A sweet hallo

[Moyo]

Greetings.For a moment your silliness has infringed on my consciousness .Can you feel it? My glorious
mind impinging on a pathetic anorexic excuse of yours.Apart from your causes you are *nothing*.

You and your apish mind are evidence of evolution. I am PROOF there is a God.

What else but an omnipotent , benevolent being would allow sublime symmetry and beauty to grace you?
You *are* your causes. Watch as i add one more.

See how you are, As your Adrenalin ,anxiety ,your primitive secondary nervous system goes into overdrive.

You feel it don't you? Yes that's it? how your muscles twitch as you get into your primitive animistic flight or fight mode. Your simple neurotransmitters clashing with synaptic clefts,in a crescendo..a coven of dissonant mischords.

You ache to lash out at me, itching to get a word back..itching to cause.
But you are also very stupid! Don't you know i feed off whatever energy you give?Whilst also not caring at all? While *you* move ,hoping I will be offended ,to lash back.. hoping to get some sense of existential satisfaction.

Now i will leave you. Your silliness has lost its novelty.You can go on to your pathetic existence now.
To your world of being caused . Your being changing with each new cause; morphing ...a myriad of ape like appearances.
Who am i?
Your silliness gets me one more time.
How could you ever hope to see.
But perhaps you can? You know me ...know me when you get the feeling of dejavu, when you see the glorious sun burst into a new day.In the shimmering stars of silence.

I will tell you .But a word ,concepts will only escape you.

MOYO.

[YesNo]

I am not sure if I understand this. It could be one's inner Self talking to one's monkey mind. Am I going in the right direction? Saying that someone's "apish mind" is "evidence of evolution" is an entertaining way to insult someone.

It is an interesting idea that we are our causes. However, that depends on some metaphysics of "cause". It may all be a dispositionalism rather than a determinism.

[Moyo]

It was a high handed introduction of someone full of himself. I was trying to portray myself as a narcissist.insults for everyone but only the best praise for myself. It was meant to be humerous in a twisted kind of way.

[Moyo]

I was speaking to you, whoever is reading.
You are subject to cause and effect, my glorious self being a free agent. You can tell my philosophical stance is there's no free will can you?

[YesNo]

The narrator, the "I", in the poem does seem narcissistic. I understood that this "I" is referring to the reader and doesn't think the reader has any free will. Is that your actual view or are you creating a character who is speaking in the first person?

[Moyo]

The narrator, the "I", in the poem does seem narcissistic. I understood that this "I" is referring to the reader and doesn't think the reader has any free will. Is that your actual view or are you creating a character who is speaking in the first person?

No one , even myself has free will in reality. It was just an artistic opportunity i took to provide a contrast of me having yet another way in which i am better than the reader.Being free.

The "I" is only saying this message because he was caused to by the silliness of the reader. ;)

[YesNo]

No one , even myself has free will in reality. It was just an artistic opportunity i took to provide a contrast of me having yet another way in which i am better than the reader.Being free.

Free will is not absolute, but I think denying that we make free-enough choices for which we are responsible is not correct. If you get a chance, look for a small book by Stephen Mumford "Causation: a very short introduction" for a review of the various philosophical issues involved.



The "I" is only saying this message because he was caused to by the silliness of the reader. ;)

Why is the reader responsible for what the writer wrote?

[Moyo]

Free will is not absolute, but I think denying that we make free-enough choices for which we are responsible is not correct. If you get a chance, look for a small book by Stephen Mumford "Causation: a very short introduction" for a review of the various philosophical issues involved.



Why is the reader responsible for what the writer wrote?

Stephen mumford is good. I read his biography on David Mallet Armstrong "Universals"


The reader is responsible because if there was no one silly to address the post to...i wouldnt have made it.

And if you hadnt asked me i wouldnt have spent a minute replying. Recall that the ends of a angle get further apart the further away from the fulcrum they are. That one minute spent replying..if i hadnt done it my future would be tottally different. Like the butterfly effect.

Do you know about the axiom of identity?

A = A; A is equal to A,

A != !A; A is not equal to not A;

the only way to deny causality is to deny the validity of those two related statements.

You are what you are becuase of what you are not. A != !A, A not equal to not A,

If not A changed so would you. If not A is the rest of the univerese , changing it would of necessity change you.
THAT my friend is causality.