1. Free will… how can a will be anything but free?
If a force of will appears to motivate an individual and that will is not free (a dangerously undefined word… free from WHAT?) then what you re looking at is either broken or a node, an extension, of some other entity’s will. Mental Coercion… aka the deepest slavery possible… can not, by definition, be an accidental state of being. Malice or malfunction, but not accidental.
2. Existential crisis of Meaning
The meaning of our existence? An easy answer. Meaning, as such, to have validity must exist in a larger frame of reference than the component seeking a rationalization of a justification for enough ego self to ask such a question in the first place. It is the appropriate frame of reference keeps this one on the table. Considered within a purely human-istic frame of reference this one is unanswerable, and the ego of science demands that reality and truth end at the borders of humanism. Only by expanding the frame to be large enough to include concepts native to the realms of religion and spiritualism can an answer be fabricated, and that answer is not so very hard. I won’t attempt the full argument in a comment block, but I’ll share the bong and barroom version: God defends his mortal children against the terror of eternity while the mortals’ errors while exercising their God given and guaranteed free will defend God from death by solipsism.
A full circuit symbiosis of mutual survival… but duck quick if you put that in front of the political side of science OR religion… on this point they are total allies.
3. The Self
Really? Again? Oh well, the short form. The SELF is defined by the differences between your inner reality and his. You share the common second reality percievable via the sense stream, but the inner reality of what you, or he, do with that data stream can not (for reasons devolving from the cranial application of the Math of Chaos…non linear dynamics… referenced in the article) be identical, ergo your version is you, and his version defines him, and the question of SELF must, for lack of a frame of reference large enough to avoid circular reasoning, fall back on Number 2 as above.
NOW THEN… who brought a joint to this party, and why ain’t that puppy lit?
December 27, 2025 @ 11:46 am
1. Free will… how can a will be anything but free?
If a force of will appears to motivate an individual and that will is not free (a dangerously undefined word… free from WHAT?) then what you re looking at is either broken or a node, an extension, of some other entity’s will. Mental Coercion… aka the deepest slavery possible… can not, by definition, be an accidental state of being. Malice or malfunction, but not accidental.
2. Existential crisis of Meaning
The meaning of our existence? An easy answer. Meaning, as such, to have validity must exist in a larger frame of reference than the component seeking a rationalization of a justification for enough ego self to ask such a question in the first place. It is the appropriate frame of reference keeps this one on the table. Considered within a purely human-istic frame of reference this one is unanswerable, and the ego of science demands that reality and truth end at the borders of humanism. Only by expanding the frame to be large enough to include concepts native to the realms of religion and spiritualism can an answer be fabricated, and that answer is not so very hard. I won’t attempt the full argument in a comment block, but I’ll share the bong and barroom version: God defends his mortal children against the terror of eternity while the mortals’ errors while exercising their God given and guaranteed free will defend God from death by solipsism.
A full circuit symbiosis of mutual survival… but duck quick if you put that in front of the political side of science OR religion… on this point they are total allies.
3. The Self
Really? Again? Oh well, the short form. The SELF is defined by the differences between your inner reality and his. You share the common second reality percievable via the sense stream, but the inner reality of what you, or he, do with that data stream can not (for reasons devolving from the cranial application of the Math of Chaos…non linear dynamics… referenced in the article) be identical, ergo your version is you, and his version defines him, and the question of SELF must, for lack of a frame of reference large enough to avoid circular reasoning, fall back on Number 2 as above.
NOW THEN… who brought a joint to this party, and why ain’t that puppy lit?