Free-Will

Yes....the issue is Know Thyself.
Most have over-estimated their self - some going as far as identifying it as part of a supreme being: humility as a sacrifice to hyper-arrogance.
They constantly act intentionally, only most of their own intentions are not known to them - they occur subconsciously, and are experienced after-the-fact as if another agency were involved; most living in a perpetual state of denial.
They must preserve their innocence, because they fear that they may not be worthy of eternal life based on their Abrahamic delusions.

They also know, under Abrahamic indoctrination, that if their motives were exposed publicly, then they too would be exposed as...hypocrites, charlatans, evil, going to hell, etc. Their motives are shamed into hiding, by their professed Ethics. This forces and suppresses their inner-self, sublimating it. This then appears to the Christian, as an example, as dæmonic or angelic, spirits "speaking" to them. The Self is shamed into submission. Its own Ethos works against it. It's very sophisticated.

I imagine this system's authors knew very well what they were doing, and wanted to do, when it came to 'molding' the average plebian.

Furthermore, it's a cognitive dissonance, Schizophrenia.

The internal contradiction forces a split-personality, an "outer self" Pretense versus "inner self" Soul. This allows the local preacher / pastor /priest to aim his rhetoric and condemnation at "the soul" as a code word for the underlying guilt and shame the masses have. The (public) Self is forced into hiding.

Yes..."soul" is the synthesis of mind/body, so they only recognize as 'self' what the lucid mind perceives, and deny the body as a source of 'evil' - what contradicts their noble, good, intentions.
The soul has to be preserved as a mystifying, divine agency - pure and pristine - always acting for the good of man and the individual.
So, god's will becomes simplified to will, implying an external, or universal agency, within which the individual is but a part.
The singular divine will manifesting the multiplicities of individuals expressing it.

This is why they deny individual free-will.

Cause/Effect is just another way of saying interactive....divided temporally.
Cause = past; Effect = future - present being the dynamic transition phase where will is applicable.

A stone is a strong unity, even if ephemeral, determined by harmony - or the participating energy patterns being in an ephemeral state of stability because the energy patterns - their rhythms, sequences, rates etc. - are more aligned - making the attractive force, between them, more powerful than the repulsive force - or there is less friction between them, relative to energies not participating in their unity.
For such a unity to break apart, a force more powerful than the attractive force between them has to interact with it, multiplying the repulsive force to the point where it usurps the attractive force - or a disharmonious pattern has to be introduced into the ephemeral unity to destabilize it.
Even calling it a unity is confusing since it is in the observer's mind that a stone is differentiated from a pile of stones, or a drop of water is distinguished from a lake.

The key here is intentionality - will.
Lifeless unities have no will - no matter what Schopenhauer and Nietzschean imply, rejecting the ambiguity of Kant's thing-in-itself, making existence more intimate.
Their starting point is the living organism - themselves - where will defined properly, refers to a control and focus of a unities aggregate energies - in this case self-sustaining - to whatever degree it can gain control over tis own energies - interactive patterns.
Schopenhauer goes out of his way to explain that he is not implying that lifeless mater has a will, but uses the term instead of force, or my own choice 'energy'.
Yet, by choosing this term it allows desperate degenerates to assume that the universe is governed by intent - Schopenhauer himself, having no knowledge of natural selection, implies that the universe intends life - that life is inevitable in this cosmic arrangement governed by , what we call, natural laws.
In my view natural laws are human perceptions of patterns underlying patterns we perceive as matter/energy - excluding non-patterned (chaotic, random) energy interactions that can never abide by any law - manmade or divine - without contradicting themselves.
So, man, and all life, live in a world of order because order is all they can ever perceive - these man studies and discovers to be guided by an underlying pattern, they describe as a law.
Similar to how man studies animal behaviour and establishes behavioural, psychological rules; or moral rules he then writes down as moral systems; amending them with his own ethical rules, governed by an objective, i.e., intent.
Behavioural rules - moral behaviour - is governed by life's primary motive: survival; reproduction being a form of survival.
Man may choose to place another objective above survival, once self-consciousness develops, e.g., dignity being one; or due to projected identification man may choose the survival of the group, over its own, or of an abstract ideal.....such as in the case of nihilism, where the idea/ideal usurps all biological, tangible, experienced forms of identity.    
Schopenhauer's "groundless will" is my "energy", eliminating the unnecessary implications of the term 'will', which may make the concept more relatable, but inserts into it a component that may be used by desperate degenerates to justify their superstitions.
The multiplicity of matter/energy - order - does not require an intent.
The only unities that have intent - and this differentiates and distinguishes them - are living unities, i.e.,organisms; will only applies to them, as movement with motive.
All else simply follows the fluctuating paths-of-least-resistance - their aggregate power determining what is more and what less resistant.
A stone rolls down a hill not directed by a will but following a path-of-least-resistance, on a rotating planet that overrides all repulsion forces with its gravity - attractive force.
The force can become so great that at its center the patterns break apart and change, becoming more uniform - melting and merging. Patterns are altered by interactivity - temporal attrition.
Such uniformity can create an excess of attractive force, overriding lesser repulsive forces.
A powerful pattern forcing a lesser pattern to harmonize.
Power can be explosive or a product of consistency - temporal. A more consistent pattern can wear down a les consistent pattern.
Attraction/Repulsion indicating degree of harmony/disharmony.

