Implications of no free will (no responsibility?)

[PurpleTree]

So not really having free will implies that there’s no real responsibility.

No one’s really responsible for their siblings or parents for other people’s feeling’s or their own feeling’s and anger.

No one’s responsible for their needs and wants, desires and neediness.

No one’s responsible for getting it or not getting it for their intelligence.

No one’s really responsible for being annoying or being annoyed by others.

No one is responsible for their survival and coping mechanisms.

No one’s responsible for their weird, dark, „bad“ evil thoughts.

No one’s responsible for rejecting or abandoning you or others.

Not even Netanyahu is responsible for what he’s doing to Gaza and you’re not responsible for your feeling’s towards him.

 

It’s just the cogwheels of the universe turning, churning, cogwheels of war churning out bodies and such.

[Princess Arabia]

No free will means there's no one to have free will in the first place. It's not that there are people out there with no free will. It's that there is no one in the first place. So all you've said implies there's a person who doesn't have responsibilities. All the places where you've mentioned the word "their" suggests ownership of which there is none. You have to be total with all this stuff or else it'll be all over the place. Can't say "their" and also say no responsibility.

Saying "no one's responsible for rejecting you or others" suggests that someone rejected you or others but isn't responsible for it; so, the responsibility still holds for the person doing the rejecting if that was the case. This goes for every itemized example you gave with the operant words being "you" and "their". That suggests a person, who would then have free will and other that has ownership. Neither is the case. 

No one rejected anyone. Rejection happened. No one abandoned anyone, abandoning happened, no one is being annoying, annoyance is happening - use this for every example you gave and it all ties in. Of course, these statements won't compute with most because the sense of personhood is still present, but it is the case.

There's no responsibility because there's no one there to be anything. Not only responsible, but ANYTHING. This applies to everything.

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

No free will means there's no one to have free will in the first place. It's not that there are people out there with no free will. It's that there is no one in the first place. So all you've said implies there's a person who doesn't have responsibilities. All the places where you've mentioned the word "their" suggests ownership of which there is none. You have to be total with all this stuff or else it'll be all over the place. Can't say "their" and also say no responsibility.

Saying "no one's responsible for rejecting you or others" suggests that someone rejected you or others but isn't responsible for it; so, the responsibility still holds for the person doing the rejecting if that was the case. This goes for every itemized example you gave with the operant words being "you" and "their". That suggests a person, who would then have free will and other that has ownership. Neither is the case. 

No one rejected anyone. Rejection happened. No one abandoned anyone, abandoning happened, no one is being annoying, annoyance is happening - use this for every example you gave and it all ties in. Of course, these statements won't compute with most because the sense of personhood is still present, but it is the case.

There's no responsibility because there's no one there to be anything. Not only responsible, but ANYTHING. This applies to everything.

I know. But that’s kind of too deep for most of this forum. We’re going baby steps. 

[Princess Arabia]

3 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I know. But that’s kind of too deep for most of this forum. We’re going baby steps. 

There are no baby steps here in context with this kind of post. Either it is or it isn't. Can't have somewhat freewill, can't be somewhat of a person and can't have baby step responsibilities. Either there is or isn't. People want truth right; well the truth is, there are no people.

[PurpleTree]

5 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

There are no baby steps here in context with this kind of post. Either it is or it isn't. Can't have somewhat freewill, can't be somewhat of a person and can't have baby step responsibilities. Either there is or isn't. People want truth right; well the truth is, there are no people.

Most "people“ will never get this. Still it can relieve them of feeling responsible for their parents and thoughts or whatever. The density of having made the wrong choices and so on. Or maybe not who cares.

Jesus: Forgive them for they know not what they do.

[Hojo]

You get to choose how you react to not having free will when you become conscious. You are a giant chemical reaction inside of a giant chemical reaction. Like a stew.

Edited Thursday at 03:29 PM by Hojo

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Hojo said:

You get to choose how you react to not having free will when you become conscious. You are a giant chemical reaction inside of a giant chemical reaction. Like a stew.

How would you know that? You sound convinced.

[Hojo]

@PurpleTree Thats what karma means. you are your karma your reaction.

[PurpleTree]

Just now, Hojo said:

@PurpleTree Thats what karma means. you are your karma your reaction.

Not buying it. How would you know that?

8 minutes ago, Hojo said:

 Like a stew.

Can i call you Stewie then?

[Hojo]

@PurpleTree Its what sadhguru says in his book. You aren't the body you are your karma, your reactions or non reactions to things. If you have 0 karma ( 0 reaction to anything)you stop existing. If you sit there and do nothing you will stop existing. But you will find when you sit there your body will be beggining you to react thats why you cant sit there. But if you see all these are not you and you are the reaction to these things you can let go and stop existing.

Edited Thursday at 03:46 PM by Hojo

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@PurpleTree Its what sadhguru says in his book. You aren't the body you are your karma, your reactions or non reactions to things. If you have 0 karma ( 0 reaction to anything)you stop existing. If you sit there and do nothing you will stop existing. But you will find when you sit there your body will be beggining you to react thats why you cant sit there. But if you see all these are not you and you are the reaction to these things you can let go and stop existing.

Yea ok i Stewie but I don’t really believe Sadhguru.

He‘s tied to Modi who’s a hindu nationalist.

[Hojo]

@PurpleTree You dont have to beleive him you can try it and see its a fact of life. He says the only reason you stare at a woman titties is because you are having chemical reactions in your body that you are reacting too. Theres no fundamental difference between wide hips and a rock but your chemical reactions are telling you other wise.

Edited Thursday at 03:56 PM by Hojo

[Salvijus]

Love is responsible for everything and you are that. Infinetly responsible for everything. 

[PurpleTree]

7 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@PurpleTree You dont have to beleive him you can try it and see its a fact of life. He says the only reason you stare at a woman titties is because you are having chemical reactions in your body that you are reacting too.

Ok yea that’s nice and everyone loves stories about breasts. But what’s implied here is that the reaction to those chemicals also isn’t free.

[Salvijus]

The will of love is manifesting through you and love is free. So you do have a free will. Free will is your ultimate nature. 

[Princess Arabia]

No one has free will and choice to NOT have free will and choice. Where is the free will there. It doesn't matter what one says about what a guru says, that guru is operating off of no free will just the same. It's just words being interpreted. Interpreted by a brain. A brain that doesn't exist. No one has ever seen their brain. How else do you think you're interpreting those guru's words. Through the senses. Senses are projections and produces effects. Just like the sense of self. It's an effect.

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

The will of love is manifesting through you and love is free. So you do have a free will. Free will is your ultimate nature. 

No.

[Salvijus]

Love has a concious will. Love is your nature. 

[Salvijus]

What else is responsible for creation if only love can create? And what else could you be if only love is real? 

Edited Thursday at 04:20 PM by Salvijus

[Hojo]

@PurpleTree No its trapped in the body by your reactions aka karma. There is something reacting to the chemical reactions. Thats you, nothing. You are the reaction to chemical reaction. Not the chemical or reactions of chemical but the reaction to the chemical reaction.

The penis has a chemical reaction blood goes into it. It enlarges and feels good you react to it by grabbing it and tugging on it.

Edited Thursday at 04:34 PM by Hojo