That Blue Sun
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:59:52 +0000
I got bored this year during English (I'm a Junior, and Junior's aren't really allowed to read anything worth reading) so I've been doing some research into philosophy and, while this is my first time in this forum, I hope you all will have some perspective to help me with my thoughts? Please share your views in relation to my thesis!
Kierkegaard says that man is a synthesis of God's will (be it a sentient [Judeo-Christian?] god, or any Eternal force/will), the universal (society), and the self (soul).
But;
I am of the personal belief (through successful psycho-analysis of myself and my peers) that all human actions can be determined from society, if we consider peer relationships, genealogy, and environment all to be a function of society.
(Note: I do not claim to be able to discern/predict people's actions, but the simple idea that it can be done is the point here).
Now, the above is a key premise here so, while I do not expect everyone to agree with it, it is a (in my opinion-- highly) plausible theory that can not be disproven or proven within reasonable human boundaries. Thus, we must allow that it MAY be true, and there-in lies the foundation for my argument.
So how can man be made up of God/universal/will, if he is observed to exhibit only one of these (universal) traits in the entire span of his history? Well, one conclusion is obvious:
1. Man is both mortal and immortal, and lives mortally only in the universal.
The theory here is that man, while he does contain God's will, influence of society and the factors there-in, and an internal will, is only permitted to exhibit the middle factor in mortal life. That is, for some reason, that the man's own will and the will of his creator are either temporarily removed from man, or are hidden for the duration of man's mortal existence.
But let's say that's not the case (and I don't believe it is). That leads us to scrutinize further. If we assume that man is actively TRYING to use all three elements of this alleged synthesis, then why does he only exhibit one?
Additional Conclusions:
4a. Diesm and God's presence-- and absence in will
This idea derives itself from number three without interfering in it's concept, so the reader is asked to first read conclusion three.
Now, if we take all of that information to heart, and still wish to explain the universe's existance (but not the will of the universe) with a God, one can look to Diesm, the belief that God created the universe but did not compel the universe, leaving it from the very moment of creation to it's own methods. God created the universe but did not affect the universe (the kind of action that seems only performable by an extra-existential being). This means that though God exists, his will is not presence in our universe and only the will of individual life which we have already shown to be only the function of society's will.
4b. Anti-Diesm-- God's comeback in the rhetoric of will.
While this theory comes to a very different conclusion that option 3, it still operates on the same mechanistic assumptions, and so the reader is advised to read that section, as well as section "4a."
Take into consideration "4b." If we assume that, instead of what is proposed there, that God created the universe with intention of non-interference, or that God was unable to not interfere, we come to two seperate conclusions.
God created the universe and, by arranging it's very first image in it's creation, ultimately created all destiny for all of the universe's duration and is thus responsible for the original society and thus the original will of society. This leap in logic tells us that while man is ruled by society's will, society's will is God's will, as God intentioned it. We still have absolutely no say in our destiny, but know that our destiny is purposeful.
For the Diests out there, consider this rhetorical question: Can one (even God) really create without compelling it's creation? If some Eternal being truly did create the universe with intention of letting the universe run it's own course, it is possible that this being was unable to arrange the first image of the universe in a way that it was unable to remove it's will from the function. This is truly the curse of creation! This shows us that while all of man's actions, which are derived from man's will, thus from society's will, and thus from God's will, are, aside from being inescapable, furthermore completely pointless! One could even say that man's very own prison to God's will is a defiance of God himself and that man's every action is an Anti-Christ.
*Notes on God: According the the third conclusion I have come to, I say that we are getting rid of God's will. This does not mean that the theory totally disclaims God, rather it says that God's will is not present in any action of man or in any aspect of ongoing mortal life besides possibly the existance of mortal life itself and that man's actions can not thusly be traced back to God, as this is a paper on God's relation to man's will and not on God's relative existance in it of itself.
Inconsistencies in the possibility and theoritical disclaimers of determinism.
5a. The subversement of derteministic premise by the digital world.
Alright, I'm not sure how a digital number generator works. This additional footnote (and rather important one) is based on the premise that they are completely unpredictable by any source or means. If anyone has information otherwise, please alert me!
I opereate my entire argument on the theory that all actions and events can be predicted, and our thus fateful. However, what implies this predictability? The answer, in my mind, is physics. You take away physics, and nothing can be predicted. If there was no set system of physics and one drops a stone, how is one to know whether the stone will fall? If one does not know the answer to just that one question, how does one know the answer to anything?
