Mr Plinkett's Last Jedi Review

Kathleen Kennedy is on the same culpability level as Johnson.

(Overall, she's obviously the most responsible, but you qualified it with 'in the past year'.)

Ridiculous claim 'upvoted' due to generic positivity. Johnson very clearly damaged the brand/franchise.

I have no idea of this poster's opinion on TLJ, so as of now this isn't directed at him/her, but there is a reason for 'online' - AKA 'non-traditional' media - reviewers in particular using the specific phrase 'trolling' (as in, is RJ trolling?) when it comes to the writing of TLJ. This phrase carries some additional weight when said reviewer has studied writing/filimmaking, and even more weight when said reviewer has at least consistently shown aptitude for commenting on any film's writing, as RLM have done. The reason they use that specific phrase, 'trolling', is this:

TLJ is poorly written to the point that it is hard for another professional to judge whether or not it is incompetence or trolling.

and for even more granular purposes:

TLJ is poorly written to the point that it is hard for another high-level professional to judge whether or not it is incompetence or incompetent trolling.

Take a long minute or even several minutes - heck take a week - to think about/process that. For the average poster on The Cantina unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of writing, it's best to think about it and try to imagine it in the context of your own daily life. A co-worker, a boss, a trainee. A supplier if you're in business. A wedding planner if your wedding's coming up. Think about someone doing such a weird job that it's hard to tell if they kind of know the job but are stupid/new or actively trolling to make someone else's life difficult. Now think about someone in your line of work WHO YOU ALREADY KNOW IS BAD AT THEIR JOB doing the same thing.

Think of the malice/stupidity quote: Never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity.

Again, think of any profession, from plumbing to cooking, and imagine a 'professional' doing such a strange job that other professionals can't tell whether it's another professional trolling, or a layman who knows some stuff about some things and has looked other things up online and in the end tried to do the job him/herself and botched almost everything 'under the hood', and due to human decency, those professionals opting to give the offender the benefit of the doubt, as in surely he can't be that stupid, it must have been on purpose.

For emphasis: the attitude of 'Surely he can't be that stupid, it must have been on purpose' is fellow professionals BEING POLITE. TLJ has enough markers pointing towards stupidity. ('Enough' in the previous sentence is also being polite. TLJ is riddled with them.)

Hence the quote (parapharased) about TLJ 'being written by a high-schooler, but, like, a pretty smart high schooler' (They're being polite)

As we saw with the prequels, which this poster pointed out him/herself, bad/terrible writing can and will damage a franchise.

Many here have probably heard the adage, prove you understand the rules before you break them. TLJ's writing is so bad that it's - politely speaking - hard (it's easy) to tell if this is simply someone who erroneously believes they are beyond this step or someone who doesn't understand the rules at all.

Believe it or not, TLJ's writing is on another level of bad compared to the prequels.

Also, the sequel to TFA would have done about the same box office or higher regardless of director/script. Box office has little to no meaning in the discussion of the film's quality.

 

It's funny how things move isn't it?

There's definitely a reason for using any loaded epithet; it's a rhetorical appeal substituting emotion for actual argument: e.g. that argument is so stupid I need not even address it. It's an attempt to play on emotion instead of reason because that usually works better to whip the emotional humans into your conclusion corral. It's a really old rhetorical device kind of like a Jedi mind trick. Even has the same flaw. It only works on the weak minded.

But you invite a paradox here. How do you then explain the fact that most "professional" critics (e.g. the aggregtor darlings) priased the film and don't mention noticing any "terrible writing"? Was China behind it, countering Russia's meddling hand? Seriously, is it a conspiracy? What about the multitude of 'online' - AKA 'non-traditional' media that also highly regarded the film? Why did they not notice such obvious terrible writing?

And the weight carried by the reviewers stating the opposite? What happens to that weight? I mean, said reviewers have studied writing/filmmaking, and said reviewers have at least consistently shown aptitude for commenting on any film's writing, so?

Quick side question: When these reviewers differ in their conclusions, how do you determine which one is "right"? I'm talking about Jay and Mike (and we can throw in Rich for fun). Since the accolades you're tossing around apply to all of them, yes?

Because they're using a rhetorical device.

Took me 0.00035 seconds to process it. Still rhetorical.

Ah but your analogue is based on work that is objectively evaluated. Art isn't the same. We call that a false analogy where I'm from. Then someone uses a shovel to put it in a bag and throw it in the refuse where it belongs.

