Now I'm confused. Does this mean if I ask for a fish sandwich I might get egg salad instead?
Well...dont ask either from God becuase he can't help you ...he can only give what he is, spirit...I would instead ask for a spiritual fish sandwich....now you might get spiritual egg salad instead and that would be another issue entirely.
I gave you a hint TWICE on one of Jesus' pre-Pentecost preps for the apostles SIT.
Luke 11
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
A hint is to suggest or indicate something indirectly or covertly. The question was asked where does it state Jesus taught them specifically HOW. Yeah, wierwille uses that verse and other general verses on trust to HINT - or rather declare it applies to SIT. AND HE WAS WRONG!
Similar to wierwille’s misuse of OT verses like God opening the windows of heaven to bless believers for tithing.
I’m surprised that such big proponents of the Bible being mathematically exact and scientifically precise - like wierwille and YOU - will often go WAY OFF THE DEEP END of twisting Scripture to have it mean whatever YOU want it to mean.
A hint is to suggest or indicate something indirectly or covertly. The question was asked where does it state Jesus taught them specifically HOW. Yeah, wierwille uses that verse and other general verses on trust to HINT - or rather declare it applies to SIT. AND HE WAS WRONG!
Similar to wierwille’s misuse of OT verses like God opening the windows of heaven to bless believers for tithing.
I’m surprised that such big proponents of the Bible being mathematically exact and scientifically precise - like wierwille and YOU - will often go WAY OFF THE DEEP END of twisting Scripture to have it mean whatever YOU want it to mean.
Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise Father who knows how to get the right thing through.
and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation
No it wasn't. The word manifestatio is never used and was not in their vernacular anywhere in the gospels. He was teaching them to trust God. Plain and simple.
Don't add anything about a manifestation cause it's not there.
No it wasn't. The word manifestatio is never used and was not in their vernacular anywhere in the gospels. He was teaching them to trust God. Plain and simple.
The word manifestation is not needed because stone, serpent, and scorpion are manifestations of the wrong spirit.
Why did you think the word manifestation is needed?
The word manifestation is not needed because stone, serpent, and scorpion are manifestations of the wrong spirit.
Why did you think the word manifestation is needed?
You are almost sleazy in how u endeavor to catch people in their words....u added manifestation....u read that into the context...not me.
Jesus was NOT talking about a manifestation of a wrong spirit ..that makes 0 sense...oh wait lord wierwille said it so it must be....jeez....he's using figurative language because that's how they talked. Same deal with a beam in your eye worried about a splinter in someone else's eye.
M: Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
T: “were never fully absorbed” – but YOU did! That’s part of YOUR problem. You should have analyzed rather than absorbed. I’m surprised you admit to that by recommending absorbing info. Analyzingis how real scientists think and work. You seem to have a tremendous absorption rate – which makes the task of brainwashing much easier for the cult-leader…Sadly your posts always indicate your cognitive skills are abysmal.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then readI Corinthians 14noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice. ...
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
T: “were never fully absorbed” – but YOU did! That’s part of YOUR problem. You should have analyzed rather than absorbed. I’m surprised you admit to that by recommending absorbing info. Analyzingis how real scientists think and work. You seem to have a tremendous absorption rate – which makes the task of brainwashing much easier for the cult-leader…Sadly your posts always indicate your cognitive skills are abysmal.
M: When learning we come as little children and absorb meekly. Later, the analyzing comes in.That is the order of things.I did not take the class as a scientist, but as a seeking student.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then read I Corinthians 14 noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice…
M:You are wrong here. Paul scolds them for doing genuine tongues, but not the best in love for others.
1 Cor 14:4,5 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greateris he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Cor 14:12-18
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tonguepray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise Father who knows how to get the right thing through.
"Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise father-in-the-word cult-leader wierwille who knows how to get the bull-Shonta just right ;"
there I fixed it for you - I'm sure that's what you meant
M: When learning we come as little children and absorb meekly. Later, the analyzing comes in.That is the order of things.I did not take the class as a scientist, but as a seeking student.
T-Bone's response: and that's how you got suckered in. you should have analyzed all the way. By the way - you JUST CONTRADICTED what you've emphatically told me several times about how you were smarter than me because you analyzed everything before you bought into it...you are a walking-talking-posting-contradiction!
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then read I Corinthians 14 noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice…
M:You are wrong here. Paul scolds them for doing genuine tongues, but not the best in love for others.
