'Freedom of spontaneity': not subject to 'outside forces'.
'Freedom of indifference'. The real McCoy, but much derided by philosophers. If I will/desire your freedom I am rational--I know what I want--but I'm not determined, coerced, by what I know. So it it can between me and you. So it is between God and me. And so it should be between me and God.
Stan, as always, thought-provoking and deeply insightful reflections.
A few questions were generated and a few thoughts. On what evidence do you conclude that "will presupposes consciousness"? Can there be "will" without "consciousness"? What is the evidence for a "universal consciousness"? Are you suggesting a consciousness that floats around the universe and is present in all things from dark matter to asteroids to moons to rocks to rivers to worms to trees to humans?
Can desire really be infinite when it exists in finite creatures such as humans? Surely there are desires we will never have because of a lack of knowledge. A rat will never desire to solve math equations because it is not part of its cognitive ability and surely there are problems humans cannot desire because they are not part of our cognitive tools, yes?
And can we safely say (the obvious) that people make choices within the sets of choices available to them? It seems plausible to suggest that freedom is always a conditioned freedom and it is conditioned by multiple interacting factors, for example, factors that include the ways in which our biology interconnects with when we live in history and where and in what kind of society we exist.
In a room filled with undergrads if we ask: how many awoke this morning saying "I will carry out brain surgery this morning;" or "I will repair jet engines this morning;" or "I will play concert violin tonight with the Philly orchestra;" or "I will play quarterback for the Philly Eagles in the Fall;" The answer is, of course ,"zero." Yet, we know that there are people who did wake up and say "yes" to the questions. So, we know that it is biologically possible for some humans to do all of these things. If the question was asked in the year 1100 nobody on the planet would have any idea about any of these questions. Even though it was biologically possible to carry out all of those tasks (for some people) it was not historically or socially possible - and that too might say something about desire, yes?
Thanks Stan for always writing informative reflections!
I'm a simple guy. Consciousness has been a bone to be chewed by for more erudite folk than me--and no, I have no evidence for my assertion that spirit precedes matter or my sense that everything down to the last quark has some measure of awareness that participates in a single and all-encompassing essence, precisely because it is extra-evidential or whatever one might want to call it (platonic?). It exists, however, as how we are aware of it prior to any supposition about its origin and apart from the kinds of philosophical distinctions that are used to grapple with its mysterious character. Axiom--consciousness exists. <- simple guy stuff. Will, the same, but here I'm just saying that absent intent, will seems pretty meaningless, and absent consciousness I'm not seeing intent.
The infinity of desire is figurative as opposed to literal--potential not actual. As long as the finite human is alive and sentient, there can always be one more thing he or she doesn't have and wants. This is the freedom-trap. Donald Trump is a great example--a man with incredible power over others, who remains an abject slave to his own disorder desires. For sure, we can't desire what we don't know or imagine, which is why the ad industry exists to manufacture new desires for shit we didn't know we wanted before to maintain the rate of profit. As you say, we live and and desire and intend within the available conditions . . . but not in a perfectly determinate way.
THANK YOU Stan for the thoughtful "simple guy stuff" reply. I wish there were more "simple guys" out there! The world would be a much better place! in peace and solidarity, doug
<< If God is omnipotent and omniscient, can any of us as God’s creatures truly exercise “free will”? How can we be judged by God if we have no “free will”? >>
Herein lies the issue. This is a construct of "god." That's just about all we get in any form of common conversation and most writing. The most important word is "if" and then we would need to define the O words. Then we need to figure out where god is, as in that locus of attention and awareness. These are tired discussions that seem designed by church authorities to remind everyone who is in charge. Not god, them.
Speaking of free will and desire (together):
"Ro-o-o-o-ll another one
Just like the other one.
You've been holdin' on to it
and I sure would like a hit.
Don't Bogart that joint, my friend,
pass it over to me.
Don't Bogart that joint, my friend,
pass it over to me."
You got me goin' Brother -
"I been warped by the rain
Driven by the snow
I'm drunk and dirty, don't you know
And I'm still... willin'
....
