Is there an absolute Will?

My friend Geir Isene has written this article ‘On Will.’

According to this article the idea of will essentially depends on the idea of choice. But what is not clear is who or what is this thing called ‘I’, which makes the choice. The whole logic of this article depends on the underlying assumption that there is a spiritual element called ‘I’, which is absolute, permanent and independent in itself.

That is an assumption, which I do not see challenged in the western philosophy. But I do see it challenged in the Eastern philosophy. If there is no absolute, permanent and independent ‘I’ then there is no absolute, permanent and independent power to make choice; and there is no absolute, permanent and independent will – even potentially.

According to Buddhist philosophy, what we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’ is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.

One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self, individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. But when these physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea of self. There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these aggregates.

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you move the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’

Everything in the physical universe is relative to each other. According to Buddhism, this is the case with everything in the spiritual universe as well. There is nothing absolute… not even the soul.

The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without. – Buddha

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • vinaire  On July 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    It is amusing for me that I just finished reading the book SECOND FOUNDATION of the Foundation Series once again after 40 years, This science fiction story deals with the question of Free Will in a very entertaining way. I like Isaac Asimov.

    It seems that Isaac Asimov looked at ‘Will’ as being relative. That is how Buddha looked at it too.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2012 at 9:05 PM

    You have not mentioned Unknowable for a couple articles now. What have you done with it? Have you made a decision in that direction or dropped it out for another reason?

    • vinaire  On July 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM

      Unknowable is there as “there is no absolute.”

      Nothing can be known absolutely. Absolute is the unknowable.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2012 at 9:13 PM

    To make your arguments more palatable and to invite readers and acceptance of the salient points of your discourse, if you drop out the Eastern and Western geographical references as irrelevant to your arguments, I believe it will be an improvement. I’ve been meaning to mention this for a while now but we’ve had other contentions and i didn’t want to load up my comments with implied criticisms.

    • vinaire  On July 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

      Eastern and Western are more than geographical references. They are convenient labels when discussing philosophy. Please check it out on Internet.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2012 at 9:15 PM

    Teaching your version of Buddhism as an evidence that your arguments are sound doesn’t seem very convincing as arguments go. Why do you do this?

    • vinaire  On July 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

      I don’t understand what you mean by that. You seem to be assuming something.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2012 at 9:42 PM

        Well, I am reading your posts and you are making points, but then instead of just stating your opinions you digress into your understanding of Buddhism as though that Buddhism reference trumps the argument. You can teach religion, I do not object, but your arguments are couched in religion for reinforcement which is unnecessary as I would read and consider your words more interestedly without the religious references.

        Your cogent arguments well laid out are interesting. The religious teaching is not so interesting to me.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

    Regarding will are you seeing more choices than a single dichotomy of “will v. determinism?”

    • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 5:16 AM

      To me, everything is a relative phenomenon to be observed and studied. There is nothing absolute. This article by Geir assumes ‘I’ to be some absolute spiritual element. I question that.

      I shall be studying this article in more detail and will point out inconsistencies as I come across them.

      .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 9:04 AM

    I don’t think we can say that with absolute certainty if the universe as causally deterministic, or if it is random.

    Any black and white thinking tends to be absolutist. I don’t think that absolutes exist.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    There is no will that is absolutely free. There is will only in a relative sense.

    Wave breaking randomly on the sea shore can be said to have will in a relative sense.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

      Yes, I would call your wave breaking on the sea shore the “will of determinism.” Studying NKS (New Kind of Science) has had me looking at the capability of the math of cellular automata to create “randomity.” For some months now, I have experienced consternation regarding this phenomena. As in, “It looks random, but it’s the result of a math.”

      Your little math showing how .999… = 1.0 has provided some relief for this consternation. Understanding this inconsistency of math is leveled by a semantic device such as “…” helps relieve the tension I was feeling by this mathematical inconsistency.

      I think it is safe to say that in a universe of endless possibilities, there are endless possibilities! So when confronted with “either / or” questions, I don’t let myself get hung up on a dichotomy just because a person or situation has presented me with one. I am tending to question questions which ask for absolute answers.

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM

    We need to look at what is being assumed in the current definition of will, and define the word ‘will’ more accurately.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM

      I agree and tend to think we should let the door be open to many possibilities and not unknowingly create “hidden standards” by which to judge.

      • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

        These are the definitions that are being applied to the understanding of ‘will’. Can you spot the “everyone knows” type assumptions.

        will noun

        1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.

        2. power of choosing one’s own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.

        3. the act or process of using or asserting one’s choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.

        4. wish or desire: to submit against one’s will.

        5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.

        6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one’s will.

        7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.

        8. Law .
        a. a legal declaration of a person’s wishes as to the disposition of his or her property or estate after death, usually written and signed by the testator and attested by witnesses.
        b. the document containing such a declaration.

      • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM

        ‘Will’ is associated with a living ‘I’ and not with a mechanical or electronic device. This brings up the question of how we draw the line between what is alive and what is not, or are we simply looking at a gradient where any such differentiation between alive and not alive is simply a matter of degree.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM

          Yes. I often consider whether things in nature are alive from people to stars.

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM

    Ido, thank you for your appreciation of this essay. I read about you on your blog and I understand where you are coming from. Hope you enjoy what I have on my blog.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

    Action or trait is the outcome of a system. That system may be regarded as the person, his tools, and his environment, or a group of persons, etc.

    The accountability for any action can only be assigned to a system. There is no single, permanent ‘spiritual’ element that can be held accountable. ‘I’ itself is a system of physical and mental forces and energies.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM

      So in this context, would you class the “I” as a subsystem of a larger group system? And if so, what do we make of the larger class of system holding the subclass of system (the “I”) responsible for its performance.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 11:25 PM

      . . . and then just like the word “will” we need to take a close look at the word “responsibility” as it may need to be re-thought as well.

    • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 6:08 AM

      Yes. With the better understanding of ‘I’, both the words ‘will’ and ‘responsibility’ have to be re-thought. One looks at the whole system, such as this universe, and looks at which part of that system is producing a certain action. That part could be a country, or an organization, or a group, or an interaction of several environments or individuals, or just an individual aided by some tools. When one thinks of an individual, one thinks of a body with a mind, and thinking going on in that mind. But that mind has all kinds of inputs from external and internal sources, and there are all kind of nerve pathways on which nerve impulse travel, combine or split and recombine etc., and be interpreted in some way.

      So, as Buddha said, ‘I’ is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. We simply get stuck with that label and that becomes the ego.

      So, what is ‘will’? According to Buddha, it is an aggregate of mental formations that appears as ‘volition’. The exertion of this volition may be termed as Attention, Will, Determination, Confidence, Concentration, Wisdom, Energy, Desire, repugnance or hate, Ignorance, Conceit, Idea of self, etc. (52 of them). Simply put, considerations are generated out of this volition, and a combination of such considerations may be called ‘will’.

      What one is addressing through KHTK, or through any other form of therapy or non-therapy, are CONSIDERATIONS, how they are combining, and how they may be readjusted and recombined. There are infinity of considerations, and infinity of ways they may be recombined. Thus, there can be an infinity of wills, and other classes of volition..

      So, what is ‘responsibility’? It is isolating the elements of a system involved in producing a certain action, and clearly understnding their roles. There is no blame or praise here. There is only understanding of how the system is operating, or how the considerations are being generated and then how they are coming together. Here ‘I’ is out of the equation, because it is too gross a concept.

      .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

    It seems that ‘will’ needs to be defined more accurately. WILL seems to be the property of a combination of physical and mental forces and energies at any instant, since there is no single, permanent ‘spiritual’ element to exert it.

    How those forces and energies combine that way at any instant is determined by how they were in the immediately previous instant. The WILL seems to follow a curve determined by some equation. There seems to be a calculus of WILL. How does the path of WILL come about would be an interesting subject to research.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 11:45 PM

      Maybe, but it may not require a calculus. This ground may already been broken by NKS and Wolfram’s “Mathematica.”

      • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 6:41 AM

        That’s excellent. I am glad to see other people looking scientifically and mathematically at this area.

        .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    The sense of responsibility would be a vector similar to the vector of WILL. If you carefully look at your ‘will’ and your ‘sense of responsibility’ from moment to moment, you may be able to trace these vectors. But this would require LOOKING that is totally non-judgmental, and which is not employing any filters of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, etc. These are just phenomena. They are what they are. No further significance need to be added.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM

    What is the difference between living and non-living, between real and artificial intelligence? The only difference seems to be that of understanding. The ‘living’ and the ‘real’ seems to consist of so many variables that seem to be beyond or understanding. But the ‘non-living’ and the ‘artificial’ seem to consist of variables that are manageable.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 11:54 PM

      So would you class “consideration” and “making a consideration” as resulting from something like the machine language represented by “cellular automata?”

      • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 6:44 AM

        That is the way it has started to look… isn’t it!

        .

  • vinaire  On July 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM

    The moment a consideration is made and held in place, it would influence and/or limit the next consideration in areas that overlap. Then these two considerations shall influence and/or limit the next consideration in areas that overlap. And so on with subsequent considerations. So here we have a very basic law that applies to considerations. I am sure some day somebody would work out some mathematics for it.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 12, 2012 at 11:57 PM

      Your post is describing Wolfram’s work in NKS.

      • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 6:46 AM

        It is wonderful to see this convergence.

        .

  • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 7:01 AM

    Physical and spiritual are not different from each other like black and white. That would be absolutist thinking. In actuality there are all kinds of shades of grey in between. Therefore, physical and spiritual may be considered as two different ends of the same scale, with many transitional gradients in between.

    Power of choice cannot be separate from the physical/spiritual universe. It has meaning only within the framework of the universe. Space, energy, matter and time cannot be thought of in some absolutist way. They have their gradients too. And, therefore, freedom of choice also has its gradients.

    Will, or free will, cannot be thought of in some absolutist manner. It has its gradients. It is also relative.

    The problem with Geir’s article is its absolutist tendency to look at will and other things.

    .

    • isene  On July 13, 2012 at 7:39 AM

      The article “on Will” makes it very clear that there is indeed a gradient scale of free will. There is no absolutes in reality. So, we fully agree on this 🙂

      • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM

        Geir, does your article consider randomity as an indication of ‘will’ among non-living things?

        That would be a gradient of will, won’t it?
        .

        • isene  On July 13, 2012 at 1:58 PM

          Randomness per definition is not will. Will has direction/intention. Randomness is “ungoverned”. Will is governance.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 14, 2012 at 12:32 AM

          Vinaire is angling for a radical new approach to cause and effect where these two words and an entire host of dichotomies become . . . irrelevant? — anyway very different reality than our Western “everybody knows” think. I am trying to stay with him on this to see where it goes.

          Vin is quite the kook, but so am I and I was already going down this road on a parallel vector by studyng Wolfram’s NKS, hence my reluctance to give his wild ideas the brush-off. I was already doing this research on cellular automata and discovering “randomity” generated by machine code which has been a little bit stressful for me and so I naturally have to follow to see where THAT goes. Then Vin came in spouting Buddhist propaganda in a new and fresh way so I got hooked.

          I have to try to understand a couple things: What does the fact of randomity generated by mathematics mean? Why the seemingly unsolvable paradox of the dichotomy of free will vs. determinism? Shouldn’t we be able to come up with a thought experiment which proves or falsifies one or the other?

          I didn’t get far enough along in my studies and so haven’t commented on your article “On Will” which I have admired since first reading it. “On Will” seems solid when considering its major premises of cause and effect to be the extant reality of our world. But if there are other possibilities, more than “free will vs determinism,” then I need to see whether there is something there.

          So far, I am seeing the possibility of “no prime mover unmoved.” I cannot be succinct here because my thoughts are swirling a bit. My inclination is not to turn toward determinism for a resolution to my confusion but to begin to rethink the entire cause v. effect construct.

          . . . and I like the mental tension.

        • vinaire  On July 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM

          Random numbers are nothing in themselves. Random numbers are a represenation of some stimuli. If the stimuli is random then the numbers representing it would appear random. Random numbers are governed to the degree that stimuli is governed.

          Will may appear directional depending on the viewpoint closely associated with that will. But if one takes a non-attached viewpoint as that of a Martian, and looks at the wills on earth, they will appear quite random. If these wills are represented by numbers, they will generate random numbers.

          Will is basically random because anything may be chosen arbitrarily. Where the droplets fall when a wave crashes on the shore is also random. But a viewpoint can always be found from which a living will may appear directional. And a viewpoint can also be found from which randomity of wave could be regarded directional as well, such as, all droplets fall toward earth because of the law of gravity. It is incorrect to think that will is governed and randomness is ungoverned. Anybody who thinks that way is simply being inconsistent in their viewpoint.

