Consistency

[Jonathan Bricklin]

Ramakrishnan writes

>>But at least it is consistent with Papaji's (and Baleksekar's for that
>>matter) belief in the non-reality of free will.  It would be nice if

>Similarly note the consistency between:

>1. the heaven's gate cult's belief and the members castrating and
killing themselves.
>2. Idi Amin's voice telling that it was OK to eat human beings and
>people finding heads in his fridge.
>3. Hitler believing that Jews were the cause of all evil and sending
>millions of them to the gas chamber
>et etc etc.

Well that's why I said "at least".  None of the above people you mentioned
believed in the non-reality of free will as far as I am aware.  Consistency
in the context I have given is neutral with respect to the behavior being
judged.  As is both the reality and the non-reality of free will.  All
belief in the non-reality of free does is remove vegeance as a response to
bad behavior.  The criminal code can stay pretty much intact.

>So why don't you join...a Neo-Nazi group?
>Seriously wondering.

At this very moment I almost feel that I have.

>Consistency between belief and action is hardly the sole hallmark to
>judge anyone.

Well, like I said, I never claimed it was.

>Imagine this defence being used in court. "My Lord, I
>truly believed I had to rob this store". "Hey there is consistency, you
>are acquitted". Duh!

I can't imagine this.  I don't even understand it.  You are not up to your
usual standard in making a point here.  Please try again.



>PS: Handwaving nonsense like "everything happens spontaneously in
>consciousness" and the usual drivel spouted by some so called gurus is
>probably a surefire way of avoiding frauds. Some may be well
>intentioned, but most probably frauds nevertheless.


Happening is an illusion, yes?  That there is a self or agent making things
happen is a bigger illusion than that everything is happening
spontaneously.   But this brings us back to square one.


Jonathan Bricklin