Well, I've been kicked by the wind
Robbed by the sleet
Had my head stoved in
But I'm still on my feet
And I'm still... willin'"
- Lowell George
'Freedom of spontaneity': not subject to 'outside forces'.
'Freedom of indifference'. The real McCoy, but much derided by philosophers. If I will/desire your freedom I am rational--I know what I want--but I'm not determined, coerced, by what I know. So it it can between me and you. So it is between God and me. And so it should be between me and God.
So help me.
Stan, as always, thought-provoking and deeply insightful reflections.
A few questions were generated and a few thoughts. On what evidence do you conclude that "will presupposes consciousness"? Can there be "will" without "consciousness"? What is the evidence for a "universal consciousness"? Are you suggesting a consciousness that floats around the universe and is present in all things from dark matter to asteroids to moons to rocks to rivers to worms to trees to humans?
Can desire really be infinite when it exists in finite creatures such as humans? Surely there are desires we will never have because of a lack of knowledge. A rat will never desire to solve math equations because it is not part of its cognitive ability and surely there are problems humans cannot desire because they are not part of our cognitive tools, yes?
And can we safely say (the obvious) that people make choices within the sets of choices available to them? It seems plausible to suggest that freedom is always a conditioned freedom and it is conditioned by multiple interacting factors, for example, factors that include the ways in which our biology interconnects with when we live in history and where and in what kind of society we exist.
In a room filled with undergrads if we ask: how many awoke this morning saying "I will carry out brain surgery this morning;" or "I will repair jet engines this morning;" or "I will play concert violin tonight with the Philly orchestra;" or "I will play quarterback for the Philly Eagles in the Fall;" The answer is, of course ,"zero." Yet, we know that there are people who did wake up and say "yes" to the questions. So, we know that it is biologically possible for some humans to do all of these things. If the question was asked in the year 1100 nobody on the planet would have any idea about any of these questions. Even though it was biologically possible to carry out all of those tasks (for some people) it was not historically or socially possible - and that too might say something about desire, yes?
Thanks Stan for always writing informative reflections!
I'm a simple guy. Consciousness has been a bone to be chewed by for more erudite folk than me--and no, I have no evidence for my assertion that spirit precedes matter or my sense that everything down to the last quark has some measure of awareness that participates in a single and all-encompassing essence, precisely because it is extra-evidential or whatever one might want to call it (platonic?). It exists, however, as how we are aware of it prior to any supposition about its origin and apart from the kinds of philosophical distinctions that are used to grapple with its mysterious character. Axiom--consciousness exists. <- simple guy stuff. Will, the same, but here I'm just saying that absent intent, will seems pretty meaningless, and absent consciousness I'm not seeing intent.
The infinity of desire is figurative as opposed to literal--potential not actual. As long as the finite human is alive and sentient, there can always be one more thing he or she doesn't have and wants. This is the freedom-trap. Donald Trump is a great example--a man with incredible power over others, who remains an abject slave to his own disorder desires. For sure, we can't desire what we don't know or imagine, which is why the ad industry exists to manufacture new desires for shit we didn't know we wanted before to maintain the rate of profit. As you say, we live and and desire and intend within the available conditions . . . but not in a perfectly determinate way.
Thank you for engaging so. Really
Peace.
THANK YOU Stan for the thoughtful "simple guy stuff" reply. I wish there were more "simple guys" out there! The world would be a much better place! in peace and solidarity, doug
HI Stan.
<< If God is omnipotent and omniscient, can any of us as God’s creatures truly exercise “free will”? How can we be judged by God if we have no “free will”? >>
Herein lies the issue. This is a construct of "god." That's just about all we get in any form of common conversation and most writing. The most important word is "if" and then we would need to define the O words. Then we need to figure out where god is, as in that locus of attention and awareness. These are tired discussions that seem designed by church authorities to remind everyone who is in charge. Not god, them.
"The power of decision is your one remaining freedom as a prisoner of this world."
— A Course in Miracles.