T-Bone's response: and that's how you got suckered in. you should have analyzed all the way. By the way - you JUST CONTRADICTED what you've emphatically told me several times about how you were smarter than me because you analyzed everything before you bought into it...you are a walking-talking-posting-contradiction!
T-Bone: wrong again Watson - Paul is addressing separate issue AFTER I Cor. 13 ! you need to pay attention to context and CONTINUITY !
~ ~ ~ ~
here's just a suggestion if you want people to listen to you:
quit acting like an incessant troll,
ditch the duplicity,
grow a real backbone,
and YOU start a thread about something that makes sense
Over, under, sideways, down Backwards, forwards, square and round
When will it end ?
When will it end?
I agree with Rocky...Mike is not serious about anything here except getting pflap in front of everyone at all costs....people on sinking ships don't really like to sink alone.
people on sinking ships don't really like to sink alone.
As far as I'm concerned, the "ship" sank a long time ago, on a previous episode. I'm just binge watching the series now, even though I already know the plot and ending.
It's obvious Paul is talking about the value of understandability in the assembly. Even when the chapter is cherry picked, it's obvious he values an understandable prophesy over tongues, even over tongues with interpretation. Yeah, that's better, but still not as good as prophesy that anyone and everyone can understand.
I thought Jesus didn't have holy spirit. That's why Pentecost was so important. That having holy spirit was something the Jews didn't have. That's the distinguishing feature of those in the family or household. That's how we are to do the greater works.
I could be misremembering.
OT spirit was “upon” as opposed to “within” so Jesus Iron man suit was impermanent.
I gave you a hint TWICE on one of Jesus' pre-Pentecost preps for the apostles SIT.
Luke 11
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
As long as we're extrapolating things out of scripture: those Ministry women who believed Saint Vic was a MOG, did they get bread or a stone? An egg or a scorpion?
Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise Father who knows how to get the right thing through.
Jesus also goes on to instruct them to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees with another figure of speech indicating it’s not God to mistrust but rather the person who holds the DVD remote to the absent Christ.
If it’s upon him and not in him, does he really have it to give? Like this pen, see….
I wonder if Jesus’ bastard Jew status had anything to do with the impermanence of his iron man suit. You know those Jews… (sigh)
Anyway, he’s absent now, dontcha know?
wierwille's mishmash theology twisted "upon" to suggest a contingency - "upon a condition" - in the Old Testament - or more specifically before Pentecost
however there are OT passages that express it as Spirit being within - or being filled with - see this article
chalk another one up for wierwille and his goofy re-definitions
also bear in mind that wierwille tended to lean on strict literal interpretations - see other link here that gets into nuance of "upon" - maybe similar to wierwille's point of not being permanent - however it seems to me that wierwille had tunnel vision to focus on just one aspect of Holy Spirit in OT...so I'm not saying wierwille was totally wrong - just narrowminded - I tend to think The Holy Spirit is the same in the OT and NT as far as I understand it - but that's just my opinion - there's other opinions on that - see links below - in the NT what changed was what Jesus Christ accomplished for us - which was revealed in Acts 2 - Pentecost...but there are different viewpoints on that - so see articles below:
Also wanted to add some thoughts after reading Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudemthe author suggests we define the work of the Holy Spirit is to manifest the active presence of God in the world, and now especially in the church. In the Old Testament the presence of God was many times manifested in the glory of God, in theophanies (like the cloud and fire during Israelites’ journey in the wilderness), the tabernacle, the temple and of course certain individuals who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
in the Gospels Jesus Christ Himself manifested the presence of God among men. After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit and the immanency of the risen Christ are often considered primary indicators of God’s presence in the church.
Jesus also goes on to instruct them to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees with another figure of speech indicating it’s not God to mistrust but rather the person who holds the DVD remote to the absent Christ.
and remember don't ever trust whitey
the moral of the story - if you see a fake doctor in PFAL - get rid of it
If only victor could have believed big enough to live long enough, he could have become teachable. And in being teachable, he might have gotten taught. So much he could have learned.
But by the power of my Free Will I am going to remember it!Oh!Another thing I forgot was chapter 6 on a general theory of deterministic freedoms.
Usually determinism is associated with a lack of freedom, and that is a very justified association.Determinism is like the cosmic agency that “enforces” the Laws of Physics. I explain this in chapter 5.As the universe’s Physics Enforcer, determinism means the universe is NOT free to do anything it wants, except for what is determined by the Laws and the initial conditions.
So the common association of a lack of freedom with determinism is justified.
But what I have designed into minFW goes against this association. I deliberately designed minFW to USE determinism to “crank out” its freedoms. (this is a Daniel Dennett idea)
So, minFW is a special case of the general notion of a “deterministic freedom.”