I assure you I will never attribute malice to a post on this or any other forum. Though, for the record, I believe the opposite of that saying to be less offensive. I find that a person would be more inclined to be regarded as malicious rather than stupid.

Again, these are examples of objective measures of objective work. Instead, think of a musician who writes a song that some people love, some people like, some people don't like and some people hate. Now think of the ones that hate the music claiming, "A terrible composer I can't tell if he is trolling me with this 'jazz' of his!" See now? There you have a true analogy. Smells like roses.

That is some serious politeness for sure.

Examples? Always open to watch the work of a well-oiled reason machine. I'm like that. I love work. I could watch it all day long.

A fine rule.

I'm ready to believe! All you have to do now is show me that well-oiled reasoning machine just humming away. Because, let's be honest, so far it's all been rhetoric.

That depends on your criteria for determining the quality of a film. But I'm sure we can both agree to jettison box office as a legitimate measure in the case of evaluation. So let's do this thing I'm so tired of seeing awful reasoning being spewed from every direction let's see some solid reasoning at work!

 

Rian Johnson made a movie.. it's that simple. that's all he did.

I don't see the brand or franchise as damaged. I don't have Star Wars blinkers on, and i'm not drunk (not right now anyway).
I enjoyed the movie, and i look forward to the next one.

I do however think that the fan base is damaged (fubar if we're being honest), and has been since the prequels.

just my humble opinion though

there are levels of bad writing? do you have a link to this list of bad writing so that i can have a look at it please?
Opinion decides if something is written well or written badly.. and we all have our own.

you're entire post comes across as very condescending and frankly.. belittling. maybe you didn't mean it to be, or maybe I've misread it.

 

Funny, remember when people said that George Lucas himself destroyed Star Wars? How can you destroy something thats already been destroyed?

 

I think this review is on the money. Which, in a shock aligns with my own feelings on the film.

I think the Red Letter guys review of Rogue One is garbage. Which in another shock is not anything like my feelings on Rogue One.

It is a review. If you don't agree with it.......move on.

 

Look, suppose a guy writes a piece of music and plays it at a concert of musicians. Some in the audience love the piece, some like it, some don't like it, some hate it. Everything is fine because, hey, that's the way it goes. Everything is a subjective reaction relative to the individual. Now suppose a couple of the people who hated it start loudly stating, "This is bad music and this guy can't write music. Because he has written in 6/8 time which is bad music. I studied music and music must be written in 3/4 time. Why was this guy even invited when his music is obviously terrible because he doesn't write it like it should be written the way I like it!" Another one loudly joins in "Yeah his guitar isn't even in tune! He can't even tune a guitar and he's invited to play music?! This is a middle finger right in our faces, the sponsers are giving us the middle finger right to our faces!" (The guitar is in tune, by the way)

Now some bystanders who aren't sure are getting emotionally drawn into the protest. "What they says sounds right to me!" "Yeah, I think his guitar isn't even in tune, either!" One guy who didn't like the song shouts "I think their review is right on the money!" They start pointing fingers at the musician "You're a fraud!" "You're a hack you can't write music the way it's supposed to be written!" They start booing the musician and shouting for him to be removed from the venue permanently. The concert descends into discord as people begin to leave, others who liked the song begin to defend the musician and his piece, the haters begin screaming and chanting "Tune the guitar! Tune the guitar!" The concert is ended and the haters stand outside angrily shouting about the musician who ruined the concert for everyone and "killed the venue". "This mess is all HIS fault! He is the one to blame for everything!" "And his producer shares culpability!"

Now to some, the actions of the haters might be seen as "A review. If you don't agree with it ... move on." But to me, it's a symptom of something more, something which affects, everything. You might look at a tiny virus and say "It's so small, just move on and leave it be" but I'm saying "That little virus can and does do big damage, and it can become systemic in no time at all." The fact that I'm using a Star Wars movie as an illustration is completely incidental. That "review" is just a singular component of a much larger problem. It's a problem of ignorance being passed off as intelligence, being used to con the naive.

The people who made this movie have done nothing wrong, and are being falsely accused. I have to defend those that are being falsely accused no matter how seemingly trivial the false accusations may seem to others. Injustice is injustice and bad judgment is bad judgment, wherever it is no matter the size. The real point here is not to get people to 'like Star Wars' but to get people to like, no, love, reason and right judgment. You may think, but one person is so small, and this scenario so seemingly insignificant, what is the point? Well, a single atom on the atomic scale given a specific trajectory can cause a big effect.

