Perfect knowledge of the present would only suggest the main possibilities inherent in the present moment, I don’t think it would preclude free agency, just make it a little more accurate. Free agency doesn’t really mean you get to do whatever you want, it more means that you are free to choose to react to reality in whichever way you see fit.

I guess what I’m really getting at here is trying to understand where to draw the line between what actually exists and what is only an attempt at foreseeing the future. Or perhaps just how to recognize the difference between the two so as not to confuse one for the other.

Thoughts and external stimuli are (probably) not the same thing, but I find no way to differentiate between the two in my lived experience. If I’m ever uncertain, I can try to check “was that based on something external?” but the result of that inquiry is a thought.

I guess I really just want to know “what’s real?”. There’s this feeling that I need to let go of something, but I’m not quite sure what it is…

I don’t even know, if being aware of every single thing in the present moment(prefect knowledge of the present), would equal to perfect knowledge of the future. If there is any free agency at all.

So maybe there is not “forseeable future” maybe the best you can do is understand underlying patterns and cycles.

Because the “I” you’re talking about can’t be found in the separate/conscious mind alone. If the conscious mind is coming into conflict with something, it is because the conscious mind doesn’t understand that particular thing. It is due to a perceived limit on the part of consciousness, not any actual limit that inherently exists in nature.

Because if we know for sure that there’s some aspect that our conscious mind can’t control, we generally say, “oh well, that’s that”. And we know there’s no conflict.

If we’re looking to exert conscious control of our animal nature (or over actual animals or plants or patterns behind seemingly random events or whatever) we can do so in basically two ways.

1) suppression of the “animal nature” under the controlling will of the conscious mind. This is the easy way, but it always leads to emotional infection and rot. A “dark side of the force” sort of thing.

2) An acceptance and understanding of the “animal nature”, and a changing within the conscious mind in order to properly take into account the needs of the animal nature (why is it there in the first place?). This is harder, but ultimately is way richer and more rewarding. It is recognizing that whatever you think your mind is is not the only thing it is. The conscious mind can always be changed and evolved in order to allow for proper understanding and integration of whatever it is we’re trying to “control”. This is more a “light side of the force” kind of take. An attempt at understanding, blending, and merging with the object at hand.

There’s a level of humility involved that’s built in as a kind of safety valve, I think, to stop people from exercising too much control of things they don’t, in complete honesty, feel love for and identity with.

Because when it comes down to actual experience in the real world, “control” doesn’t mean anything in itself. It means either “domination” in which case a unreal dichotomy is created between the self and the other in order for the self to force the other to bend to it’s will, or it means “understanding” in which case the needs of the self and the needs of the other are properly examined until a bridge can be found which connect the two (and then “poof”, you realize the conflict never existed in the first place!).

The trouble is that dominating control is really the lazy way out. It just doesn’t work as well in the end for whole systems.

So really its like we have these animal parts of us. You don’t have to totally control all of them moment to moment, you kind of channel the flow of them, let them run on auto-pilot most of the time.

So this “I” enlarges its sphere of influence within you. Imagine spreading it outward? How foar out could you spread it? There are animal parts of us. How about controlling actual animals. like we control our animal nature? How about plants?

The European Settlers used to mistake a lot of cultivated land for wilderness, because the Native Americans had a more “go with the flow” way of gardening.

Like for example what if you saw a bunch of things that looked like random events but they were really planned?

I am thinking if a person knew enough about various patterns and cycles they could turn the world into a big complex machine to futher whatever purpose they had. Others would be inside the machine doing their thing but their behavior was already taken into account.

I think the vast majority of people end up being controlled more than they want to be, though.

I agree, and I think that’s why some people are so unhappy…

I think the vast majority of people end up being controlled more than they want to be, though.

you still have people around, lots of people, the majority of people, that simply follow inertia.

And you can’t deny that they’re there, because they are, and you can’t deny that they are able to do whatever they want and are able to do, because if you are then so are they. And the only way I’ve been able to hold that in my head and not go crazy is compassion.

I think golden ages are defined by rule by a priestly caste of Sattvic people who direct the Rajasic types and use them to manage the Tamasic types, but the society would allow adequate freedom for people to be upwardly mobile and move up the ranks.