A deterministic freedom is almost an oxymoron, due to the strong association of determinism with LACK of freedom. I believe one of the many wonders of Biology is it contains mechanisms that can generate some special freedoms, such as minFW.
But deterministic freedoms can be seen in simple inanimate objects also. I havealready discussed one: the sailboat’s direction being free from wind direction.But sailboats are still complicated, so I found a MUCH more simple mechanism that demonstrates a deterministic freedom: a mechanical lever.
Holy Archimedes, Batman!
*/*/*/*
Here is the heart of this general theory:
Partial freedom from undesirable patterns of determinism
can sometimes be enjoyed by the clever use of
OTHER, more acceptable PATTERNS of determinism.
Partial freedoms can be CAUSED by determinism,
just as partial prisons are caused by determinism.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
waysider
Now I'm confused. Does this mean if I ask for a fish sandwich I might get egg salad instead?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well...dont ask either from God becuase he can't help you ...he can only give what he is, spirit...I would instead ask for a spiritual fish sandwich....now you might get spiritual egg salad instead and that would be another issue entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A hint is to suggest or indicate something indirectly or covertly. The question was asked where does it state Jesus taught them specifically HOW. Yeah, wierwille uses that verse and other general verses on trust to HINT - or rather declare it applies to SIT. AND HE WAS WRONG!
Similar to wierwille’s misuse of OT verses like God opening the windows of heaven to bless believers for tithing.
I’m surprised that such big proponents of the Bible being mathematically exact and scientifically precise - like wierwille and YOU - will often go WAY OFF THE DEEP END of twisting Scripture to have it mean whatever YOU want it to mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise Father who knows how to get the right thing through.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No it wasn't. The word manifestatio is never used and was not in their vernacular anywhere in the gospels. He was teaching them to trust God. Plain and simple.
Don't add anything about a manifestation cause it's not there.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The word manifestation is not needed because stone, serpent, and scorpion are manifestations of the wrong spirit.
Why did you think the word manifestation is needed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You are almost sleazy in how u endeavor to catch people in their words....u added manifestation....u read that into the context...not me.
Jesus was NOT talking about a manifestation of a wrong spirit ..that makes 0 sense...oh wait lord wierwille said it so it must be....jeez....he's using figurative language because that's how they talked. Same deal with a beam in your eye worried about a splinter in someone else's eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
T: “were never fully absorbed” – but YOU did! That’s part of YOUR problem. You should have analyzed rather than absorbed. I’m surprised you admit to that by recommending absorbing info. Analyzing is how real scientists think and work. You seem to have a tremendous absorption rate – which makes the task of brainwashing much easier for the cult-leader…Sadly your posts always indicate your cognitive skills are abysmal.
M: When learning we come as little children and absorb meekly. Later, the analyzing comes in. That is the order of things. I did not take the class as a scientist, but as a seeking student.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then read I Corinthians 14 noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice…
M: You are wrong here. Paul scolds them for doing genuine tongues, but not the best in love for others.
1 Cor 14:4,5
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Cor 14:12-18
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
"Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise father-in-the-word cult-leader wierwille who knows how to get the bull-Shonta just right ;"
there I fixed it for you - I'm sure that's what you meant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
T-Bone's response: and that's how you got suckered in. you should have analyzed all the way. By the way - you JUST CONTRADICTED what you've emphatically told me several times about how you were smarter than me because you analyzed everything before you bought into it...you are a walking-talking-posting-contradiction!
T-Bone: wrong again Watson - Paul is addressing separate issue AFTER I Cor. 13 ! you need to pay attention to context and CONTINUITY !
~ ~ ~ ~
here's just a suggestion if you want people to listen to you:
quit acting like an incessant troll,
ditch the duplicity,
grow a real backbone,
and YOU start a thread about something that makes sense
and STAY on topic
that's all for now
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Backwards, forwards, square and round
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I agree with Rocky...Mike is not serious about anything here except getting pflap in front of everyone at all costs....people on sinking ships don't really like to sink alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As far as I'm concerned, the "ship" sank a long time ago, on a previous episode. I'm just binge watching the series now, even though I already know the plot and ending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It's like a perpetual motion machine only much more annoying
a perpetual bull-Shonta machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's obvious Paul is talking about the value of understandability in the assembly. Even when the chapter is cherry picked, it's obvious he values an understandable prophesy over tongues, even over tongues with interpretation. Yeah, that's better, but still not as good as prophesy that anyone and everyone can understand.