How life evolved is still unknown.
Iteration is a part of it.
An ephemeral stable unity - similar to a stone - must have developed a process or appropriating energies being lost due to temporal attrition by attracting patterns that participated in its unity - this was the beginning of self-preservation.
It is easier to explain this by evoking some mysterious incomprehensible will - just as it was easier for primitive man to explain the sun by evoking some ancestral dead spirit.
Man admires those that can fabricate a concise, rational, whole - just as men admire artists that can represents experienced existence via a medium, like sound, stone, colour etc.
Life is attracted to roder - it finds patterns beautiful; their consistent, repeating, predictability is for life comforting; symmetry and proportionality sexually attractive to an organism that must reproduce to deal with mortality.  
But we must resist such easy explanations, or circular reasoning, such as will wills willing, to manufacture a complete final answer that satisfies us psychologically because it reduces uncertainty.
This is the basis of Alexandrianism - the pleasing idea that all is knowable, because all is ordered....in effect all is god. An easy and comforting solution.
At some point this iteration process developed the ability to break down appropriated energies to their basic components, assimilating energies similar to itself and rejecting the rest - digestion.
Those that survived were those that developed this ability - the rest perished (natural selection).
From this digestive process the storage of memories follows, as an evolution towards perceptions guiding a unity's movements towards objectives - movement became motive. Memories being digested perceptions.

We always begin from what is perceived...not what may be underlying what is perceived.
Starting from the position of what is underlying what is perceived opens the door to all kinds of creative absurdities, judged only on the merit of offering us certainty, or a final solution....which can then become an emotional standard of what offers us comfort, or flatters us, or makes us feel special, and safe and loved.
So, starting with 'will' leads to the option of starting with 'love' or 'words'....need/desire overwhelming reasoning to manufacture a possible, even if improbable, explanation for everything.

____________
Finally, we may discover, to our surprise, that the solution is found not in order but in chaos....
How did such complex processes develop without a guiding plan?
Randomness introduces an answer.
Chaos may be a determining factor of how order develops - chaos exists, and so it is interactive - energies with no consistent, repeating, predictable, pattern.
Such chaotic energies interacting, on a quantum level, with patterned energies may be the key.
Since energies lacking a pattern can never harmonize, and establish unites that can be perceived, they must remain on a imperceptible level, et still becoming noticeable through perceptible order.
Chaos is also an explanation of how universes continue, by imploding and then exploding into what we experience as existence.
Multiverses as a continuum - cycles; most of which never develop life, nor the patterns we call Natural Laws, making matter/energy probable.

The problem is the Intermediary.

The man who observes / experiences / records these patterns and phenomenon in Nature—returns to Civilization, where most of the public have not / cannot / will never observe nor experience the same phenomena.  Most of the public, being simple, can't understand what is being said anyway.  Thus the majority, stunned, unable to understand nor appreciate, perceive the Intermediary not as a representative of Nature, but of God and the Polity.  He is Priestly.  He must convince the Priests first and foremost before they can believe him...before they are allowed to believe him.

Only the Priestly class can 'say' what is in Nature, as permissible by God.

This is what the Prole knows of nature, the universe, existence, life, what he is allowed to.

This is what the Prole calls his "(Pre) Determined" beliefs.

It is the product of Urbanization, where millions and millions of humans are condensed into city-states, larger and more condensed in size. Since they are divorced from Nature, thoroughly entombed by Artifice, they can only interact and choose to trust, different interpretations by their priestly class. This is why the Prole believes Philosophy is a matter of Quotation and Recitation of former Philosophers. They cannot see beyond the Priest(ly). Knowledge is a matter of Authority, represented by institutional and political powers.

