posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:20 AM
Choices are presented to an individual as a matter of being, a matter of being exists as the actions that constitute the neccessity for one to be.
To constrain this perspective to the physical vessle, and to consider being, as being conscious and present as a physical entity, then the heart to
beat in rhythm is something that constitutes being, because, without this mechanism, the individual would cease to "be" as a matter of physical
There are various monks that can control thier heart beat, however, the mechanism continues, therefore, the object of certainty is at question, for it
can be shown, even to the slightest degree, that the same action will not always result in the same consequene, even if a mechansim of determination
is at play.
The "free will" does exist at moments of uncertainty, when a usually determinate action does not result completley in the same consequence - this is
a matter of perspective as the ability to know when to act is therefore the ability to recognise and discrepencies in usually determinate actions.
Thus, choices emerge as the individual has an opportunity to act upon an incongruous action, and thus, result in a re-alignment to incongrous events
to bring such events to return to equality, and thus, the normally balanced nature of cause and effect - free will thus being a new cause spurring
from an uncertain consequence - the choices remain as multiplicit, however, the result will be congruous.
Opportunism and Morality
Morality can be deemed in terms of "karma" and "compassion" for others.
Opportunites can exist with and without consequences
however, and simply, a purley opportunistic action, is defined when an individual is presented with an opportunity to himself alone, thus, no other
parties are aware of such opportunity, and thus, observing that actions flow from consequences, and consequences as judged by "karma" involve the
actions of oneself and others, a purley opportunistic action will only be an event that the individual experiences, thus being completley
"self-intersested" however, morally, being without any consequence, in view of "karma".
In a metaphorical sense, the completley "selfless" person is someone whom is constrained by the actions of others, and thus, a completley selfish
individual is not.
Karma: When no positive or negative (i.e. null) reactions occur, a selfish individual implicitly assumes the majority of his actions, by
definition, will not affect the decisions or actions of others, however, as to the doctrine of "karma" a selfless person should assume to receive
nothing in return - thus, the arguement flows, a selfish person whom allows another individual to take his opportunity will assume that he will not
receive anything in return, however, a selfless person will assume all of his actions to affect others, thus and by constraint, a selfless person
cannot ever perform a purely selfish action.
Compassion: Actions purley selfish are only those presented to the individual and if such an individual gives his opportunity to a different
individual, there will be consequences, either to himself or to others - thus and therefore, a purley selfless action born of a selfish opportunity
can only exist to benefit the next individual when the first individual does not expect and avoids to receive any consequences born of the second
individual, despite the fact that the second individual could only have what he has been given if it were not for the first. Compassion is thus this
There is a choice between the absoulutes of something from nothing (creation/opportunity) when one is selfish first and selfless second, and also,
nothing from something (destruction/nihilism) when an opportunity is chosen to be forgone, thus when one is selfless first and selfish second. The
reality of consequences thus has no effect on free-will as all actions, as described by "karma" are actions that only return to and spawn from the
Thus, as reality is the existence of what is inevitably created and what is inevitably destroyed, "free-will" remains an reality to the individual
when the individual is all that exists - i.e. when "karma" is perfectly balanced.
And thus, when one is "free" of "karma", then, "free-will" is what an "individual" chooses, based on moments of uncertainty and bolstered by
the fact that no exact consequence from a specific action is ever guaranteed, and that, any opportunity to alter reality will only exist when all
actions that consequate to an individual will constitute what that individual is.
P.S. Been a long time since i've posted here, probally won't post that often, however I had to share this somehow.