So, if we assume that since the digital world has no physics other than programmed predictability, and that random number occurances in the digital world are programmed specifically to NOT be predictable (not that they are too difficult to predict, but that they are INCAPABLE of being predicted because there is no set result) then we can see how this undermines the entire theory of fateism.
How does this affect derteminism? From the very first moment that a completely random (since "randomness" can exist only in the digital world) occurance was made and shown to any physical entity capable of being affected by it, derterminism becomes a changing thing.
If this can be proven, then we see that their is either no fate, or that fate is, in the digital era, an-ever changing thing that, while it is safe to say no one can predictably change or have any control over, does evolve.
5b. The possible inconsistency between determinism and quantum physics-- a note for.
I, by no means, claim to be a physicist, and will claim only a high-school level of knowledge in such a field of science.
It has come to my attention through discussion on this forum that the theory of quantum mechanics could very much contradict the theory of determinism, which is a very hard premise of my thesis. While there are many conclusions one could reach with this information, I refuse to venture any guess until I can learn more about this theory, as it goes against my nature to speak without first educating myself.
If anyone has any information that can help me, you are asked to please get in contact with me.
Miscellaneous Notes:
Notes on man's physiological disposition:
You haven't proven or disproven anything and have contributed nothing.
Society's choice is not an individual choice, but is still choice (not an illusion);
society creates the illusion of choice by conditioning man when they instill, inherently, wants and desire of certain conditions in man, and thus give man the inclination to choose. When you combine this conditioning with the inherent inclination of man's own physiological suffering-- for example, if society somehow compelled a man to dance on hot coals, causing him pain-- you get a new interpretation of Kierkegaard's despair.
Not as a despair between man's will and God's will, but as a despair between man's will and society's will.
This is the only condition upon which man's individual will can exist; however, since man's temperance for pain, and the fact that he can feel pain at all, is a product of genealogy and genealogy as a function of evolution, one can still see how this "individual disposition" is nothing more than a long-term tool developed by society.
So, choice does exist, just not the choice of society.
Thoughts for constructive discussion.
a.) On premises within the nature of discussion.
As this is a philisophical and sociological thesis on a complex and assumptious level, it is important to note its contents rely heavily on several premises:
a-i) Determinism (the thought that all events are calculable) does exist within mortal coil.
a-ii) Destiny can be defined as a predeterminate, non-living (though this can be debated, see notes below!) conceptual entity representing the inevitabitity of any/all occurances within mortal coil.
Note: While any/all of these premises are welcome to be debated, one must note that they are doing so, and also understand that to do so in certain forms can be unconstructive, and will be labeled as off-topic, though warnings will be given. This is about discussion, as constructive as possible.
b.) A note for debate:
Also, any posters are asked to note that this is not a religious discussion pretaining to any specific denomination and as such, opinions based on dogma or religious excerpts will fall outside of it's topic, or on it's periphery. If one is able to make a solid connection between the proposed thesis and religious dogma, one is more than welcome to debate it here (I will again, warn when I feel issues become too off-topic), but should note that in almost any foreseeable circumstance, such topics would benifit more in their own debates, or in a private thread if someone so desires.
c.) Some questions to help you along.
Is there a God?
If there is a God, does he affect our actions?
Is there any reason to believe in destiny?
Can destiny and choice co-exist?
Is it possible to create without compelling?
d.) Responding/Reaching me.
If (and I hope you do) you would like to partake in this discussion, please post here in this thread. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself unwilling to say your opinion in public, please contact me via PM. Also, if you feel that your issue is to long-winded to be discussed suitably in this thread, drop me a PM. And, if you feel that a debate we are engaged in has become too personal for public, feel free to ask me to continue it in a PM.
Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
Thank you all for reading this, and I apologize for this thesis's ever changing nature. I by no means claim to be any other than a confused high-school student, and merely offer my unbiased opinion. 3nodding
Kierkegaard says that man is a synthesis of God's will (be it a sentient [Judeo-Christian?] god, or any Eternal force/will), the universal (society), and the self (soul).
But;
I am of the personal belief (through successful psycho-analysis of myself and my peers) that all human actions can be determined from society, if we consider peer relationships, genealogy, and environment all to be a function of society.
