31july2012

>i am not talking about the notion of god .. i am talking about the notion of trusting god ..
definitive metaphysics is not an oxymoron. the metaphysical exists absolutely. will and consciousness are a start.

<belief in a god outside the religious dogma that describes his traits is meaningless because that opens Pandora's box
devising a system of definitive metaphysics (oxymoron) is a repression of existential anxiety, or misleading play on the social dogma

>if anything is an oxymoron its an argument denying will and consciousness. why argue in the first place if there is no will?

<From a Darwinian perspective, will and conciousness are misnomers for biological phenomenon we do not yet understand (See Dan Dennet)
On the other hand, the truly "meta-physical" is beyond being or nothingness, it is inherently the realm of unanswerable questions.


>a non-metaphysical will/consciousness is an oxymoron :)) a physical entity has neither .. it is pure action/reaction.

< I am not arguing against will and consciousness, I am arguing against the claim that they're metaphysical.
Pure action/reaction in all its beauty and complexity leads to the rise of elaborate structures such as will and conciousness.
 the fact that we cannot place the interactions that drive will and conciousness on a linear chart doesn't mean they're not biological

>yes.. but those aren't consciousness nor will. consciousness is the capacity to reflect. to see yourself. to see love or whatever.

< we can describe love and mental disease using basic chemistry and biology, and so we can discern the illusion of conciousness.
 In essence, if one can clearly define this mystical notion of conciousness one can dissect it according to biological motors.