I don't think this is true...
Interpretation entails discrimination, that is good, this is bad, that is pleasant, this is painful, this is acceptable that is not accpetable, etc...
So it is not so much a matter of being continuously deleriously happy so that when (for example) a car runs over our foot we will wet ourseves from laughter and joy. That would just be stupid. At the same time it is also not a matter of continuously whining and complaining about the pain and suffering of it all. That would also be stupid.
"This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person."
The discerning person, learned,
doesn't sense a (mental) feeling of pleasure or pain:
This is the difference in skillfulness
between the sage & the person run-of-the-mill.
For a learned person
who has fathomed the Dhamma,
clearly seeing this world & the next,
desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
& rejection are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore.
for the full teaching.
...why would our discriminating minds operate based on karma predipositions
What do you propose discrimination is based on if not previous mental and physical experiences and actions? For example: I point a gun at you, you feel fear. If you did not know what a gun is, if you did not know what a gun does, if you had not seen the effects of a gun, if you had never used a gun, etc... why would you be scared of a gun? You probably wouldn't. You may react to the emotional state of the person holding the gun (their fear, or the fact that they are threatening you) but you would have no discriminating awareness of the gun and what it entails. This discriminating awareness is based on karmic predispositions.
Our mind's can function however we want them to and theres no requirement of a discriminating perspective.
Really? So how do you explain habit then? How do you explain (for example) that one person has a capacity for art/music while another has a capacity for sport? If what you are saying is the case then how do you explain the presence of cruelty and nastiness?
Of course it is true that there is no requirement for a discriminative perspective, but it exists. Of course it is true that we can train our minds to function the way that we wish, but the majority of us do not. So what is the basis for this fact? I believe that it is due to discrimination/interpretation based on ignorance and habit based on past experience. That is what leads to our interpretation of reality and the way that we act/react to what we think that we perceive.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... bl015.html
The root-cause of rebirth and suffering is avijja [ignorance/delusion] conjoined with and reacting upon tanha [cravinf/thirst/desire]. These two causes form a vicious circle; on the one hand, concepts, the result of ignorance, and on the other hand, desire arising from concepts. The world of phenomena has no meaning beyond the meaning given to it by our own interpretation.
When that interpretation is conditioned by avijja, we are subject to the state known as vipallasa, or hallucination. Sañña-vipallasa, hallucination of perception; citta-vipallasa, hallucination of consciousness, and ditthi-vipallasa, hallucination of views, cause us to regard that which is impermanent (anicca) as permanent, that which is painful (dukkha) as a source of pleasure, and that which is unreal (anatta), or literally without any self existence, as being a real, self-existing entity. Consequently, we place a false interpretation on all the sensory experiences we gain through the six channels of cognition, that is, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, sense of touch and mind cakkhu, sota, ghana, jivha, kaya and mano (ayatana). Physics, by showing that the realm of phenomena we know through these channels of cognition does not really correspond to the physical world known to science, has confirmed this Buddhist truth. We are deluded by our own senses. Pursuing what we imagine to be desirable, an object of pleasure, we are in reality only following a shadow, trying to grasp a mirage. It is anicca, dukkha, anatta — impermanent, associated with suffering, an insubstantial. Being so, it can only be the cause of impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality, since like begets like; and we ourselves, who chase the illusion, are also impermanent, subject to suffering and without any persistent ego-principle. It is a case of a shadow pursuing a shadow.
So in response to your opening question:
xtracorrupt wrote:We do not need to believe restriction is necessary, why do we identify things with restrictive qualities?
I belive that it is not a matter of need, it is just a matter of habit based on countless lifetimes of previous actions and experience.