(Note: I do not claim to be able to discern/predict people's actions, but the simple idea that it can be done is the point here).
Now, the above is a key premise here so, while I do not expect everyone to agree with it, it is a (in my opinion-- highly) plausible theory that can not be disproven or proven within reasonable human boundaries. Thus, we must allow that it MAY be true, and there-in lies the foundation for my argument.
So how can man be made up of God/universal/will, if he is observed to exhibit only one of these (universal) traits in the entire span of his history? Well, one conclusion is obvious:
1. Man is both mortal and immortal, and lives mortally only in the universal.
The theory here is that man, while he does contain God's will, influence of society and the factors there-in, and an internal will, is only permitted to exhibit the middle factor in mortal life. That is, for some reason, that the man's own will and the will of his creator are either temporarily removed from man, or are hidden for the duration of man's mortal existence.
But let's say that's not the case (and I don't believe it is). That leads us to scrutinize further. If we assume that man is actively TRYING to use all three elements of this alleged synthesis, then why does he only exhibit one?
2. There is no will in man, but only God's will; choice anti-thesis and the endlessly purposeful universe.
Now I am not a religious person in any sense, but it is important for the sake of logic to consider this. First, assume that, since society governs all of man's actions, man has no will. Man is only a being of society and God. Now, if we recognize that society is a function of God, and furthermore assume that God, as the creator of man, has also created man's environment and extra-special counterparts (furthermore, all of the universe-- hence the term "universal" wink than it is obvious that to say man is composed of two wills-- God and society, is incorrect in the sense that it is redundant. God does not influence alongside society God IS society and, since we assume for this that all of man's actions can be traced back to society and the functions there-of, we can see that all of man's history, present, and future is little more than an extension of God's will.
When you are born, it is as God willed it.
When you die, it is as God willed it.
When you are not born, but your great-great-great grandmother was born with the recessive carrier-gene sure (because everything is sure, there is no chance) to make YOU, within your blood-line, just anger-prone enough to snap while driving home when someone cuts you off and hunt them down, it is not your own will, but God's will.
This stance is both traumatic in the sense that it denies us any choice (and while it does deny accountability and thus guilt, it also, conversely denies us pride), while also being infinitely optimistic in the sense that is assures us all of our actions are in the will of a higher being. The man/woman looking to live by this assumption in the sake of happiness should ask themselves which is more important for them.
Now I am not a religious person in any sense, but it is important for the sake of logic to consider this. First, assume that, since society governs all of man's actions, man has no will. Man is only a being of society and God. Now, if we recognize that society is a function of God, and furthermore assume that God, as the creator of man, has also created man's environment and extra-special counterparts (furthermore, all of the universe-- hence the term "universal" wink than it is obvious that to say man is composed of two wills-- God and society, is incorrect in the sense that it is redundant. God does not influence alongside society God IS society and, since we assume for this that all of man's actions can be traced back to society and the functions there-of, we can see that all of man's history, present, and future is little more than an extension of God's will.
When you are born, it is as God willed it.
When you die, it is as God willed it.
When you are not born, but your great-great-great grandmother was born with the recessive carrier-gene sure (because everything is sure, there is no chance) to make YOU, within your blood-line, just anger-prone enough to snap while driving home when someone cuts you off and hunt them down, it is not your own will, but God's will.
This stance is both traumatic in the sense that it denies us any choice (and while it does deny accountability and thus guilt, it also, conversely denies us pride), while also being infinitely optimistic in the sense that is assures us all of our actions are in the will of a higher being. The man/woman looking to live by this assumption in the sake of happiness should ask themselves which is more important for them.
3. There is no God or higher being present in mortal life, but mortal life is simply a chaos of man's will and society as a function there-of; existentialism and the freedom of an accidental universe.
Now, this is the theory that I personally believe in. It is the thesis of choice. All existence, even our own thoughts, exist by meaning of choice. Yet, it is bittersweet in the thought that it is not our own choice as we would perhaps prefer it, as I will show through logic. And We can see a resemblance with 2 in the way that logic moves. If we assume that because all of man's actions are in fact controlled by society we must assume that the remaining components of his entity are functions of society. Now, we get rid of God here*. In order to mathematically balance this equation (on a theoretical, non-quantitative level) we must not allow for a third factor-- in order of this form of proposed existentialism to appropriately exist, there can be no chance occurrences, and thus no mysterious unseen will may exist. In doing this, we assume that man is ruled by in individual (self), and the universal (society), which is, revealingly enough, what Kierkegaard spends so much of his works focusing on, and what Nietzsche/Dostoevski focuses almost solely on.
