Try:
> > > > http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1256
... > > > and
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
> > > > 
> > > > When the first photosynthesizers started producing oxygen, it was a disaster for life on earth.
> > 
> > Uncontrolled metabolism with oxygen is nasty. Think simply of fire, or rust. Why is it that antioxidants are advised in our diets? When oxygen first arrived living systems had to be developed to handle it. From a logic standpoint photosynthesis is the better way to go if you are alive. But oxygen allows for a better energy production, which mobile life needs.
> 
> Research in methanogens, anaerobic bacteria that avoid oxygen:
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2012-06-oxygen-sensor-dna-transcription.html-More on the problem oxygen created when it appeared:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/07/29/the-origin-of-breathing-how-bacteria-learnt-to-use-oxygen/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20120730

Hi Matt
> > Don't know. What I do know, is that I can say no to an impulse. 
> Yep I agree - but is the act of saying "no" a result of another (albeit perhaps a different kind of) impulse?
> -Here we might be playing games with ourselves: What's the definition of an impulse? Is something that can last 8+ hours an impulse? -> > I don't think it turns a blind eye at all. I'm living proof of that. Remember what I said earlier--just because I can *at times* sit still and ignore impulses, doesn't mean that the majority of the time I'm fully "in control" either. The "goal" again, of meditation, is to get beyond the point where our minds are constantly firing off flak, and reach that state of "here and now." That's the first step. 
> 
> I don't see how we are not avoiding the concept of dependent origination here.
> -We're not. It's part of it. Remember: No absolutes in Zen. "All teachings are but a raft." -> 
> > Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogther, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do ... according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication--not for explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing of "causal connections" of "necessity" or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." 
> 
> I don't thnk reifying cause and effect is a problem in that its opposite does not allow for freedom either. It is the very word free (intrinsically independent) that is the problem. In a scientific sense we should be careful of this word. 
> -I think you pegged his point exactly: Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer, who (as YOU probably know) was famous for positing determinism in free will, because we can only ever will one thing at a time. But, as I just argued recently to a humanist group I belong to--Nietzsche's position is that the question of "free will" isn't correct at all. It's we humans getting lost into a game of words: Since the only thing that matters is "the strongest will," than that means whether or not we have control over our will, the consequences are irrelevant: If we're completely free, it is clearly the conscious agent that has the strongest will, and if we're completely deterministic, again, we're dominated by the strongest will. -It's a zero-sum question. This is where N diverted from his mentor.-> If we are using the free in the vernacular, then who cares? My will is not intrinsically free, in shape or form. It is shaped by the universe and it shapes the universe. The two are one - so to speak.
> -A "process theology" of the mind? (sans theology, of course.)

Even if you look into a mirror, you're not observing *you* technically speaking you're observing light reflecting off of you, and bouncing back. The light just happens to give you information about yourself.-Just going back to your river metaphor. A water molecule is affected by ("aware of") a nearby water molecule through hydrogen bonding. Yet that same water molecule is affected by the original 'observing' molecule. 
 
> It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-While I think I understand this is an attractive proposition. I am not convinced that either state (conscious or unconscious) can be described as consciousness. My computer, plants in my garden sit and do nothing - is this consciousness?-The problem of compatibilism, it helps us to turn a blind eye to dependent origination (the Buddhist concept) and the concept of causa sui.
 
> Maybe I'm guilty of wearing masks: My words were precisely to point out that she's not looking at it from a Buddhist perspective. Strictly speaking, neither am I, I have to state: When I talk of cognitive separation and the like, I'm trying to use language against something that language doesn't really describe.-We all have our masks Matt. Blackmore she too has her Buddhist Zen master, though I suspect he is more in a western tradition. Though this is probably OK. her zen master actually critiques her book. -> It's totally "un-Buddhist." [But if she uses words like "zen" than at a minimum she should at least consider what the "zen" perspective actually IS.]-To be honest, I would argue that you are not the sole beholder of zen and its meaning. As Buddha pundits point out, Buddha points to the way, but it has to be 'your' way. As far as I am concerned Blackmore is on a parallel path to you. And I am on mine.-> As for why I seem so certain, that should be obvious. Our lives are a sum of our experiences. I don't have access to Blackmore's *actual* experience, and it really wouldn't be fair for me to comment that hers are purely wrong--yet as you pointed out, mine are different. -I was teasing you Matt - when I last asked are you certain, you implied you were agnostic. Perhaps your agnosticism is for specific subject matter. I do understand that we have assume things as true in our lives or at least go about things as though our truths have use.-> Compared to what I've received under instruction, Blackmore is too far to one side. There are parts of will that are deterministic, and parts of will that are choice.-Can I suggest you read her book, Ten Zen Questions (if you have not already). It is short and an easy read. 
 