          Is will something that governs? I don’t think that one can make that statement without first defining will scientifically. Will may be the outcome of a process that has to be understood better. Will of living things is not fully understood. There may be spiritual laws governing the scope of will, just like there are physical laws governing scope of randomness.

          Thus, will may span over the whole spectrum from living to non-living. There is randomity and governance throughout the spectrum.

          .

        • vinaire  On July 14, 2012 at 2:02 PM

          We may associate probability with randomness of location where the droplets from a crashing wave may fall. Here the direction is provided by the Law of Gravity, Newton’s Law of Force, etc.

          Similarly, we may attach probability with the directions that a will may take. Here the direction may be provided by some Law of sexual attraction, Law of Karma, etc.

          This can be treated mathematically. Please see Normal distribution

          .

      • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM

        Then, in my opinion, we have absolutist think about alive (will) and not-alive (randomness).

        I am not disagreeing with your definitions. These definitions come from the present culture, which is absolutist in its thinking and not very philosophical.

        .

        • isene  On July 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

          But Vin, this is in the definitions of will and randomness. If you want to redefine the language, then you have quite a job in front of you.

          [Please note that I edited a sentence out of your input because I feel that unnecessary emotions simply create distraction from the actual discussion. – Vinaire]

          .

        • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM

          The idea of God in this culture is the result of absolutist thinking too.

          I have no plans to redefine the language. The language may or may not redefine itself. Either way it is fine with me. But I see ‘will’ as I stated. I may change my view based on further observations. Please see clarification of my present understanding here.

          https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/is-there-an-absolute-will/#comment-3738

          .

        • vinaire  On July 14, 2012 at 5:20 AM

          There wouldn’t be any philosophy if one agreed with all the existing definitions. Such absolutism would be the death of philosophy.

          One must examine the existing definitions for natural consistency per the scientific method.

          This exchange has inspired the following essay:

          Absolutism and Philosophy

          .

        • isene  On July 16, 2012 at 7:44 AM

          Unnecessary emotions? There were absolutely no emotions in that sentence I wrote. It made a very valid logical point. With this level of censorship here on your blog, open discussions are stiffled and explorations of new viewpoints are hindered.

        • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

          The sentence that was censored was the statement about Vinaire being condescending rather than agreeing. It was censored because it was focusing on the participant and not on the discussion. It was a distraction.

          Normally I would censor the post, such as above, completely for the same reason. But I will leave it there for now as an example of what would be censored.

          .

        • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

          Any post that treats the subject scientifically and with care and respect is welcome.

          All emotional outbursts that put attention on participants and distract from the subject shall be censored.

          .

        • isene  On July 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

          I suggest you actually post that sentence so that people may view just what you censored instead of talking about a sentence that nobody are able to judge.

        • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 8:43 AM

          I deleted that sentence and it is gone. It could have meant that I am agreeing out of being condescencing, or something of that sort. In any case, that sentence was directed at a participant and it was not about the subject matter. Such distractions shall be censored simply to keep focus on the subject. I am sorry if this appears harsh.

          The purpose of this blog is to enhance research into knowledge. Any comments directed at the personality or behavior of the participants in a discussion, or any speculations about the motives behind their criticism, is not encouraged on this blog.

          If one disagrees with some criticism, then one may clarify why that criticism is not right, and/or request further explanation of what led to that criticism. Criticisms are very common in scientific and philosophical circles. One should be able to address criticisms in a mature manner without becoming accusatory, emotional and combative.

          .

    • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM

      Physical to spiritual is a gradient.
      Non-living to living is a gradient.
      Artificial to real is a gradient.
      Power of choice is a gradient that depends on how many considerations are in play.
      There is ‘will’ in how a wave breaks on a shore.
      Randomity is an indication of ‘will’ among non-living things.
      That is how I see ‘will’.

      .

  • vinaire  On July 13, 2012 at 7:28 AM

    It is easy to assume, “You can choose. It is up to you. You can change the course of events. You are accountable for your actions and are ultimately responsible.” But this is no more than a conjecture. It cannot be called a theory.

    The above assumption contains other assumptions. It does not define what “you” is. And until that is defined properly, all we have is just a wishful thinking. This is not scientific at all. It is just a bunch of assumptions.

    The LAW OF CONSIDERATION described above applies.