Now then, we assume that "will" exists as a consciousness, not as a soul, since we have already killed God's presence and the presence of mysticism. With that assumption, it is elementary to assume that the will begins simultaneously with physiological thought, or consciousness. Exactly where "will" is developed beyond that is irrelevant, as this is merely to show that, since will must develop alongside physiological development, and thus in the womb, that the self comes before the societal in thought.
But does it?
We assume that this unborn will is before society because it has not yet interacted with people as a race, but, if we go back to our earlier assumptions on society as a function, we see that this is folly. We assume that the earliest cultivation of will is in hereditary solution, in our genes, but, since genealogy is a function of society (whether it be one in development before our conception or otherwise), we see that it is really only society that has cultivated our thoughts. Even any interaction with our mother while still in the womb can not be called solitary, willfull collection, because our mother's our nothing but past and ongoing products of society. There is no individual choice and their never will be! When you leave the womb, you will already be conditioned to respond in certain fashions to certain stimuli. Correlatively, you will receive appropriately conditioned stimuli which will further change your mind's make-up and vocabulary of responses;
while choice exists, we do not have choice! Society is the only true deciding factor. No individual person can be held accountable for their actions as every choice they make is merely a mathematically harmonious response to the irrelevant choices that preceded their entire existence!
Now, this approach does have some shortcoming's when compared to the conclusion previously reached that God is the only deciding factor in man's actions in the fact that is does not explain the creation of universe or the first people, who in turn first created society.
However, I remind the reader that this is not a scientific thesis and both of the above questions are constantly being approached by other papers of that nature. I also caution the reader that often-times explanations which seek to answer all questions at once (especially those in nature like the two above) are often regarded as philosophical hole-fillers-- to say that we no longer need to have any questions because a mystical being is responsible for all things is simple logic and if that is the assumption that a reader is inclined to make, I would not label the time spent examining my thoughts as time well-spent. I should as well point the reader the asterisk at the bottom of the page, disclaiming this theory's total relation to God in clear terms.
I would also like to note Nietzche who at length explains the complex psycho-sociology behind guilt in pride in his explanation of Jewish morale-inversement at the crucifixion of Christ in his essay: "A Genealogy of Morals" (though I am too lazy to look up the section at the moment, I recommend the entire paper as a good read) and remind the reader that if we are to assume that the former of the two seriously proposed theory's in my paper is correct, then one must find away to explain feelings of guilt and pride in everyday life as Nietzche labels rather accurately both of these functions in the passage mentioned as functions of society and caste-assignment.
Now, this is the theory that I personally believe in. It is the thesis of choice. All existence, even our own thoughts, exist by meaning of choice. Yet, it is bittersweet in the thought that it is not our own choice as we would perhaps prefer it, as I will show through logic. And We can see a resemblance with 2 in the way that logic moves. If we assume that because all of man's actions are in fact controlled by society we must assume that the remaining components of his entity are functions of society. Now, we get rid of God here*. In order to mathematically balance this equation (on a theoretical, non-quantitative level) we must not allow for a third factor-- in order of this form of proposed existentialism to appropriately exist, there can be no chance occurrences, and thus no mysterious unseen will may exist. In doing this, we assume that man is ruled by in individual (self), and the universal (society), which is, revealingly enough, what Kierkegaard spends so much of his works focusing on, and what Nietzsche/Dostoevski focuses almost solely on.
Now then, we assume that "will" exists as a consciousness, not as a soul, since we have already killed God's presence and the presence of mysticism. With that assumption, it is elementary to assume that the will begins simultaneously with physiological thought, or consciousness. Exactly where "will" is developed beyond that is irrelevant, as this is merely to show that, since will must develop alongside physiological development, and thus in the womb, that the self comes before the societal in thought.
But does it?
