.
Grow up, evolve, for your own sake !

You know Robert, you start to make me very angry.

Boooooooo.

In present days some Celts at nights
Do meet near fire under the Canadian Stars.
They sing and dance and try to find
The flying spirits of the night.

They tried to find one Spirit once,
And they were being quite surprised.
Attempts were many to percept
The nature of the Spirit they have met.

While meditating at the nights
They tried to look on things through others eyes:
The men, the dogs, the birds and flies
All have been used to find the crust.

The Spirit has been quite surprised,
He shut the doors in front of the eyes.
He called the Dragons through the night
To punish the stupid Celts at once!

What do you want Robert?

The obvious fact of my existence does not step along with your understanding of the reality?

I am what I am whether you like it or not! You should reconcile with this fact.

Enki: Just to demonstrate the power I have, check out the edit I did on the post which you made to guest, today, 06:51 AM. Being moderator is fun.

But seriously, what does it take for grown adults to agree to disagree, agreeably?

I am sorry that circumstances inclined me to position the Guest in a way I have positioned him. There was no way out, otherwise he continued to preach, and preach and preach etc. I do not like the preachers because coding of biological objects neuron system against their Free Will I consider as a horrific crime in the Universe.

When someone says to me "look inside yourself" I look for a place where I have located preachers cutting axe last time.

"I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The manner of communicating with each other.

Who decides that?

Is self-expression, discussion, debate, a form of preaching ?
Then we are all preachers on this forum.
The problem is that some people are a living proof of how uncivilized our civilization is.
Incapable of intelligent debate they become aggressive and insulting and behave like morons.

Your personal idea of the ideal civilization doesn't include morons and aggressive behavior?

The problem, is that the mind cannot follow one single idea any longer than a moment. Everyone believes that the ideal civilized behavior means everyone is feeling and accepting of all things yet no one can hold onto that belief themselves for longer than a moment and then they come back and condemn others for what it is they will not allow and then try to change the world into what they want.

Everyone wants to be God

Yes Indeed! When it comes to the art of communication--and I believe that it is an art well worth learning--manners and attitude are sooooooo important.

Perhaps we need to add another principle to the five we have already discussed above. And here it is: 6) In my communications with others, I need to be aware of my personal mental attitude, which, I believe, originates in the human spirit. I will endeavour to treat others as I expect them to treat me. To the best of my ability, I will avoid the attitude of know-it-all arrogance, which causes us to preach down at people. In my opinion, even to those who hold opinions which are contrary to mine deserve my respect.

You turned the Golden Rule into Golden Words. The sixth principle is a nice one. Especially these great segments "I will endeavour to treat others as I expect them to treat me," and "To the best of my ability, I will avoid the attitude of know-it-all arrogance, which causes us to preach down at people."

Excellent!

Oh, I noted that my posts approached to 500 and my status turned from Senior Member into God status. Let us memorize this day of great revelation 11 July 2006.

This is why, IMO, it is so important to keep the dialogue ongoing. People of good will will seek to understand without, necessarily, having to agree.

If there is a personal 'God' I would love to hear from "him" about this. Yes, indeed, semantics is a very interesting subject. It requires dialogue mixed with lots of love and understanding.

As you point out Was it Welsh? Dialogue allows for this. What options do you wish to offer?

This is an experiment. I want to see how this plays out. I think, as a moderator of this section, I do have some freedom to do and undo. Which I will do, if necessary.