> Let me be clear: Buddhism lacks a single, coherent analysis of free will. You might say it deflects free will in exercises in analysis: Think more of Derrida and Nietzsche than say, Plato or Chomsky. It'll tell you what it isn't. And what it isn't, is wholly deterministic (Blackmore) or wholly illusory. (Schopenhauer)-Her analysis of free will is deterministic, I agree. But indeterminism also leads to a no self, and my will is not independent of indeterminism either.-I tend to anthropomorphize my 86 kg on water and bodily proteins, sugars, etc. Should I? if so why not other elements and compounds? (Just an aside).-> Focus is an interesting description for that. I suppose that's apt however... rejecting most of reality seems to be a primary role of the brain. You could extend that to "looking at only one part." -It is only a small fraction of our brain activity that we think we are aware of. The same way our brain activity is only in immediate energy exchange with a small fraction of the universe. -> At the same time, we're fooled that we see things "as they are." We couldn't really handle, "as they are." The view that I've always taken, is that our brain deliberately limits us. It reminds me that there ARE things that I cannot perceive at all. Focus implies I see things more clearly. Much of the time, this is false.-
Essentially I agree, caution is warranted. And yet ultimately a path we must choose, even if it to stay on the current one.

My will is dependent on its environment ...
> >>...
> >It is, and it isn't.
> Which bit is not? Which bit is independent of my education, the food it has eaten, chemistry, physics. Simply saying it is a koan does not quite cut it for me. Unless we assume a compatibilist's view then I just don't see it.
> 
> >...lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object.
> 
> Hmmn? What exactly do you mean by "separate"? I would argue the the observed and observer are connected by an energy exchange. Without an exchange of energy there is no observation.
> -This is trivially true. -At the same time, equally trivially true, is that by definition you cannot be both observer and the object being observed. (Yes, if we say there's two people in the room.) -Even if you look into a mirror, you're not observing *you* technically speaking you're observing light reflecting off of you, and bouncing back. The light just happens to give you information about yourself. -
> > It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.
> 
> Dennett I really like. He is a compatibilist. James much earlier had described compatibilism as a "quagmire of evasion". I think there is a grain of truth in this observation. 
> -James? Compatibilism is tricky, I admit. Still, I think because of its internal "evasions" and possible contradictions it serves a better model for reality than any of the normal -isms we get when discussing free will. -
> Here's a great lecture from Dennett on free will. 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E
> I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentleman who asked the last question. For me Dennett does not answer the gentleman's question.
> 
> > Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so:
> 
> Blackmore does not claim to be a Buddhist. I suspect she is as every bit as dilligent in her meditation as you are Matt. So my question to you is: how come your interpretation of her meditations is so different and how come you seem so certain in your own meditative perception? It is completely at odds with hers.
> -Maybe I'm guilty of wearing masks: My words were precisely to point out that she's not looking at it from a Buddhist perspective. Strictly speaking, neither am I, I have to state: When I talk of cognitive separation and the like, I'm trying to use language against something that language doesn't really describe. It's totally "un-Buddhist." [But if she uses words like "zen" than at a minimum she should at least consider what the "zen" perspective actually IS.]-As for why I seem so certain, that should be obvious. Our lives are a sum of our experiences. I don't have access to Blackmore's *actual* experience, and it really wouldn't be fair for me to comment that hers are purely wrong--yet as you pointed out, mine are different. -Compared to what I've received under instruction, Blackmore is too far to one side. There are parts of will that are deterministic, and parts of will that are choice. -Let me be clear: Buddhism lacks a single, coherent analysis of free will. You might say it deflects free will in exercises in analysis: Think more of Derrida 
and Nietzsche than say, Plato or Chomsky. It'll tell you what it isn't. And what it isn't, is wholly deterministic (Blackmore) or wholly illusory. (Schopenhauer)-> > For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. 
> 
> To continue with your metaphor. The river is the universe. We can't remove ourselves from the river, all we can do is find some calmer shallows. That we think ourconsciousness is a product of the brain is grandest illusion of free will. the brain is simply a drop of river water that focuses the universe's inputs.
> -Focus is an interesting description for that. I suppose that's apt however... rejecting most of reality seems to be a primary role of the brain. You could extend that to "looking at only one part." -At the same time, we're fooled that we see things "as they are." We couldn't really handle, "as they are." The view that I've always taken, is that our brain deliberately limits us. It reminds me that there ARE things that I cannot perceive at all. Focus implies I see things more clearly. Much of the time, this is false.-> My two cents worth -Multiply that by 100, from what I got out of it.-[EDITED]

