Poll: Your Preferred View of Se (Will)

[tcaudilllg]

Admin: delete the other two, please.

You are witness to several groups of people who seem to be cooperating toward a common goal. Despite the signs of cooperation, there seems to be some level of acrimony between two of the groups. The third group has sided with one of the two, putting the remaining group at a disadvantage. Unsure how to resist the combined pressure of its peers, the opposition group relents and obeys its rival despite its disagreements with them.

Are these three groups together...

- A set of several distinct groups, each representing a single will

- a set of distinct wills which are wholly independent from each other

- a group of independent wills that are acting as a single will, irregardless of the opposition's disagreements with its direction

[Exodus]

Uh, what's the difference?

[aestrivex]

i don't understand the question.

[tcaudilllg]

Vote for the one that you feel more inclined to perceive. Like, what's your first reaction. Don't think about it before you answer. (it's a rapid response test.)

[strrrng]

I wish I had read your post before answering. since you mentioned the siding between two of the groups and the aquiescence by the third, that would have influenced it. based on the general description, 3 groups that merge to a single goal are independent wills acting as one, because of everyone's differing perceptions, but being focused on the same thing. However, based on the example, I would say a set of several distinct groups, each representing a single will. this is because they each have motives, which is why the first two sided together - that was their will coming forth. then, the third, feeling weak, chose the smartest decision, as a group, and sided with the two. that was representative of their will as a whole. now the three are together, still with different wills, because they didn't come together out of pure agreement.

But I have no clue what you are getting at....I just found the question stimulating.

[aestrivex]

Vote for the one that you feel more inclined to perceive. Like, what's your first reaction. Don't think about it before you answer. (it's a rapid response test.)

i have absolutely no gut reaction when i look at those choices because i don't understand the question.

[Mediator Kam]

I like the idea of "a set of distinct wills which are wholly independent from each other", even during cooperative behavior. That was my gut reaction.

[tcaudilllg]

It wsa a matter of this: when you see a group of wills, do you consider them seperately; as a whole; or a little of either?

I think it may have to do with how one uses Se. One means treats a set of SE aspects as a field, a single will, and another treats them as seperate objects without assuming a field at all. The other is a compromise between the two, drawing distinction between the seperate motives as self-contained fields.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Herzy made a blurb on my forum about Se. It felt 100% true. I am sure she posted similarly here. I dont really think much else needs to be said of it.

[Gilly]

Jadae's only reliable information = other people's. Who'da thunk it?

[Creepy-pokeball]

Jadae's only reliable information = other people's. Who'da thunk it?

Grow up. Ive made my own ...and even posted it here before! *gasp* Are you that desperate for attention to follow me around like a child on a leash?

[Creepy-pokeball]

I put you on ignore. Have a nice life.

[Gilly]

I put you on ignore. Have a nice life.

Two in one week...I'm on a roll!

[Gilly]

Grow up. Ive made my own ...and even posted it here before! *gasp* Are you that desperate for attention to follow me around like a child on a leash?

Awww, did I hurt your feelings after all?

[tcaudilllg]

Are there any more respondants? I had intended to make this a public poll, but I had some technical difficulties. Could everyone who responded post their responses, please?

[redbaron]

I like the idea of "a set of distinct wills which are wholly independent from each other", even during cooperative behavior. That was my gut reaction.

Mine too. That's what I voted. The second one.

[implied]

mmh, i voted for the 2nd one.

[Ezra]

I made a mistake. I meant to vote for the third, not the second. Wills are never independent of each other, because functions can't function separately. It is a group of wills who may disagree, but are, on the whole, cooperative because humans have to be. Humans will always be dependent on something; it's their nature to work cooperatively. (This doesn't mean I'm a socialist or communist by the way.)

[munenori2]

I voted for the third.

[Blaze]

i voted 3rd. if it matters, that is, thread's been dead for a couple days.

[tcaudilllg]

Oh, it matters.

OK, next phase of the inquiry. Why, given the information I offered, did you vote as you did? Specifically, why did you disagree with the other two choices?