It is never a matter of the Prole's "own free-will". It's not even implied, and this is the most dangerous and inciting insight, into the psychology of the common man.

Mankind is not even clever enough to imply his/her own freedom.

Natural Laws have now replaced Mosaic Commandments, to preserve belief in an absolute - whether you name it god, or order, or whole, or one, or universe, or will, or love, or Deus, or nature, or anything really - and an absolute positive, always implies an absolute negative, so the good vs. evil dialectic - dynamic- is also preserved.
If absolute order is found to be lacking, then absolute chaos will do.

Both inhibit choice - the expression of free-will.
Mosaic Law by imposing rules, to restrict choices; Natural Laws by, somehow, determining choices.
One has to wonder why choice even evolved, or why Mosaic Law was even necessary, or how it was possible if there is no god.
Why are civil laws even necessary to preserve societies?
If choices are determined by natural laws, why do we need policing?
Why the pretence? Isn't it all as inevitable as 'what goes up must come down'? Does this rule require policing to not be broken?

The confusion arises when we intentionally, or not, refuse to correctly define words.
Again.....'correctly defined' does not mean arbitrarily, or 'by force or trickery,' but by using words to connect the idea with the action; the noumenon with a phenomenon.
Both 'free' and 'will' can be connected to perceptible, verifiable, acts - free being a qualifier of will.
Neither term refers to an absolute state.

Haven't we gone ove this?
Yeah...thick, needy, desperate degenerate skulls.
Those that did the same to concepts like 'god,' 'love,' 'value,' 'race,' sex/gender,' 'masculine/feminine,' will not stop until all words are rendered meaningless - are negated - are defined out of existence., are abstracted to the point where they only exist as ideas in minds, and nowhere other than there.

The problem is that need/desire cannot be reasoned with.
When a psychology has found its salvation method it will not be convinced by reasoning to abandon it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Clown World Today (@cwt_news) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Causality refers to interactivity.
Part of interactivity is reactivity.
An organism confronted with - affected by - interactivity reacts - in this reaction it has a choice how to react, and to what degree.
The "An action triggers an equal and opposite reaction" applies to lifeless mater that has no choice.
Life can choose how and to what degree and in what direction it will react.

I think reducing free will or choice, or whatever it is being defined as, down to the effect of rng at the micro level is not achieving much.

If a choice on the macro level is 'free' because of quantum level micro-events what really has that to do with you? When the actual randomness occurs at a lower level than neuron activity. It could be a butterfly effect but doesn't this make the butterfly the brains of the storm? Are quantum-level random events making your choices for you?
Isn't this just the determinism of inconsistency rather than consistency?
If an event is an 'effect' either way... If we're saying that reality is a continuous process in a state of constant change and that phenomena are not appearing out of nothingness constantly to magically intervene upon this stream of causality.... then even beyond the levels of random/ordered there is a present that is an ongoing manifestation of a past, regardless of whether that past is random or ordered.

My point here was always to try to unite the present with the past, at least in the context of the idea. The present is a becoming: the movement of events towards a future, never complete, always fluctuating. Not a 'being' because that is static - a movement. And not possible without past, which defines and allows the becoming in the first place, otherwise ex nihilo.
Reality is interactivity, it constantly changes, the past is seen like an infinite series of snapshots of earlier states of this fluctuation, regressing infinitely. So we can look at memories of these snapshots and observe that a previous form of all this interactivity eventuated a later form, and so on infinitely into the future. If not, then ex nihilo.
And so, present is dependent upon past. Present is a manifestation of past. Any order, any pattern, any phenomenon, any consciousness, any choice derives itself entirely from past - it is an ongoing manifestation of that past, that never ending, never complete, becoming always moving into the future.

The best direction to go in is probably to think about how exactly the past and the present are differentiated, or if they are.
If the past and present are differentiated then as time progresses what once was present becomes past; just an expired snapshot, an old shape, that the present took. If the present does not appear from nothing then the past could be viewed as previous manifestations of that flux, the entire series of which is necessary for the current instant to exist.

But: if it is viewed as a 'series' like this then every moment is something distinct, a distinct universe, a distinct reality which presumably gets destroyed/supplanted by a new one all the time, like a slideshow. Like, for example, a distinct identity makes a particular choice in a particular instant. This identity would then immediately cease to exist to be supplanted by a new one, and so on.