My will is dependent on its environment ...
>>...
>It is, and it isn't.
Which bit is not? Which bit is independent of my education, the food it has eaten, chemistry, physics. Simply saying it is a koan does not quite cut it for me. Unless we assume a compatibilist's view then I just don't see it.->...lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object.-Hmmn? What exactly do you mean by "separate"? I would argue the the observed and observer are connected by an energy exchange. Without an exchange of energy there is no observation.-> It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-Dennett I really like. He is a compatibilist. James much earlier had described compatibilism as a "quagmire of evasion". I think there is a grain of truth in this observation. -Here's a great lecture from Dennett on free will. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E
I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentleman who asked the last question. For me Dennett does not answer the gentleman's question.-> Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so:-Blackmore does not claim to be a Buddhist. I suspect she is as every bit as dilligent in her meditation as you are Matt. So my question to you is: how come your interpretation of her meditations is so different and how come you seem so certain in your own meditative perception? It is completely at odds with hers.-> For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. -To continue with your metaphor. The river is the universe. We can't remove ourselves from the river, all we can do is find some calmer shallows. That we think ourconsciousness is a product of the brain is grandest illusion of free will. the brain is simply a drop of river water that focuses the universe's inputs.-My two cents worth

Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition.
> > 
> > Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. 
> This rings of dissonance again for me. No self versus free will however partial. My will is dependent on its environment ...
> 
...
It is, and it isn't. It's a classic Zen Koan. -The more you sit down and exercise your will--insanely--by doing absolutely nothing at all, you learn to watch all of these impulses. But as dependent your will is upon its environment, lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object. If you sit still and "observe" your thoughts and impulses as they arrive in your mind, if you prevent yourself from entering into the flow of thoughts as they waft by your eyes, you are making a stunning observation:-Something is separate from these thoughts, something that can choose to be enveloped by them, can just watch them go by. It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-> > I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. 
> 
> I understand Matt, I find it's not just passions but everyday events that control me. I'm not saying there is no feedback to the environment, but any line I draw between my 'self' and its environment is purely arbitrary.
> -It is until you realize something like what I stated above: something exists that allows you to reflect on your mind and not be an active participant. What would you call this thing, if not free will? -As a side note, after about 15 minutes, something kind of miraculous happens->The mind under the surface usually stops bubbling things up to the "observer" function, or at least begins to quiet. (How much caffeine did I have that day?) -You can slow your mind down, through conscious will. What is that, if not free will?-> > Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago...
> 
> This reminds me of the much maligned Blackmore and her first of the Ten Zen Questions, Am I conscious now? After much meditating on her part the conclusion she came to was the answer is No.
> 
> Even without any meditating, just simply interrogating my experience, I can see why she would say this.
> -Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so: -Even the act of engaging in meditation is an act of conscious volition. You're forcing yourself to "stop acting" and just observe. By realizing that there is a flow, and that you are caught up in it, you are realizing free will. This is extremely resonant with Dennett's idea of a "fettered" or "limited" free will. [It is also the exact idea of free will and its relationship with Zen.] -For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. THAT is free will, consciously exercised. Buddhism's underlying goal (though it traditionally denies goals) is to exercise our ability to be an observer. In Hindu tradition, this "observer" is the soul itself.-[EDITED]

The common notion in western thought, a myth in fact, is that we're free to do as we please. This is the notion of free will that Buddhism rejects.-> Consider someone with an IQ of 80. How likely is it, that this person is going to be a famous physicist? She might want to be, but no amount of will is going to make you push beyond a handicap like that. 
> 
Plainly Tabula Rasa is false or at least only partially true. No arguments here Matt.
 