Personally, I think Golden Ages are like currents and tides. They just happen. Maybe you can swim with them if you feel one growing around you, but the idea that a Golden Age can (or even should) be attempted as a permanent state that must be achieved goes against some of the real basic ways that people work.

A real Golden Age to me is where everyone does exactly what they feel that they must be doing. Where that kind of freedom is taken as a given, you end up with what looks like a Golden Age, when seen as history from a future perspective. No one should control anyone more than people want to be controlled. The necessary foundation for this kind of golden age is ever-present, people just seem for forget about that at certain times.

But I don’t think plans ever work out. You can have the best idea in the world, but if you’re alone in a cabin on a lake no one will listen to you. Better to have a half-assed idea about how to fix things and be able to actually implement it. Best to come up with an idea in a cabin, come back to society, and then work slowly and tirelessly to integrate the two together, allowing both the idea and the society to change as circumstances arise. But that’s not so easy to do!

One other of the three types are “Rajasic” people. They are the type I was referring to above. The aggressive types. The third type are Sattvic people, which basicaly are enlightened spiritual people.

The problem with Marxism is that it assumes all the proles are Sattvic rather than Tamasic and that they are simply being held down by the Rajasic type people. So the idea is kill off these Rajasic types and then “the people” will come into their glory and evrything will be great.

But what we know happens from looking at history is that the proles don’t just rise up on their own. I mean Marx said it would happen on its own but it never did, so to have a revolution you just got a new group of Rajasic people overthowing the old regime and becoming the new regime. So ten you have Stalinism and in China you have the Communist Party Dictatorship Oxymoron.

I think Rajasic types ruling things goes together with various ideas of collectivism. Look at the proles as a big herd and manage them accordingly. The ideal of the Democratic Republic is to have a nation of self actualizing individuals, not collectivism.

In mean the goal would be to have as many people as possible be Sattvic. But how realistic is that? Is it possible or just a goal to strive toward? I think golden ages are defined by rule by a priestly caste of Sattvic people who direct the rajasic types and use them to manage the Sattvic types, but the society would allow adequate freedom for people to be upwardly mobile and move up the ranks.

But as for this will to power, with everyone else passively following along, how is that any different than the pyramidal power structures that you were critiquing previously, with those Michael Topper links? Not trying to call you out or anything, just curious.

One key thing I can think of is morality. You need compassion, along with will and creativity, to really have any chance at achieve great things. Really, it’s Buddha’s threefold training. Concentration = will, wisdom = compassion, and insight = creativity.

Notice, I didn’t say “The Secret” because I saw that and went and looked up what I think are the original sources and I don’t think its all solipsism. That’s why I think the key is both visualization and will power that manifests into real actions that eventually bring the vision into reality.

I think if you are passive you just flow with the pattern by inertia. Think of a Medieval Prince or King, or a modern President of a corporation. That’s the will power. He’s got the Will and the Vision then he has advisers and a support staff and employees and so forth. So they all are just folowing his will, especially the low level workers. They just need a job, so they just follow directions. Very little need for creativity.

So its Will+ Creativity that take you out of just passively being part of the pattern. You work with pattens that already exist though. The more creative you are the “freer” your will is.

and @ CJ: This brings up the same kind of question. What is the experiential difference between a “state continuing to exist” and “just now”?

I’m not saying I have an answer to any of this, just that I am having a hard time figuring out if there’s any other options besides:
1) passively watching now around you
2) Actively engaging with the patterns in the present moment based on the ways you assume they will continue.

All I can come up with is some sort of lousy “I can see the future!” psychic shtick, or else something like Bruce Lee’s “fighting without fighting”, wherein “I don’t kick, it kicks through me” (but with no explanation of “it”, or where “you” are when the kicking occurs)

If you recognize a pattern that is related to some type of a cycle, you can appear to predict the future. That’s if the pattern holds.

You can also change the pattern and thus the future. Or someone else could change the pattern. If you don’t act it might seem like you are just passively observing time pass. but I just think you are observing patterns. I like the horse picture. You can shoot the horse and it will fall down. Or the horse can do something unpredictible. But the pattern is there if nothing interferes.