Marvelous! *claps his hands like a demented seal*
That is one of the single most wonderful posts i've read so far this year Taure! In case you are worried, folk who know me will tell you, i rarely do sarcasm. I think you are getting a bit overly scientific about your philosophy though and you are bending the rules somewhat ha ha. I'm going to have to check a couple of things before i reply, to do anything less than check these couple of things would be an insult to your efforts! I'll tell you now though, lol, i'm going to be incredibly impressed if you have, in fact, managed to certifiably safegaurd freewill in determinism. Temporal Determinism - it's looking something like a dead cat in a box but you put it forwards with such clarity that i'm going to have to make sure i'm certain of my self before i call it such a thing! Meow, Sir. Meow. I'm absolutely certain you cannot possibly have both a deterministic law and something like freewill.
It is still based off reasoning by induction from experimentation with a strong mathematical base.
And so it should be *nods* ...except in philosophy
All ice is cold. This is reasonable, it's been experimented many many countless times and the maths always has gone in it's favour, however, philosophically speaking, your concept of cold and my concept of cold are highly likely to be only very very similar and could possibly be nothing like eachother so - how can, philosophically speaking "all ice be cold"? This now becomes totally unreasonable. This is why the question "Is the ice cold?" should be handled by science and not philosophy. In that sense you are far better equipped by the looks of things to answer it, sir - if it was left to me with only a working knowledge of science but no real passion for it but a deep understanding of philosophy and a deeply functioning philosophical mind, i would end up arguing with myself all day about what type of a thing the idea of cold could possibly be and also how i could well be having that experience without any real concept of self. You on the other hand can use your empirical ways to utterly refuse the fact that it can't possibly be cold or even ice for that matter because we're neither of us completely sure that it exists. Leave me to figure out how we are being and you can have cold and hot and ice and water, eh? Still, i'm going to get my teeth into your temporal determinism once i've checked causality!
P.S. in the meantime we could watch The Minority Report *chuckles*
Avenger, that movie was excellent but i already know everything contained within it lol, apart from the reindeer connection which i'm not entirely sure i'm thankful to be made a party to heh.
Some things simply cannot be explained by our current scientific paradigm and so we do have to look elsewhere for clues to answers and then form consistent theories. Someone then comes along and tries to make the theory inconsistent (like i'm hopefully about to do to this temporal determinism malarky lol). In philosophy we love inconsistency as much as consistency but the latter is always preferrable at the end of the day.
In the case of shamanism we have to ask ourselves why does the universe keep banging this wet fish against our heads time after time? The only thing i can rightly summise is it's something important in nature that is missing. It's as if nature is trying to show us the way back on the path, afterall, i would hope that even our friend Taure here will admit that if we don't considerably alter our moral outlook regards our cosm then our days are severaly numbered? Shame, we're such inventive so and sos. It seems that with this inventiveness also comes an incredible hunger for power - like male and female, yin and yang. The hunger for power stems from male type (things like) thoughts and the inventiveness comes from female type (things like) thoughts, sadly, in our (what could be) dying hours on this realm of understanding, the governors have decided that the female thought activity should be surpressed. Tragic, really. You know how they do it? They start in school - ever wondered why you are made to recite times tables "parrot fashion"? It's a way to numb the female hemisphere of the brain. It causes many psychological problems including gender disorientation and many sociological problems such as discrimination. While the society in general is only using empirical teachings without questioning they are also perpetuating such by singling out and discriminating anything which does not conform to this empirical teaching ie. there is no need to police a male thinking crowd as male thinkers are perpetuators of the doctrine or status quo. Consider that instead of the times tables, what you'd been taught parrot fashion was that everyone
must at all times wear a tie in public because this is absolutely right and proper, just as 2x2=4, it is absolutely imperative to the rest of everything which comes after 2x2=4 that 2x2 remains to =4. It is absolute in this hypothetical society that you wear a tie in public. Along comes someone from another society or perhaps they just weren't very good at parrot fashion or
perhaps they had more of a tendency to see things from a female perspective; imaginatively and inventively, creatively. This person decides that a tie is not needed for the rest of everything that comes after to make sense and that really this kind of sense is not important in the long run anyhow and that ultimately it is far far more consistent in the grand scheme of things to allow people to choose if they believe wearing ties is imperative and should be adopted as universal law. Y'know what comes next right? A bunch of male thinkers call this person a witch/activist/terrorist and burn/shoot/torture them for the rest of their (possibly very short) lives. Also, if any of the male thinkers even caught a glimpse of sense in what this female thinker was rubbing at they are led to believe, through fear, that if this type of thinking is to continue the whole of mankind is at risk from some terrible outcome or other. This, of course, is inconsistent behaviour and is the reason the world is a bit of a bad place just now. You see, if wearing ties is to become universal law
consistently you must first obliterate all and anyone else who thinks otherwise and if you behave in this way, eventually, a bigger force will come along and do exactly the same to you. It is far more consistent to adopt a choice where wearing ties is concerned, that way, if someone comes along and says you have to believe 2x2=4 otherwise all is lost you can clearly show them you've not worn a tie since monday and the world is still carrying on naturally. Supression of female type thinking is going on in just about every single corner of lives today and frankly, i'm quite sick and tired of it. It peeks out from behind inductive reasoning too Taure, so don't think you're exempt lol! Imagine, a race of humans with no concept of numerical systems. How do you begin to explain to them that 2x2=4? Indeed, should you? Would you
actually be improving their way of life? No, you would simply be forcing them to be more like yourself with your belief of 2x2=4. Furtherstill, imagine coming across a race of humans which, on discussing 2x2=4, you realised had a better system and had actually figured out Pi many many generations ago - paradigm shift ahoy!
We were primitive when we decided the earth was round, deciding it did not make us morally better people it simply bettered our scientific reasoning. You need philosophy to better your morals. Not science.