> It accepts free will, but not, as I said above, in the western sense. A small quote from Nietzsche: "A thought comes when IT wills!"
> 
> Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition.
> 
> Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. 
This rings of dissonance again for me. No self versus free will however partial. My will is dependent on its environment (I would include my body in this sense as environment). -> I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. -I understand Matt, I find it's not just passions but everyday events that control me. I'm not saying there is no feedback to the environment, but any line I draw between my 'self' and its environment is purely arbitrary.
 
> Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago...-This reminds me of the much maligned Blackmore and her first of the Ten Zen Questions, Am I conscious now? After much meditating on her part the conclusion she came to was the answer is No.-Even without any meditating, just simply interrogating my experience, I can see why she would say this.-> I started reading "The hero with 1000 faces," and had to set it down. It is a DENSE read. I needed to learn more mythology. 
> 
Yep, I got to about page 30, and decided this was something I didn't need. Read the last page though, albeit somewhat later.
> 
> I own the "Power of Myth". Maybe I should tackle that before "1000 faces."
I found it a great book. I have read it three times now and dip into it as the occasion arises. Each time I have read it I have found something new that touched me. It's much easier than "Hero". Let me know what you think.

What is your definition of free will? 
> It is sufficiently broad as to eliminate such things.
> 
> > Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. 
> 
> Unfettered free will, so we have fettered free will? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?
> -The common notion in western thought, a myth in fact, is that we're free to do as we please. This is the notion of free will that Buddhism rejects.-Consider someone with an IQ of 80. How likely is it, that this person is going to be a famous physicist? She might want to be, but no amount of will is going to make you push beyond a handicap like that. -That's a good analogy for what Buddhism is trying to say. -> You said here
> >> Not exactly. Sort of true.
> >> 
> >> It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence.
> I read this as eastern thought accepting free will at least to some degree.
>-It accepts free will, but not, as I said above, in the western sense. A small quote from Nietzsche: "A thought comes when IT wills!"-Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition.-Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. 
 
> > Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. -I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. -> 
> > What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. 
> 
> It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt.-Maybye... hopefully... hammered home?-> 
> > When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. 
> 
> I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. -Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago...
 
> I have read three of Campbell's books Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss and Myths to Live By. The first two were his last (Bliss is a collection of lectures published posthumously). I found them an easy read - essentially a summary of his views. 
> -I started reading "The hero with 1000 faces," and had to set it down. It is a DENSE read. I needed to learn more mythology. -> > Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. 
> 
> Are you sure there are not some as yet unrecognized common seeds?
I'm agnostic. I'm not sure of anything! -> 
> > Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story.
> 
> Yes - I think we all take away a reflection of ourselves in Campbell's works/-I own the "Power of Myth". Maybe I should tackle that before "1000 faces."


> > Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. 
> It comes with old age, not that it did not happen when I was young. I suspect we are far more unconscious than we give ourselves credit. It is not even clear our conscious thought comes first with respect to us making choices etc.-I've never worried much about my animal will. As a first-born I tried too much for perfection (thanks to my Jewish mother), but when I retired because of that habitual attitude, I pretty much broke the habit. My psychiatrst friend helped me recognize my controlling approach. I stopped trying to control my adult children, suprisingly much to their dismay. I know that part of the way we look at ourselves is from the reaction of others.
> 
> > Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? 
> I think we can only pick a handful of influences that shape our life's choices. We also cannot be sure we are rationalizing after the fact. But essentially I agree with your point. -I had to be a doctor from age 3 and never changed. It is probably why I retired so young. Too many other things to experience before leaving this place. I've never done the wondering about consciousness or free will like you two have. Itis probcably why I have the religious feelings I have, even though I came to them in my late 40's
> 
> > Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. -So is mine.
> 
> > What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. 
> 
> It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt.
> 
> > When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. -I didn't think about it much earlier or now. It is not scary.
> 
> I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. -
Wanted to drop in to present a different point of view about life. I've had a great ride and don't want it to stop, although I know it has to.

What is your definition of free will? 
It is sufficiently broad as to eliminate such things.-> Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. -Unfettered free will, so we have fettered free will? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?-You said here
>> Not exactly. Sort of true.
>> 
>> It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence.
I read this as eastern thought accepting free will at least to some degree.-
> Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. 
It comes with old age, not that it did not happen when I was young. I suspect we are far more unconscious than we give ourselves credit. It is not even clear our conscious thought comes first with respect to us making choices etc.
 
> Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? 
I think we can only pick a handful of influences that shape our life's choices. We also cannot be sure we are rationalizing after the fact. But essentially I agree with your point.-> Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete.-There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. 
 
