- [H]owever it is not inconceivable to assume that a consciousness could be inspired and choose to create a whole new line of causes and effects, so becomingMessage 1 of 40 , Mar 1 5:52 AMView Source
[H]owever it is not inconceivable to assume that a consciousness could be inspired and choose to create a whole new line of causes and effects, so becoming the first cause to that line. Quoting Nigel
IMO, If stoicism is a non dualistic philosophy I cannot see how it is possible to conceive an inspiration independent of this cause and effect line being non dualistic, the new line of cause and effect needs to be related and somehow in line with the whole (this of course without bringing in the debate quantum mechanic indeterminacy as it was not suggested first). Maybe I do not understand your point?
[D]ue to the vagaries of the computer world I received Julian's posting before that of Regis Alain's, and so as I read it I was a little baffled as to the subject matter, recognising some of what I wrote but not the context. There seemed to be no connection between the posting I had responded to and where the conversation had arrived at. Quoting Nigel
What I wrote was an interaction differing about the metaphor assuming <neo-liberalism and third word country finance minister action holding spending in those country> as valid and understandable images able to adequately reflex the work of the invisible hand directing nature on one side illustrating possible reactions on the other. I say that it will be a valid metaphor if the bankers and there programs where understood as the Divine Fire / i.e. fare and just, honest and perfect / something observably not much evident manly in that exact and precise context appointed by this metaphor. Is this simples and possibliy not unexpected reaction actually so perplexing?
- Jack wrote: ____________ Also, should not the main thing in choosing preference or dispreference of an indifferent be vice or virtue? ____________ SelectingMessage 40 of 40 , Mar 25 12:19 PMView SourceJack wrote:
Also, should not the main thing in choosing preference
or dispreference of an indifferent be vice or virtue?
'Selecting' indifferents in accordance with our nature IS choosing virtue.
They are one and the same. To select an indifferent in accordance with
nature is to consider wisdom (probably the overarching driver), prudence,
courage, and justice. To select an indifferent in light of one virtue is to
select an indifferent in light of all the virtues (unity of the virtues).
Note that we CHOOSE virtue or vice (what is in our power) and we SELECT
indifferents (what is not fully in our power). To say we choose an
indifferent is slipping into the assumption that it is up to us whether the
outcome can in fact be achieved or not.