{"id":44,"date":"2006-03-16T05:26:10","date_gmt":"2006-03-16T05:26:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.goodsoul.us\/2007\/11\/15\/freewill\/"},"modified":"2013-11-10T06:27:58","modified_gmt":"2013-11-10T06:27:58","slug":"freewill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.goodsoul.us\/?p=44","title":{"rendered":"Freewill"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Freewill is limited to choosing what experiences we acknowledge, and otherwise has no bearing on anything that might happen.
\n<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Freewill is the lowest common denominator in philosophical discussion, and an understanding of freewill is the bedrock upon which the promise of Spiritual<\/abbr> Equilibrium<\/abbr> stands.<\/p>\n

Do not be reactive to some supposed inference that here, any belief is rendered philosophic in essence. When I refer to philosophic discussion, it admits only that one person’s dogma is another person’s philosophic inquiry, and only in that context are all beliefs, however sacred, referred to as philosophic fodder.<\/p>\n

There is an excellent reference to the historical quandary of freewill provided by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/a> and I hope you will make ready reference to this source at your earliest opportunity. It is only within the quandary of philosophy, the rigorous science of physics, scriptural clues (from whatever enduring scripture to which you subscribe) and the unrelenting introspection of one’s own internal dialogue that the critical supposition made about the exact nature of freewill is operative within the context of Spiritual<\/abbr> Equilibrium<\/abbr>.<\/p>\n

In all honesty, the proposition that freewill is limited to choosing what experiences we acknowledge, and otherwise has no bearing on anything that might happen, was a difficult leap for me, and I expect it will be for you as well.<\/p>\n

So, without a thorough understanding and at least a temporary willingness to accept an injunction pertaining to freewill, anything I might hope to convey about Spiritual<\/abbr> Equilibrium<\/abbr> will fail to ring true and the resulting glare of rationale lacking authentication will serve only to amuse.So, if you take a few moments to scan the reference pages provided above, and with that find at minimum the difficulty and diversity in how even worldly philosophers have approached the question of freewill, you will perhaps find merit in my request, and perhaps be persuaded to reply in this discussion thread, as fully as possible, as to:<\/p>\n