> What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. -It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt.-> When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. -I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. -> The similarities in myths as the one you pointed out is most easily described by similarly limited peoples arriving at similar conclusions. And probably a liberal dosing of pyschotropics. (See Mayan, Azteca)-I have read three of Campbell's books Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss and Myths to Live By. The first two were his last (Bliss is a collection of lectures published posthumously). I found them an easy read - essentially a summary of his views. -> Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. -Are you sure there are not some as yet unrecognized common seeds?
 
> Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story.-Yes - I think we all take away a reflection of ourselves in Campbell's works/

I've practiced Zen over the last 8-9 years, with a couple of small breaks. What parts are dissonant? I might be able to muddy the water a little more for you
> 
> The self that does not exist has free will? -What is your definition of free will? -Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. -Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. -Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? -Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete. -What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. -When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. 
> 
> > The amouun of work that Judas requires the reader to do is much more involved than what you are expected to do with Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. That's because there is no "mystery" in those books. 
> > 
> > I'm very interested to hear your take.
> 
> I certainly am not an expert on the apocrypha. So I better stay silent on the subject. Have you read anything of Joseph Campbell? I think he has a grain of truth in his interpretations of our mythic sacred stories. 
> 
> For example the vedic poem of two birds in a tree is (for me) a retelling of the garden of Eden story.-Campbell is hard to read because you have to be familiar with ALL mythology (and THAT is difficult.) His thinking though is embedded in the ideas of Carl Jung and that consciousness is literally a shared object. -The similarities in myths as the one you pointed out is most easily described by similarly limited peoples arriving at similar conclusions. And probably a liberal dosing of pyschotropics. (See Mayan, Azteca)-Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. -Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story.

I've practiced Zen over the last 8-9 years, with a couple of small breaks. What parts are dissonant? I might be able to muddy the water a little more for you-The self that does not exist has free will? 
 
> The amouun of work that Judas requires the reader to do is much more involved than what you are expected to do with Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. That's because there is no "mystery" in those books. 
> 
> I'm very interested to hear your take.-I certainly am not an expert on the apocrypha. So I better stay silent on the subject. Have you read anything of Joseph Campbell? I think he has a grain of truth in his interpretations of our mythic sacred stories. -For example the vedic poem of two birds in a tree is (for me) a retelling of the garden of Eden story.

Making a mistake is human, and I don't fault people for doing something only to find out it was damaging. What I fault them for is for continuing the action once they DO know. You make an antibiotic, fine. You find out it is causing bacterial mutations, then it is time to stop, not produce more.-I don't know if you realize what you're saying, you're aguing that we should terminate *ALL* antibiotics. -They *ALL* cause resistance, and they directly give rise to new strains. It's as unavoidable as the sun rising tommorrow. All we're doing is entering an arms race. So again, it's:-1. Have the power and do nothing.-2. Use the power wisely.

Not exactly. Sort of true.
> > 
> > It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence.
> >
> Matt I carefully avoided using the term Free Will. I am aware that buddhism does not reject free will, though it does give a certain cognitive dissonance. 
> -I've practiced Zen over the last 8-9 years, with a couple of small breaks. What parts are dissonant? I might be able to muddy the water a little more for you.-> > Christianity was influenced very heavily by Greek philosophy in that it tried to go and MAKE all of these distinctions. This necessarily creates holes, which the early church waxed over with Dogma.
> > 
> > An old sig of mine warned "An idea formed into a word is at best, a half-truth." The eastern influence on Christianity was purged with the destruction of the Gnostics. It resurfaced in a few isolated places, with books such as "The Cloud of Unknowing," and anything written by St. John of the Cross.
> 
> From my point of view the words have not been purged (at least not all) just the interpretations that have been corrupted.-I've been a student of esotericism for some time. I have a completely different view. Compare the Upanishads or "The Cloud of Unknowing" to what you find in the NT. There's the barest hints of eastern mysticism in there, and when you move away from the synoptic gospels, it spirals into Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul....-It's pretty clear that (the canonical) NT books are much more "command and control" vs the ideal of independent discovery that is the hallmark distinction of "eastern religion/gnosticism." Contrast Ezekiel (very Kabbalistic) with the book of John. -Then compare those with the Gospel of Judas.-The amouun of work that Judas requires the reader to do is much more involved than what you are expected to do with Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. That's because there is no "mystery" in those books. -I'm very interested to hear your take.