We assume that this unborn will is before society because it has not yet interacted with people as a race, but, if we go back to our earlier assumptions on society as a function, we see that this is folly. We assume that the earliest cultivation of will is in hereditary solution, in our genes, but, since genealogy is a function of society (whether it be one in development before our conception or otherwise), we see that it is really only society that has cultivated our thoughts. Even any interaction with our mother while still in the womb can not be called solitary, willfull collection, because our mother's our nothing but past and ongoing products of society. There is no individual choice and their never will be! When you leave the womb, you will already be conditioned to respond in certain fashions to certain stimuli. Correlatively, you will receive appropriately conditioned stimuli which will further change your mind's make-up and vocabulary of responses;
while choice exists, we do not have choice! Society is the only true deciding factor. No individual person can be held accountable for their actions as every choice they make is merely a mathematically harmonious response to the irrelevant choices that preceded their entire existence!
Now, this approach does have some shortcoming's when compared to the conclusion previously reached that God is the only deciding factor in man's actions in the fact that is does not explain the creation of universe or the first people, who in turn first created society.
However, I remind the reader that this is not a scientific thesis and both of the above questions are constantly being approached by other papers of that nature. I also caution the reader that often-times explanations which seek to answer all questions at once (especially those in nature like the two above) are often regarded as philosophical hole-fillers-- to say that we no longer need to have any questions because a mystical being is responsible for all things is simple logic and if that is the assumption that a reader is inclined to make, I would not label the time spent examining my thoughts as time well-spent. I should as well point the reader the asterisk at the bottom of the page, disclaiming this theory's total relation to God in clear terms.
I would also like to note Nietzche who at length explains the complex psycho-sociology behind guilt in pride in his explanation of Jewish morale-inversement at the crucifixion of Christ in his essay: "A Genealogy of Morals" (though I am too lazy to look up the section at the moment, I recommend the entire paper as a good read) and remind the reader that if we are to assume that the former of the two seriously proposed theory's in my paper is correct, then one must find away to explain feelings of guilt and pride in everyday life as Nietzche labels rather accurately both of these functions in the passage mentioned as functions of society and caste-assignment.
Additional Conclusions:
4a. Diesm and God's presence-- and absence in will
This idea derives itself from number three without interfering in it's concept, so the reader is asked to first read conclusion three.
Now, if we take all of that information to heart, and still wish to explain the universe's existance (but not the will of the universe) with a God, one can look to Diesm, the belief that God created the universe but did not compel the universe, leaving it from the very moment of creation to it's own methods. God created the universe but did not affect the universe (the kind of action that seems only performable by an extra-existential being). This means that though God exists, his will is not presence in our universe and only the will of individual life which we have already shown to be only the function of society's will.
4b. Anti-Diesm-- God's comeback in the rhetoric of will.
While this theory comes to a very different conclusion that option 3, it still operates on the same mechanistic assumptions, and so the reader is advised to read that section, as well as section "4a."
Take into consideration "4b." If we assume that, instead of what is proposed there, that God created the universe with intention of non-interference, or that God was unable to not interfere, we come to two seperate conclusions.
I
God's original will
God's original will
God created the universe and, by arranging it's very first image in it's creation, ultimately created all destiny for all of the universe's duration and is thus responsible for the original society and thus the original will of society. This leap in logic tells us that while man is ruled by society's will, society's will is God's will, as God intentioned it. We still have absolutely no say in our destiny, but know that our destiny is purposeful.
II
God's error?
God's error?
For the Diests out there, consider this rhetorical question: Can one (even God) really create without compelling it's creation? If some Eternal being truly did create the universe with intention of letting the universe run it's own course, it is possible that this being was unable to arrange the first image of the universe in a way that it was unable to remove it's will from the function. This is truly the curse of creation! This shows us that while all of man's actions, which are derived from man's will, thus from society's will, and thus from God's will, are, aside from being inescapable, furthermore completely pointless! One could even say that man's very own prison to God's will is a defiance of God himself and that man's every action is an Anti-Christ.
*Notes on God: According the the third conclusion I have come to, I say that we are getting rid of God's will. This does not mean that the theory totally disclaims God, rather it says that God's will is not present in any action of man or in any aspect of ongoing mortal life besides possibly the existance of mortal life itself and that man's actions can not thusly be traced back to God, as this is a paper on God's relation to man's will and not on God's relative existance in it of itself.
Inconsistencies in the possibility and theoritical disclaimers of determinism.
5a. The subversement of derteministic premise by the digital world.
Alright, I'm not sure how a digital number generator works. This additional footnote (and rather important one) is based on the premise that they are completely unpredictable by any source or means. If anyone has information otherwise, please alert me!
