Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: External Influences Message-ID: <1751@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 17:06:38 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1751 Posted: Sat Sep 21 17:06:38 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:44:14 EDT References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 27 > Still, I have a problem with the notion that freedom is self-conscious > rational choice. All that logic-chopping can be numbing, and, in excess, > may become yet another constraint on personal freedom. [ELLIS] And to think, that's "all" we've got. Either "think things through" (producing possibly the best results) or "go with instincts" (which often means acting on learned behaviors in an instinctive way, behaviors either impressed upon the person through conditioning or chosen rationally by the person---and that only if one such learned behavior is choosing rationally). > The freest minds I know can be brutally self-scrutinizing as appropriate, > yet otherwise follow spontaneous impulse as effortlessly as a frog might > splash into an old pond. The difference between a genius and an average Joe/Joan like you or me is in their ability to make use of intuition and spontaneity. Intuition and spontaneity aren't "great" things, they're only great when the results of using them are great. Geniuses (or whatever you want to call them) simply have learned how to make the best use of these tools. Is the reason you believe in "acausality" because you know that the only abilities open to us otherwise do not allow for "freedom"? I for one find the abilities we do have to be more than adequate, in fact quite incredible. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com