FEEL THE NEED to write. Dunno if discipline is sufficient justification? Began tapping, now to find something to comment about. Not the ideal way.
“Do once a week” slipped to two and needs become Must. Therefore/now-on, Saturdays/if not sooner, Publish Day and be done fussin’
Reticent to overly blab freestyle – an easy indulgence – rather than try to sound/sound. Imagine the handful who read might make it through, if I try to language police-myself and find some relevance worth reading?
My reckoning is many internet-based avenues of investigation, through lack of growing-popularity, have become cul-de-sac's. Specifically in uncovering criminal activity and the designs for global takeover. Writing etc, to call fellow-exposers to arms, faces reluctance to join along and in the exasperation, brick wall off-putting. Discovering the ceiling in those interested and responsive, undeniably shocking.
Reasons for this? Examples might be cultural prejudice, despair over lack of perceived positive outcomes, vague hope, pride over all else… ( – the list is long, and not for this post).
In short, discouragement, that for 90+% F-all deeper than relatively mainstream/politically, matters. Upshot? More looking ‘why than what’ and the deepest hidden motives and mysteries, by broadly understood perpetrators – which evidence throws up, seems more than material and this-earth minded.
If a 47 storey building coming down free-fall into itself through ‘random office fires’ is believable? How about we live in an optic and sensual illusion then? Go for broke – the thinking, going forward.
Rummages around the logic and probability of a ‘terrorist incident’ being a poorly produced, drill-looking, hole-riddled, ‘news report’ – garners more hundreds, than thousands, watching video breakdowns. Got the gist? No one much, gives-a… so more and more move on to the stars and beyond.
On the v.few, taking on street-based terror-isms, the beginnings of increasing police visits and bans from YouTube etc. You’d think the authorities would leave this ‘getting-boring backwater’ but no, nothing like persecution to affirm those daring to pour over footage and details looking for fakery.
My own take is a paradoxical shut-down, and yet, reveal. The desire to take apathy and disinterest to extremes while eventually trancing us into emerging acceptance of the manufacture. The key will be in making a big enough revelation to diminish the crimes. For instance: send in the ‘aliens’ and who’ll care about the bankers’ bankers?
This week I heard two people talking to millions, who’d name themselves Bible believers and yet distinctly/if at all – not churchy types, throw out some tell-tale signs.
One in lieu of Trump for Israel and “anyone who reads the Bible knows...”.
The other, while earnestly breaking down ten (“no-less”) inter – dimension-all-s or what ‘ave ya, who spoke of all-this as being, “God’s dream ...BUT – God gives us, free-will”.
My Bible-primacy interest is claims about said book/s. Believe from and what-ever but say ‘thus saith...’ and assume, presume… Biblical – stirs a response, if claiming certainties on behalf of Christendom/that ain’t so.
First a search on a foundation term, which I pray, will get ever more attention and put ‘free-will’ in the box. Luckily or otherwise (– please note, this describing my overall position and this question) – the following’s top of the page:
Julian Baggini, philosopher, writer and one-time editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine, has come to rescue free will… by burying it, or at least its widespread misconception. Too often, he argues in Freedom Regained, we simply haven’t grasped what it is to be free. Thinkers have tended to separate....
OK – to tie this up/quick-time:
Whenever someone claims Christian’s ‘read thus, in agreement’ and clearly there’s credible well-established – and evangelical at this – alternative schools of thinking, they’re ‘special pleading’. Things Israel, like the ever blank-staring pushed “of course homosexuality...” are thrown out by some as conclusive and are clearly – not. Pretending there’s no legitimate other view, doesn’t diminish there is. Some theological questions lack any significant, less conventional or alternative positions, at least among broadly evangelical adherents. Others, are demonstrably hot spuds.
Theological questions are often rooted in what is free-will vs God did/does. Those describing the big stuff and then going “but...” are thankfully, likely to have a basis for productive motivation, similar to someone like myself and a more/fully open perspective. The ‘but’ is like saying, ‘it doesn’t seem to make sense...’ yet – we are responsible, for changes-up. Although a clue, someone’s struggling on the theology front, to couple freedom and claims God has exhaustive foreknowledge. A downer for me is the lack of persuasiveness this holds for sceptical searchers. And yes, the ‘why Israel is all for blessing over incisive legitimate crit. and certain ideological opposition’ is all about; Whose will and freedom?
Because 2+2 never equals ‘sort of four’ or squares somehow fit into circles, or knowing = not knowing (unless of course, the ability to forget, that comprehensive).
Maybe deconstruct Augustine and co? Here’s somewhere to consider this. And here.
No more to say. Article below. Struggle to spit this. Will up. And done.
Spiked: Julian Baggini, philosopher, writer and one-time editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine, has come to rescue free will… by burying it, or at least its widespread misconception. Too often, he argues in Freedom Regained, we simply haven’t grasped what it is to be free. Thinkers have tended to separate free will off from the rest of the self, as a controller, a faculty of the will, a part of the soul. More generally free will tends to figure as the conviction that one can always do otherwise, that at every moment, one’s action is absolutely free. And, too often, those sceptical of the idea of free will find such ideas all too easy to dismiss as non-existent, neurological illusions, myths of agency amidst the iron laws of the universe. ‘The commonsense notion of free will is not fit for purpose’, concludes Baggini. ‘It rests on a naive and simplistic assumption that we can rise above our biology and our history to make choices in a condition of unconstrained freedom. The challenges to free will need to be met not by rejecting them wholesale, but by thinking more carefully about what it truly means to be free, rather than what we simply assume it to mean.’ MORE