I opereate my entire argument on the theory that all actions and events can be predicted, and our thus fateful. However, what implies this predictability? The answer, in my mind, is physics. You take away physics, and nothing can be predicted. If there was no set system of physics and one drops a stone, how is one to know whether the stone will fall? If one does not know the answer to just that one question, how does one know the answer to anything?
So, if we assume that since the digital world has no physics other than programmed predictability, and that random number occurances in the digital world are programmed specifically to NOT be predictable (not that they are too difficult to predict, but that they are INCAPABLE of being predicted because there is no set result) then we can see how this undermines the entire theory of fateism.
How does this affect derteminism? From the very first moment that a completely random (since "randomness" can exist only in the digital world) occurance was made and shown to any physical entity capable of being affected by it, derterminism becomes a changing thing.
If this can be proven, then we see that their is either no fate, or that fate is, in the digital era, an-ever changing thing that, while it is safe to say no one can predictably change or have any control over, does evolve.
5b. The possible inconsistency between determinism and quantum physics-- a note for.
I, by no means, claim to be a physicist, and will claim only a high-school level of knowledge in such a field of science.
It has come to my attention through discussion on this forum that the theory of quantum mechanics could very much contradict the theory of determinism, which is a very hard premise of my thesis. While there are many conclusions one could reach with this information, I refuse to venture any guess until I can learn more about this theory, as it goes against my nature to speak without first educating myself.
If anyone has any information that can help me, you are asked to please get in contact with me.
Miscellaneous Notes:
Notes on man's physiological disposition:
Steampunk Patashu
Choice doesn't neccesarily have to exist.
An illusion of choice is crafted incredibly well when we always do the things we want to do most.
An illusion of choice is crafted incredibly well when we always do the things we want to do most.
You haven't proven or disproven anything and have contributed nothing.
Society's choice is not an individual choice, but is still choice (not an illusion);
society creates the illusion of choice by conditioning man when they instill, inherently, wants and desire of certain conditions in man, and thus give man the inclination to choose. When you combine this conditioning with the inherent inclination of man's own physiological suffering-- for example, if society somehow compelled a man to dance on hot coals, causing him pain-- you get a new interpretation of Kierkegaard's despair.
Not as a despair between man's will and God's will, but as a despair between man's will and society's will.
This is the only condition upon which man's individual will can exist; however, since man's temperance for pain, and the fact that he can feel pain at all, is a product of genealogy and genealogy as a function of evolution, one can still see how this "individual disposition" is nothing more than a long-term tool developed by society.
So, choice does exist, just not the choice of society.
Thoughts for constructive discussion.
a.) On premises within the nature of discussion.
As this is a philisophical and sociological thesis on a complex and assumptious level, it is important to note its contents rely heavily on several premises:
a-i) Determinism (the thought that all events are calculable) does exist within mortal coil.
a-ii) Destiny can be defined as a predeterminate, non-living (though this can be debated, see notes below!) conceptual entity representing the inevitabitity of any/all occurances within mortal coil.
Note: While any/all of these premises are welcome to be debated, one must note that they are doing so, and also understand that to do so in certain forms can be unconstructive, and will be labeled as off-topic, though warnings will be given. This is about discussion, as constructive as possible.
b.) A note for debate:
Also, any posters are asked to note that this is not a religious discussion pretaining to any specific denomination and as such, opinions based on dogma or religious excerpts will fall outside of it's topic, or on it's periphery. If one is able to make a solid connection between the proposed thesis and religious dogma, one is more than welcome to debate it here (I will again, warn when I feel issues become too off-topic), but should note that in almost any foreseeable circumstance, such topics would benifit more in their own debates, or in a private thread if someone so desires.
c.) Some questions to help you along.
Is there a God?
If there is a God, does he affect our actions?
Is there any reason to believe in destiny?
Can destiny and choice co-exist?
Is it possible to create without compelling?
d.) Responding/Reaching me.
If (and I hope you do) you would like to partake in this discussion, please post here in this thread. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself unwilling to say your opinion in public, please contact me via PM. Also, if you feel that your issue is to long-winded to be discussed suitably in this thread, drop me a PM. And, if you feel that a debate we are engaged in has become too personal for public, feel free to ask me to continue it in a PM.
Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
Thank you all for reading this, and I apologize for this thesis's ever changing nature. I by no means claim to be any other than a confused high-school student, and merely offer my unbiased opinion. 3nodding