Instead - a continuous process. The present is constantly changing. Memories of past forms of that process of change survive and can be accessed but the shape of reality to which they refer is no longer available - because reality is constantly changing.
Ongoing, continuous, process, flowing, flux. Fire, even. A becoming, not a series of static incrementally different snapshots of reality, and thus a continuum. Not an imposition of past snapshots on the present snapshot, just the ongoing manifestation of an eternal process. The past that defines the choice, makes it possible, gives it context and meaning: that's you. The act of choice, the active Will that imposes itself upon the rest of reality: that's you. The outcome of the choice: that's you, or will be you, in the future.

Determinism versus Free Will is I think a badly formulated dichotomy. It presupposes that consciousness/will is either imposed by past or completely independent of past and so 'choice' is either an imposition on a passive observer or a totally arbitrary event that occurs spontaneously out of nothing. 0/1. Consciousness becomes either a powerless victim of the world or a god without any sort of constraint.

I suppose my position is more some kind of compatibilism where I identify the will with the past that makes it possible, in this way the past is not an other that imposes itself upon me and I am not this disconnected god that can only make arbitrary meaningless 'choices' without any sort of basis or place in causality. 'I' am the past as it moves into the future, my choices are the past as it moves into the future. The past doesn't impose itself upon me nor do I appear out of nothingness every instant in such a way as to be 'free' of it.

I think the entire idea of free will versus determinism is retarded and should be reformulated from scratch.

I agree with all your points, and, furthermore, would add that there should not be any “versus” at all.
Only a hermeneutic valuation, an ongoing interaction with the world, which involves dynamic processes of action and stasis, leading to nothing complete.
No answers or resolutions to anything. Only perennial proactive understanding and interpreting, adapting to change.

The concept of freedom is not confusing, as it merely implies the nature of acting and willing, striving towards objectivity and being conscious of it. Its only confusing to all these modern and postmodern nihilistic truth deconstructionists, who are imprisoned within ideological and linguistic cells of their own making no less. Addled minds who cannot free themselves from their own subjectivity and need for absolute certainty, absolute knowledge, which directly implies a fear or retardation of being capable of living their lives with purpose—their Sartrean “existential condition”. They seek absolvement of their anxieties through absolution and need for certainty, or total confusion and obfuscation to protect them.

The way I understand it is simply self-consciousness. The self is the cause. No absolute freedom, only a greater degree of it, compared to that of animals. The involvement of oneself participating and influencing and creating. No particle, no God or ghost. That you are the source of your actions, your consequences, is a simple self-evident truth of consciousness that requires no 1000 page academic peer reviewed research paper, or treatise, or book to prove or qualify it. As self-evident as the heart pumping.

Choices are mostly made on a subconscious level.
Most people associate self - the "I" - with the lucid self - what I call 'ego,' to differentiate it from the greater part of individuality which is unconscious - revealing itself to consciousness after-the-fact.
Cultivation is about making these subconscious choices automatic - requiring no conscious participation.

______________
A butterfly i- in your example of the butterfly effect - is not the brains of a storm, it is the instigator starting a cascading series of effects; your body is not something other than your brain. Your body is your past manifesting as presence.
Mind, or this conscious lucid ego, most people identify with as 'I', is an extension of this self - mind is not other than the body.
Brain is but another organon in an organism.
This is where the confusion and the alienation occur and where nihilism places its linguistic walls - between mind - lucid ego - and the physical, tangible, world and with itself (compartmentalization, schism).
Defensiveness as a coping mechanism.
This is where god is found, and why conscience is or was mistaken for spirits or god speaking to men....like in the Bicameral mind.
This is why these simpletons - recovering Abrahamics - can never exist their defensive linguistics....they fear they may not survive without them.
Reality is hard....few can endure any large part of it.

__________________________
"Free" does not mean uncaused.
Free refers to how one reacts to a cause - it refers to the amount of options a will is aware of and has access to - determined by its power.

Learning proves that choice is not only possible but it is necessary - essential for survival.
If choice were irrelevant then adaptation, learning, would be useless.