What does verse 19 say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
OT spirit was “upon” as opposed to “within” so Jesus Iron man suit was impermanent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
As long as we're extrapolating things out of scripture: those Ministry women who believed Saint Vic was a MOG, did they get bread or a stone? An egg or a scorpion?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If it’s upon him and not in him, does he really have it to give? Like this pen, see….
I wonder if Jesus’ bastard Jew status had anything to do with the impermanence of his iron man suit. You know those Jews… (sigh)
Anyway, he’s absent now, dontcha know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Jesus also goes on to instruct them to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees with another figure of speech indicating it’s not God to mistrust but rather the person who holds the DVD remote to the absent Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
wierwille's mishmash theology twisted "upon" to suggest a contingency - "upon a condition" - in the Old Testament - or more specifically before Pentecost
however there are OT passages that express it as Spirit being within - or being filled with - see this article
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament: Upon or Within People?
chalk another one up for wierwille and his goofy re-definitions
also bear in mind that wierwille tended to lean on strict literal interpretations - see other link here that gets into nuance of "upon" - maybe similar to wierwille's point of not being permanent - however it seems to me that wierwille had tunnel vision to focus on just one aspect of Holy Spirit in OT...so I'm not saying wierwille was totally wrong - just narrowminded - I tend to think The Holy Spirit is the same in the OT and NT as far as I understand it - but that's just my opinion
- there's other opinions on that - see links below - in the NT what changed was what Jesus Christ accomplished for us - which was revealed in Acts 2 - Pentecost...but there are different viewpoints on that - so see articles below:
What was the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament?
The Spirit and the Old Testament
Jesus' use of Spirit upon verse in Isaiah
The role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
DID THE HOLY SPIRIT INDWELL ALL BELIEVERS DURING THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD?
Wikipedia: The Holy Spirit
Israel My Glory org: The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Is the Holy Spirit the Same in the Old Testament? by G Campbell Morgan
~ ~ ~ ~
Also wanted to add some thoughts after reading Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem the author suggests we define the work of the Holy Spirit is to manifest the active presence of God in the world, and now especially in the church. In the Old Testament the presence of God was many times manifested in the glory of God, in theophanies (like the cloud and fire during Israelites’ journey in the wilderness), the tabernacle, the temple and of course certain individuals who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
in the Gospels Jesus Christ Himself manifested the presence of God among men. After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit and the immanency of the risen Christ are often considered primary indicators of God’s presence in the church.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
and remember don't ever trust whitey
the moral of the story - if you see a fake doctor in PFAL - get rid of it
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If only victor could have believed big enough to live long enough, he could have become teachable. And in being teachable, he might have gotten taught. So much he could have learned.
Bless his little heart.
Kuala Lumpur Mogadishu Chiquita.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Trust Whitey? Never!
That reminds me…
** The Jerk is a masterpiece! Steve Martin is a genius.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I’m forgetting what thread we are on.
But by the power of my Free Will I am going to remember it! Oh! Another thing I forgot was chapter 6 on a general theory of deterministic freedoms.
Usually determinism is associated with a lack of freedom, and that is a very justified association. Determinism is like the cosmic agency that “enforces” the Laws of Physics. I explain this in chapter 5. As the universe’s Physics Enforcer, determinism means the universe is NOT free to do anything it wants, except for what is determined by the Laws and the initial conditions.
So the common association of a lack of freedom with determinism is justified.
But what I have designed into minFW goes against this association. I deliberately designed minFW to USE determinism to “crank out” its freedoms. (this is a Daniel Dennett idea)
So, minFW is a special case of the general notion of a “deterministic freedom.”
A deterministic freedom is almost an oxymoron, due to the strong association of determinism with LACK of freedom. I believe one of the many wonders of Biology is it contains mechanisms that can generate some special freedoms, such as minFW.
But deterministic freedoms can be seen in simple inanimate objects also. I have already discussed one: the sailboat’s direction being free from wind direction. But sailboats are still complicated, so I found a MUCH more simple mechanism that demonstrates a deterministic freedom: a mechanical lever.
Holy Archimedes, Batman!
*/*/*/*
Here is the heart of this general theory:
Partial freedom from undesirable patterns of determinism
can sometimes be enjoyed by the clever use of
OTHER, more acceptable PATTERNS of determinism.
Partial freedoms can be CAUSED by determinism,
just as partial prisons are caused by determinism.
One undesirable pattern of determinism
is swapped out of the system
by cleverly using another pattern,
a less intrusive pattern of determinism.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.