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