Does free will exist?

[Ananta]

11 minutes ago, Faceless said:

When there is fear, violence follows.

Uh, that's bullshit, whatever, screw you!!!!

  

Just kiddin' ♡♡♡♡

[Faceless]

Again relatively speaking. 

An illusion is a fact. That process of illusion is actually taking place. That’s how I’m using it. 

Also if I am seeking psychological security in an idea, that is fact that I am doing so.

If I believe an in Santa Claus, that is a fact. 

If I am clinging to thought (experience, knowledge, memory) that is the fact. 

Thought is fragemted. That is a fact. 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Uh, that's bullshit, whatever, screw you!!!!

  

Just kiddin' ♡♡♡♡

Hehe ?

[metwinn]

4 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Again relatively speaking. 

An illusion is a fact. That process of illusion is actually taking place. That’s how I’m using it. 

Also if I am seeking psychological security in an idea, that is fact that I am doing so.

If I believe an in Santa Claus, that is a fact. 

If I am clinging to thought (experience, knowledge, memory) that is the fact. 

Thought is fragemted. That is a fact. 

 

 

You can't speak relatively about facts, that is your mistake. However I see where you are coming from we seem to just be tied up about the correct words.

[metwinn]

9 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Again relatively speaking. 

An illusion is a fact. That process of illusion is actually taking place. That’s how I’m using it. 

Also if I am seeking psychological security in an idea, that is fact that I am doing so.

If I believe an in Santa Claus, that is a fact. 

If I am clinging to thought (experience, knowledge, memory) that is the fact. 

Thought is fragemted. That is a fact. 

 

 

Seeking psychological security needs someoene to define what seeking is and what it isn't defined as. It can't be objectively true that you are seeking something because each person has a different interpretation of how far you have to go before It could be considered seeking. It's a fact only to you. Facts can't exist only to you because the word fact usually points to an objective truth. The word you are looking for is belief. Understand what I mean?

[robdl]

If it’s a semantics issue, substitute “indisputably the case” for “fact” then. 

[metwinn]

Just now, robdl said:

If it’s a semantics issue, substitute “indisputably the case” for “fact” then. 

Now that you say that I don't think it is a semantics issue because it would have to be changed to undisputably the case for me.

[robdl]

10 minutes ago, metwinn said:

Seeking psychological security needs someoene to define what seeking is and what it isn't defined as. It can't be objectively true that you are seeking something because each person has a different interpretation of how far you have to go before It could be considered seeking. It's a fact only to you. Facts can't exist only to you because the word fact usually points to an objective truth. The word you are looking for is belief. Understand what I mean?

Thought seeks movement in its own security. It’s not a thought-self that interprets this/makes this judgment. As the thought movement IS the thought-self. The thought-self is observed.

Edited June 29, 2018 by robdl

[robdl]

You’re speaking from within a thought-self loop, and we are speaking on the nature of the thought-self loop itself, total/whole observation of it.  This whole insight then is expressed through thought for the purposes of communication.

[metwinn]

@robdl I don't understand 

[robdl]

There are beliefs of the thought-self, and there are the facts of total observation.

[metwinn]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

There are beliefs of the thought-self, and there are the facts of total observation.

Yes

[robdl]

Just now, metwinn said:

@robdl I don't understand 

 

Is this this ‘I’ the thinker of your thoughts or is it just another thought (‘I’-thought) taking place in the movement of thought-self? I.e. no thinker, just thoughts. This is to be seen with total observation/insight.

[metwinn]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

 

Is this this ‘I’ the thinker of your thoughts or is it just another thought (‘I’-thought) taking place in the movement of thought-self? I.e. no thinker, just thoughts. This is to be seen with total observation/insight.

There is no thinker. Just thoughts happening 

[Ananta]

2 minutes ago, metwinn said:

@robdl I don't understand 

I think he's saying you are speaking from being "identified" with ego/thoughts and that they are speaking from "observing" ego/thoughts in action, as a continues movement, when seeking psychological security.

Or I could be totally wrong and I'm sure someone will set me straight, sooner than later!

[robdl]

1 minute ago, metwinn said:

There is no thinker. Just thoughts happening 

Indeed. In writing it is just concept - just a pointing though. For thought-self to absorb the concept only perpetuates thought-self.  There is whole insight into all of this that is beyond word/concept.

[metwinn]

1 minute ago, Anna1 said:

I think he's saying you are speaking from being "identified" with ego/thoughts and that they are speaking from "observing" ego/thoughts in action, as a continues movement, when seeking psychological security.

Or I could be totally wrong and I'm sure someone will set me straight, sooner than later!

Yes I understand that now. But there is no other place that you can speak from other than ego. That isn't to say that you are ego of course 

[robdl]

2 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

I think he's saying you are speaking from being "identified" with ego/thoughts and that they are speaking from "observing" ego/thoughts in action, as a continues movement, when seeking psychological security.

 

Quite right.

[metwinn]

3 minutes ago, robdl said:

Indeed. In writing it is just concept - just a pointing though. For thought-self to absorb the concept only perpetuates thought-self.  There is whole insight into all of this that is beyond word/concept.

In no way am I indentifying with my ego. However when I say anything to you it is always going to come from thought self and not self.

[robdl]

1 minute ago, metwinn said:

Yes I understand that now. But there is no other place that you can speak from other than ego. That isn't to say that you are ego of course 

I would say that there is whole insight into all of this. It is then expressed through thought/language later.  These thoughts aren’t the actual thing but just a pointer. That is more like speaking through ego than from ego.