And just to be clear, the problem isn't someone not liking something. The problem is how that dislike is presented and the effect that presentation can have. Because things tend to, ripple outward. It's when ignorance masquerades as intelligence in order to cause discord and ill-will, and to falsely accuse others, and get others (even the naive) to falsely accuse others with them. You see a movie review; I see people hurting people, and getting others to hurt people with them. And they're pretending (knowingly or not) that their attacks are 'objectively justified' which only furthers to corall the naive into their attack. This is the root of the problems we face as a people. People using bad reason to justify attacking others, and to get the ignorant to jump on their 'righteous' bandwagon. I'll challenge it. I don't want to but I have to. No matter how seemingly small or insignificant it appears to others.

"I don't like Star Wars"? Fine. "I don't like Star Wars because it's too boring for me." Fine. "I don't like Star Wars because I don't like innaccurate science" fine.

"Here is my pseudo-objective rationale for why you have no excuse to disagree, and should agree that X is objectively bad, and let's accuse the people involved as being terrible, and let's try to do damage to their project, and maybe we can get them removed and possibly ruin their lives!" Ignorant. Infantile. Unacceptable at any stage of the line of reasoning for any scenario at any time or any place directed toward any people.

 

What I think a lot of people are missing about this is: whether you agree or disagree - RLM is laughing at you. If you’re taking any of it in earnest, then you’re part of the punchline. The Plinkett “Reviews” aren’t reviews, they’re skits. They’re not about perpetuating some critical angle on cinema, they’re irreverent jabs at prepackaged art and its fevered consumers. It’s mockery of our pop-culture obsessed society - how irrationally deep so many people are fervently invested in the truly trivial (themselves included). I’d like to think if RJ or KK watched this video, they’d be amused, not offended. They’d be aware enough to be in on the joke.

 

My post was refering to the half in the bag reviews.

I would say the mr plinkett reviews are slowly morphing into more review like territory, less weird guy in a basement.

 

You're sure you're not thinking of CinemaSins, because RLM doesn't seem to me to be satire. The character of Plinkett is clearly exaggerated in his vulgarity, but the criticisms themselves are those of Stolaski(?). Bear in mind that I'm not saying that I dislike these guys (or, anyone for that matter). I'd like to think I'm on friendly terms with everyone. It's not the people, per se, it's the attitude creating an environment of hostility which is based on ignorance acting as "prosecution" leading to false accusations which create hostility toward actual people who are in the end, innocent of all charges.

Again, it's not about a subjective review, it's when people criticizing something move from subjectivity to the role of prosector making an objective case against something or someone. If a critic is moving from "I think this movie was boring" to "there are real pacing problems in this movie and the writer has not followed the rules of pacing and has produced a film which technically suffers from his incompetence" then they're objectively wrong. If a critic says "nothing happens in this film and the characters are at the same place as when the film began" then they are objectively wrong. If the guy in my analogy says "you cannot write music in 6/8 time" then he is objectively wrong. And anyone that claims his review is "accurate" is as objectivley wrong as he is.

Now, I couldn't tell you who would laugh at what, but what I do know is that as I said before this is like a virus. It's the same procedure of prejudiced thought that leads to any type of injustice that exists. That's why, to me, it's important to challenge this mindset wherever it may crop up. Because it's the mindset responsible for discord, ill-will, and ultimately hurting innocent people. Of course, no one is being physically hurt but you know what? Which is worse, to physically hurt someone, or, to hurt someone emotionally or psychologically? We have laws against physically hurting someone, but emotional harm is the far worse type of harm, and people can do the worse crime with seeming impunity, which is even worse when most of them don't realize what it is they're doing because they can't see the damage with their eyes.

In this scenario, I don't think Johnson and Kennedy would be laughing at any trouble to which they may be subject because of this. I don't think Kelly Tran or Daisy Ridley are laughing at the experiences. I don't think Hayden Christensen or Jake Lloyd or Ahmed Best or George Lucas have found things hilarious. The "fans" that attack people like Kelly are just the proverbial blossoms of an ugly and corrupt tree that has its roots in "benign" criticism which is in fact based on incompetent judgment and false accusations. As I said, there would be no problem if these things were truly opinions, but they are not being presented as such, they're presented as "objective prosecution" which only fuel the "righteousness" of the "fact-driven" angry mob. But the prosection is based on incompetent judgment and the facts are false accusations. You won't see me challenge someone who says "I didn't like the movie" I couldn't care less. But when people start standing up like they're prosecutors making a "fact-based" case for why the movie is "bad" and then pointing at specific people as "guilty", then if I see it I'll jump up and say "I'm the defense."