    COMMENT 3700

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

    I feel that it is a mistake to censor your blog. Each tangent or even dead end is a record which I feel is useful to save in its original form. I understand what you think you are doing but I feel it is not having the effect that you intend and is a mistake…

    • vinaire  On July 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

      I didn’t know if anybody is censoring my blog. I get plenty of hits. This blog is primarily an open record that I wish to keep.

      I don’t know what you are assuming, but I am quite happy the way this blog is coming along.

      .

    • vinaire  On July 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

      This blog is about knowledge. Anybody who will censor this blog will do so because of
      (a) Their ego that they know it all
      (b) Their attention on Vinaire and not on knowledge.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 15, 2012 at 6:45 AM

    So where are we? The vacuum of space equates to desire? Gravity equates to want? Inertia equates to will?

    • vinaire  On July 15, 2012 at 7:21 AM

      Well, that is one way to start looking at it, but I doubt if there is an absolute will. A will is always conditioned by something else.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM

        What I mean by this is :
        1. Stop thinking like I understand will.
        2. Begin observing “will” in action around me including everything around me.
        3. Redefine and begin attributing movement to will in all its gradients.
        4. Now observe what a paradigm shift this engenders for me.
        5. Now blow brains out (just joking, this step is further down this list!) and attribute this act to determinism.

        Is there a difference between what you propose that Buddha proposed, in other words, what you proposed and determinism?
        .

        • vinaire  On July 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

          There is nobody determining anything. It is all just a play of things coming together and interacting with each other. This is how I see it.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM

          Yes, the word is determinism. Everything is determined and interacting according to the only possible behaviour of what we call particle physics and chemistry. In motion and interacting — billiard balls bouncing as they roll across the table.

          Just so we are clear. Intelligence is now defined as a specialized electrical and chemical and physical reaction. Memory is now an imprint — a doppleganger of a previous chemical reaction . . . not the reaction itself, but a specialized mock-up of a representation of a perception which the electro-chemical-physical phenomena can recognition.

          Recognition? Not sure what to equate that word to.

          If we are still good, then lets carry it on out to see how far we can run it out . . .

        • vinaire  On July 15, 2012 at 2:52 PM

          Yes. We are still good. This may sound “materialistic” but I feel that word is not quite appropriate. There is more to be understood here.

          .

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM

          Agreed, but once again, I am backing down and starting over to observe what is most obvious…

          For instance, according to your writing here, Chris the body, and everything to do with what makes me into an identity is the sum total of being. Starting from there I am trying to not make this into more or less and to explore that beingness for what it is. Not as things that I cannot see but also not negating things because I cannot see them. Not making assumptions about my beingness that aren’t easily obvious — to become more sensitive to this regimen and see what new paradigm this might help evolve or evoke.

        • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

          That’s wonderful, Chris.

          It is assumption that prevents one from seeing what is there.

          .

  • isene  On July 16, 2012 at 7:48 AM

    Just for the record: The following sentence in this blog post is false:

    “The whole logic of this article depends on the underlying assumption that there is a spiritual element called ‘I’, which is absolute, permanent and independent in itself.”

    For those interested – read the article and see for yourself. Vinaire makes an assumption here that is a leap of logic.

    However, due to in-line censorship on this blog, I would recommend readers here to post their comments on my blog.

    • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 9:04 AM

      Please see

      Comment-3786

      It is noteworthy that only one sentence from Geir Isene has been censored so far. Nothing else has been. If Geir is so concerned about that one sentence, he may post it here for everyone to see. I shall allow it this one time.

      .

      • isene  On July 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM

        Only one sentence censored – out of around 10-15 that I have contributed in total…

        You removed it, you put it back. Courtesy.

        • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM

          This is enough of distraction. Any more of such distraction shall be censored.

          .

    • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM

      Ref: Discussions and what needs to be censored

      Point (3) of the above reference applies to the following post by Isene:
      comment-3782

      I shall certainly appreciate if Isene clarifies his conception of ‘I’. At least he may point to the page and paragraph of his article where he clarifies it.

      He may clarify it here on this blog, or on his own blog. Either venue is fine with me.

      .

  • lizabeth  On July 16, 2012 at 8:50 AM

    I really enjoyed your article about being an observer. That is only a consideration? Don’t I have the will in degrees to observe or not to observe something? Do I share all my observations with the world or the universe? I have to look at these things in simple terms. Thank you 🙂

    • vinaire  On July 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

      These are interesting questions…

      .

%d bloggers like this: