Free Will vs. True Will

[Ritual_Kiss]

I expect that for many people here, this is probably an old and stale topic. However, for me this is a new consideration. I've always been one to favor the belief in destiny and fate as an element of reality, it has never previously occurred to me that there is no such thing as free will. I hear Atheists talk about how under the Christian cosmology, free will is a contradiction for many reasons. I initially agreed. However, I'm one who recognizes True Will. I identify well with the idea that everyone has a true path, that when followed allows for a natural harmony. One has the ability to make choices that either unite or divide one from their natural path. Given the option between balance and imbalance is free will a theoretical impossibility? Is this an unsolvable paradox?

[deviadah]

How about this; if your free will is to live according to what is your true will then problem solved... right?
:eek:

[m1thr0s]

I personally think that the whole discussion of will, true will, free will et al has been beaten to death so many times as to render it a nearly useless dialog at all...

and yet...there seems no getting past it...

it is true that the xian notion of free will is gibberish...it is rooted in nothing so it can only amount to nothing. it is generalized to the point of complete absurdity.

one of the things I am constantly hammering on is the *principle of context* because nearly anything that we try to discuss in *absolute terms* defeats itself in practical application.

we only really know *true will* relative to specific contexts. If we are confronted with a certain choice, say, to take the job that pays better or the job that offers more personal growth, we have some basis for gauging *true will*...we are still *guessing*, in a sense, but our guesswork at least stands some chance of being right, relative (again) to our own needs and natures.

true will (or free will) from a tantric perspective is conditional on the notion of true self. If there is no such thing as a true self, there can be no such thing as true will, ipso facto...whether there is or is not any such thing as *true self* has never been resolved universally that I know of...it is still a belief at the end of the day...one we can act upon and one we can find a good many parallels to in daily life, but still not something we can be absolutely certain of on a universal scale.

what is life without a little mystery?

m1thr0s

[Ritual_Kiss]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply m1thr0s, and you make an excellent point. Your right. There must be a specific context. There's no way of knowing the absolute in any case. Still, I couldn't help but bring it up. It's an interesting subject.

"How about this; if your free will is to live according to what is your true will then problem solved... right?"

Um. Splunge?

[m1thr0s]

It is an interesting subject indeed and one worth looking at from all conceivable angles I think...

so if I say the subject has been beaten to death, I don't mean to criticize you for bringing it up...it's one of those things that has to be looked at as many times as it takes to get clear...

m1thr0s

[fr.novumorganum]

Glad to see this thread....

One of the things that has always bothered me about simplistic or reductionist determinisms is the absence of two key terms, both of which I believe are implied in 'context': holisim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism) and the dialectic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Dialectical_biology)

I never understood why an understanding of the various drives and instincts of humanity was used as evidence of the lack of free will. After all, one can choose to live against one's best interests (false consciousness) or drives (repression), (I have to note this important post) (http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showpost.php?p=27512&postcount=13)

Much like the tectractys raise the tree to a higher unity, I believe true will is a higher unity of the free will/determinism duality.

[m1thr0s]

I am not as familiar with these kinds of arguments fr. novum but they strike me as shallow and even two-dimensional. I think that every time I have attempted to understand deterministic philosophy on almost any level at all, something much more relevant came up that took me away from it...ren & stimpy reruns, teapot whistling, cat needed to be petted...important stuff like that...lol

m1thr0s

707

[Ritual_Kiss]

It is an interesting subject indeed and one worth looking at from all conceivable angles I think...

so if I say the subject has been beaten to death, I don't mean to criticize you for bringing it up...it's one of those things that has to be looked at as many times as it takes to get clear...

m1thr0s

I'm not in the least offended or feel critisized, m1thr0s. I have a bad habit of questioning abstract concepts to the point of being thrown off my stride. I forget about context, and most importantly, sometimes I forget to just do, and figure it out qlong the way. However, I think it's useful to have discussions like this. They are a great way to learn.

I'm glad fr. brought up holism and dialectics for two reasons. I didn't previously know these words, and the second, because I'm particularly fond of them both. I agree that they cannot give absolute answers, but they do sometimes give me a new angle from which to work. Sometimes a good heavy discussion will throw at me something I never thought of.

[fr.novumorganum]

watch ren and stimpy tripping. yesh indeedie.

[m1thr0s]

I think that a lot of times I have no idea what people think they are alluding to when they allude to free will or freedom of choice. If by these terms we mean to suggest something that is not bound by the laws of cause & effect, then I think we are talking gibberish. But in most cases it seems to be more of a blanket denial against anything transcendent in the human psyche (or soul) itself. To my way of thinking this is just petty whining...it's just a morbid complaint masquerading as a formal philosophical position yet it hasn't really got a logical leg to stand on. People break rank every godamm day and do the unexpected and rise above their *stations* or whatever we want to call it. They assume the mantle of something higher and thus become something greater than they were. While nature & nurture always play a huge role in things, they do not account very well for the *exceptions* and these exceptions are the hallmark of our species so it seems rather pathetic to me to make some big production over the status quo.

People probably don't have any such thing as *free will*...until they assert it...and that changes everything.

m1thr0s

[Ritual_Kiss]

"But in most cases it seems to be more of a blanket denial against anything transcendent in the human psyche (or soul) itself."

Thant's not what I was getting at.

[m1thr0s]

no...I didn't think it was Ritual_Kiss...I was referring to most "deterministic" arguments I have attempted to wade through in the past...

although there is probably some merits to it someplace...

m1thr0s

[Ritual_Kiss]

Ok, I see. You mean when people say "We really have no control over anything, so why try?" Sort of as a fatalist argument.

[m1thr0s]

yeah...that sort of thing...like we're all a bunch of automatons anyway so why bother aspiring to anything higher...

but I admit to being a little weak on this whole line of thinking in general...it just seems so damn boring to me personally...it's really hard to delve into things that just feel so fundamentally stupid...

still...technically an intellectual laziness I suppose...one should know one's enemies, even if they are basically dolts.

m1thr0s

[Talkingfox]

People probably don't have any such thing as *free will*...until they assert it...and that changes everything.

m1thr0s

hear hear.

[Dragon]

I don't have a lot to add to the eulogy of this particular horse other then this.

In my life, I have not operated within a philosophy of free will; so much as the will to be free.

Simply, to understand and access in this existance that aspect of my nature that is Limitless, Boundless Light.

With which in essence, non may argue - especially myself.

~D~

[m1thr0s]

I can definitely relate to that Dragon...it seems there is no end to this whole preoccupation with the dividing of farts as they say... always it seems to be the case that conventional philosophy is downright obsessive about creating complex schisms over fundamentally nonsensical (or just plain *non*) issues...

Some of this may be justified as a kind of hand-me-down process that has enjoyed the historical leverage of forging a logical separation between *church and state* for instance...in other words, these kinds of catch-22 scenarios have had their uses in the past and these are not entirely trivial taken in that sort of context...

But how many of *us* are actually concerned with any of that? If we haven't moved on from that shit by now, we're seriously sleeping on the job here...

whether will is free or not free is really just such a non-issue...who actually gives a shit when the whole point is really much more tactical in nature...it is more important to plug it in and exploit its capabilities to the max, simply because it is something we have...a tool that we have at our disposals. Whether we originated it or inherited it or it is only on loan to us are all issues we can actually better afford not to quibble over while the ball itself is still in play!

m1thr0s

[Ritual_Kiss]

"In my life, I have not operated within a philosophy of free will; so much as the will to be free."

Extremely well said, Dragon.