I could go on and on but I won't because I think I've at least clarified my own position enough. I just do not like ignorance (especially when it masquerades as intelligence) which sprouts to "justify" unjust judgment which grows to "righteous" discord which branches to false accusations of guilt which blossoms in physical/emotional/psychological harm to those who are innocent. In fact I hate it.

 

Their best skit is when they do a mock review of Rogue One as each one of them yell a fan service element out like they saw it for the first time since 1977:

"Death Star!!!!"

"AT-AT's!!!!!"

"Darth Vaderrrrr!!!!!!"

"Grand Moff Tarrrrrkkkkinnn!

"Tie Fighters!!!!"

"Mon Mothma's back!!!!"

 

We just have incompatible personal philosophies. I was raised to feel sorry for people whose self-worth was predicated on diminishing others of theirs - the only way they can feel better about themselves being to cause someone else to feel worse. Not from a source of superiority, but from a place of genuine sympathy. That sort of existence must be miserable and terribly unfulfilling. That makes me sad, not indignant.

That, though, isn’t my impression at all of what’s presented. I see parody. I see a lampoon of the self-righteous hateful rants that paint the landscape of this internet space. The tone, to me, doesn’t read as prosecutorial or accusatory in any respect. It’s the act of illustrating the absurd by being absurd. I don’t believe the intent here was to ‘harm’ anyone any more than Mad Magazine or Saturday Night Live. Offend? Certainly. Hurt? No. It’s classic ‘nose thumbing’ - taking the piss out of a thing people are far too precious over and mocking the angry fanboys out there at the same time. At least, that’s how I see it anyway.

When someone starts their “review” off by claiming to be the director’s father and anecdotally mentioning how they once had their penis torn off by a cat while watching the moon landing, I’m not sure what degree subjectivity or objectivity plays into it. Whatever currency for ‘accuracy’ might have existed was pretty deliberately burned up. Seth MacFarlane, by way of Peter Griffin, makes a salient point every now and again, but CRIMINY you aren’t actually supposed to take that character seriously. And if people do, then that’s simply embarrassing. Akin to getting your “news” from the Daily Show.

I’m sure this sentiment will come off as archaic, barbaric, and tremendously out-of-touch, but I’m a relic from a time when a particular axiom was in common use: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Sadly, for most, this mantra is rarely ever expounded on and given relevance to what’s meant by it. Which isn’t that ‘words can’t hurt you, so get over it’. It’s the crucial and dire acknowledgement that, in this life, the only person whose actions you can truly control is you. You’re going to encounter creeps and jerks and people who don’t grasp the negative implications of what they say. You can’t affect that and you can’t truly avoid that, but you can affect how you react to it. That power belongs to you and no one else. You get to decide how you feel. “Words will never hurt me” because I won’t LET them.

That’s easier said than done though. That’s not a revelation or state of mind effortlessly achieved. It takes work and support and I think that’s the underline problem with what we see in our connected society. It’s not the assholes. They’ve always been here and they always will be. They’ve just been granted a larger platform than ever before. In my observation, it’s the lack of a proper support system that lays that foundation of discord - not having the fundamental toolset to manage the negatively. Not having someone to put it into perspective and provide encouragement and allowing for perseverance. If you want to help the situation, truly help, then invest your energy into being the support that people need. To put it another way: save what you love instead of fighting what you hate

This has all the same hand ringing ear marks of alarmist parents who blame ‘rock music’ and ‘video games’ for perverting their innocent children into angry violent thugs. People are responsible for their own actions. Any degenerate emboldened to harass someone by misinterpreting a piece of satire was already riding on that debased thought train to begin with. Pointing fingers at the media as a culprit only minimizes that.

“Hate leads to suffering.” Fighting hate with more hate is like trying to save a sinking boat by dumping more water into it.

 

Sure, I'm not meaning to say I don't like these people or anything similar - that's why I said I don't dislike people.

Obviously I cannot know the true intentions of the videos. What I do know is that, whatever the intentions, the result is that there is an audience that does take it seriously and does use the arguments/criticisms as a platform of attack/prosecution against an target which is innocent. The fact this thread and some of the posts in it exists is demonstration of that. And there are multitudes of videos just like this all over and they're all having the same effect.

Well, the criticisms sound like they're meant to be taken at face value, as the also align with the criticism of the films in the normal review. The character is of course exaggerated in vulgariry, but only when not giving criticism. It runs like a man giving his review while building very colorfully exaggerations around the review. People do take the review seriously, as demonstrated in the thread. Whatever the intent of the reviewer, his material is being taken seriously and now innocent people have to deal with the fallout.

I've never met a person who actually isn't hurt by words, despite the wishful thinking of that addage. Moreover, someone like Kathleen Kennedy isn't just having words directed at her, she's having personal attacks that can affect her livelihood. Those people I mentioned suffered things far greater than just 'words' yet the words were the impetus of their suffering. Words are incredibly powerful and no amount of wishful thinking is going to stop them from being destructive when used to destroy.

I always act in defense, you'll never see me initiating anything. And to be honest, I love everyone. If someone you love is ignorant, then, teach them how to reason and that will save them from ignorance. Along with everyone else affected by their ignorance.

I'm pointing fingers at ignorance in whatever form its rearing its ugly head. That's the culprit. And I'm not fighting hate with hate, I'm defending what is innocent against hate fueled by ignorance. Reason is my weapon of choice. And for the philosophical record, I don't believe "free will" is real. "Choice"? Sure. Control? No. I certainly can't control my actions. I'm absolutely compelled to do what I do and say what I say. I have no control over the matter. I must defend.

 

You and I experience the world very differently. That's a fascinating and confounding outlook to me . . . but informative

 

Allow me a space to add something, again for sake of clarity. I don't want it to seem that I'll just, defend anything. I won't. I don't want it seem seem like I'm affiliating myself with any specific group or ideology except one. I don't like labels and I don't like politics. I'm neither 'left' nor 'right' though both sides will find me in their proverbial borders at certain times. But if they think I'm 'on their loyal side' they'll quickly find it's likely not the case. If there's anyone I'm defending, let's call her Lady Reason. That's whose side I'm on. And the only time you'll find me in defense of the metaphoric Queen, is when her authority is being blasphemed by the ignorant. What I mean by blasphemed is, to defame, to injure the name, to misrepresent. And then, only when that is causing potential harm to the innocent. So if some are using the guise of reason in order to attack, then by way of metaphor they're saying to the masses "The Queen is with us!" and the masses (generally zealous for the Queen, yet not knowing her) can be misguided into following the con, even to the hurt of the name of the Queen herself. So I'm compelled to shout "The Queen is against them!" and I'm going to show her metaphoric seal to demonstrate it.

And I use 'queen' here not because of 'gender politics' but because of symbolic archetype associated with the concept. The King compels to defend the Queen. So if someone is using bad reason in attempt to establish justification in order to cause group dynamic for a prosecution of the innocent, I will defend in order to expose the con and restore the 'righteous name of the Queen'. I'm not here to 'defend Star Wars' that is incidental (though not an undesired incidental). And it doesn't matter how 'small' or seemingly 'benign' the blasphemy, size does not matter. The big things are, after all, just multitudes of the little things.

I'd disagree that predetermination is the confounding conclusion in the idea of control of unfolding, as it were (free will-predetermination). When I observe all that is around me, it is all clearly predetermined unfolding. For example a flower cannot control its variety. It cannot control how it grows. Cannot control its putting leaves. It cannot control its time of blooming. Birds cannot control their migration. Fish cannot control their need for water. Nothing I see controls any aspect of its own unfolding. The universe itself cannot control its unfolding, but moves and unfolds according to "laws" governing its unfolding. If everything around me moves and unfolds according to some, predetermined "rules", everything having its time and season, how can I conclude that I am somehow different than every other thing in the proverbial body?

It explains everything about us, as well as that which is around us. Why are some weak and others strong? Why do the weak not choose to be strong? Why do some lack will-power? Why would they not "freely" choose to be strong-willed? Why do people lament not being able to stop doing the things they desparately wish to discontinue doing? Where is "free control" when people desparately want it? Non-existent, that's where it seems to be. In the face of all of this, why is the proposition that, things unfold as they must unfold, confounding? Why is the proposition of "control" not the confounding proposition since it runs counter to, everything?

If a man boasts himself after waxing rich, and says "Look what I've done by my hand, because I am the one that controls my unfolding" I would have to ask, how did you control the time in which you were born? Your parents? Your station in life? The culture into which you were born? Your opportunities? How did you control your unfolding? How did you control your intellect which allowed you to excel in intellectual pursuits? Why do those without intellect choose to have intellect? In all of your unfolding, what did you control? It seems to me as if the brush in Michaelangelo's hand were to shout "Behold the things I have done! I have created such art!" and I'm asking the brush, "How so?"

It seems to me, this idea of 'control' nothing more than an illusion which serves as the foundation of both pride and shame. It's like a rose well-tended and planted in rich ground claiming, blossoming fully and claiming "I have succeeded by my own control" versus the untended rose in hard ground, faltering in growth and meager in blossom saying "I have failed by my own control". I can only ask, "How so?"

 

The fact that you can ask that question at all is your answer. Self-awareness. A bird, as far as we know, doesn’t question its migratory impulses. It doesn’t ponder the necessity or weight of its actions. It simply reacts based off of centuries of conditioned instinct. The human mind, as far as we know, is uniquely capable of grasping its own existence, motivations, and impermanence. We’re capable of questioning ourselves, comprehending our self-imposed mental/emotional limitations and growing beyond them. That much is NOT out of our control. We’re also products of historical conditioning, yes, but we possess the potential to transcend - to be more than just the sum of our parts.

What I find confounding about your perspective is that you claim to champion logic but what you’re espousing is entirely antithetical to it. Logic can’t exist without reasoned and rational thought - critical analysis and the capacity to put aside your ego and view a situation divorced from the natural state of personal involvement. That requires control over your perceptions and mental faculties. Something that simply wouldn’t be possible if ‘control’ was an illusion.

What happens to your person can be outside your control. The conditions of your environment can be outside your control. That infinite expanse of limitless possibilities that exists between the ears on your head though, that belongs to YOU. That’s yours and no one else’s. You make the rules there whether you know if our not. Not everyone is equally provided the opportunity to fully realize that though and that’s the true tragedy.

 

Yeah but how does self-awareness support "free control"? It's not enough to just make statements, there has to be some kind of support. At this point, it looks like we're in agreement that predetermination is a factual part of things (e.g. flowers are subject predetermined unfolding, I assume anything not 'self-aware' is likewise subject to predetermined unfolding). So we know that predetermined unfolding is a "fact"; now you're proposing there is something else called "free control unfolding" so isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that concept actually exists in terms of the unfolding of something? On the face of it, it seems an impossible demonstration, so why would I accept a 'truth' that can never be demonstrated, and runs contrary to, everything I'm seeing around me? The problem is compounded by the fact that, I'm not sure what you mean by 'self-aware' and how you determine birds aren't 'self-aware'.

Then on top of that, there's factual counter-evidence of your proposition in the fact that people lament not being able to "freely control" their own selves, they cannot stop doing things they don't want to do and conversly, cannot do the things they want to do. Predetermined unfolding is however a fact of the state of myriad unfoldings around us, and easily explains the lamentations of people unable to "freely control" their actions. "Free control" on the other hand, is there even the ability to actually demonstrate it exists? And how does it explain the counter-evidence?

I'm not actually saying 'control' is an illusion, something or someone is certainly 'controlling' the unfolding and directing it according to some purpose. I'm saying that the unfolding is not in the control of the parts, but of, a higher power (whether you may call that higher power "God" or "the laws of nature" or "the Logos", whatever term you wish - but I would as an aside propose a clearly conscious director since everything that is, appears to be a construct of consciousness, and that consciousness must in turn be in the most fundamental set, a single consciousness, from which and within which all expressions and functions are given form and direction).

So the fact that I can perform operations, means nothing in the face of whether or not I am the director of my unfolding, or performance of operations. I can write a program that can perform functional operations and it doesn't mean the program is in control of its own operations. When you say I use logic, my question is, how did this happen? Did I freely control my ability to think? I have known many people who simply could not do math and I have never seen a person "freely control" their ability to do math. When I was a kid I was constantly reading encyclopedias but, why? Why was my brother playing sports while I was reading books? It wasn't a "freely controlled" choice, it was my nature.

No I have to conclude this whole "free control" concept is as artificial, unnecessary and illogical as, a spacetime construct that is not construct of consciousness. It's as unfalsifiable as [censored due to controversial nature]. At one point I believed it was "real" but the idea just doesn't hold up under evaluation. I'll gladly hear anything, but have yet to hear any substantial argument that supports the belief. Oh but it's really refreshing to have a conversation such as this and I thank you for that.