Freedom is not independence form causality and what has been determined - freedom simply describer's a will options, determined by its power/strength.
Freedom refers to how a will reacts to effects it did not cause, and to those it did intentionally or unintentionally cause; a willful agency that chooses to be active rather than entirely reactive - distinction between master/slave.
A slave is always reactive; a master may choose to instigate even if there is no objective other than an expression of its power, i.e., its will's freedom. In the latter case the causes may be traced back to an excess of energies.
The only reason free-will is such an issue among the mediocre, is that it is they who desperately seek relief from their slavish reactivity, declaring all to be slaves, like they are; a psychological motive to find relief from the consequences and culpability of past failures - relief from regret. A defensive act attempting to protect the ego from the implications of bad judgements and horrendous choices; usually a failure to identify the source of the error and make corrections (inferior adaptability).
Failure to adapt indicating an inability to find the source of an error to correct; ego finds refuge in the idea that no other choices, other than the ones made, could have been made; the choices having been determined, imply that the ego could not have evaded the negative effects of its own bad choices...because the choices were not its own; it was a victim of a superior force, agency. When Abraham's god is not the superior agency then something else must be found to replace it.

__________________________
What differentiates past from present is dynamism, interactivity, existence.
Past is the present continuously falling out of existence - ceasing to exist.

Past is accessible, through memory - and memories are stored interpretations... never complete and certain, i.e., an approximation.
DNA is a primal form of memory.
Conventional understanding only associates memory with experiences - first or second hand; just as they associate identity with the lucid conscious ego and nothing more.

__________________________
Conventional definitions and understanding of free-will is the problem; just as conventional definitions and understanding of the word 'god' leads to unnecessary paradoxes.
This is part of nihilism.
Defining words/symbols so as to contradict/negate experienced existence, producing paradoxes, or unnecessary confusions; confusions most find pleasing...because they fear the real, the truth, and would rather live in confused ignorance.

__________________________
Just as man's ignorance as to how life evolved on earth does not nullify the truth of life's existence, our ignorance as to how the brain works, and how it evolved, does not nullify its existence...and so our ignorance as to how choice works does not nullify that we have a choice.
Choice is the act....
Free-will is how we try to abstract or negate its implications - such as responsibility; such as regrets.
Free-will is the problem.....nihilists define it out of existence - based on a thousand year attempt to give relief to man, by offering man a pleasant or an unpleasant, but complete, final, answer...
Uncertainty is what makes man anxious.....stressed, worried...insecure.

If we objectively define both terms 'free' and 'will' then the theoretical issue is resolved, even if our anxiety is not.

Will is the continuum of movement with motive - movement with an objective, intentional.
Choice is but an event, a point in space/time that alters the movement of will toward its objective - or alters its objective.
Every choice is lucid....referring to a specific temporal point the mind associates with a shift in its movement/motive, or with a reaffirmation of a previously made choice - perhaps necessitating an adjustment, a course correction.

Free does not mean liberated from causality - from the past.
Free refers to the quantity and quality of options available to the will, reacting to causes it may have participated in determining with its previous choices.
This is how and why learning is possible and necessary.

Otherwise, it would be unnecessary to evolve a big, energy heavy organ, like the brain, to judge and to choose, and to learn, and to adapt/adjust on the fly in real time.
The very idea of natural selection would be debunked....because what is selecting and why if it is all inevitable and already determined, with no participation by the individual organism?
Why would the "illusion" of choice even develop, and why?

__________________________
The subject of free-will - continually defined and understood - is not meant to be resolved.
The whole point it to maintain it as an unresolved issue, remaining open to any subjective conclusion.
A solution would limit subjective options - ironically, limiting options, i.e., the participating wills freedom.
Anything approaching a resolution would decrease subjective options....and this is the objective.
Not a resolution, but to make all concepts subjective.

Notice that some of the morons on ILP, discussing free-will,, use ignorance to undermine.
They offer no superior solutions. All they do is undermine all solutions to keep the issue indefinitely open.
Anything to prevent error...all must remain true if it remains uncertain, unresolved....
If nobody is omniscient, then nobody is wrong.
If nothing is probable, then anything and everything is possible.
So, the discussion will go on indefinitely....next year, the year after....saying the same things, using the same evasive word-games, the same tactics...

Intentionally abstracting concepts - defining them out of existence - makes them open to subjective interpretations.

Man doesn't know how exactly life emerged on earth, so this leaves it open to speculate - all theories feeling secure and equal to any other based no ignorance, uncertainty.
This is the power of nil.

So, cultivating uncertainty by making words referring to concepts obscure, uncertain, is a method of spreading insecurity, equalizing any theory because nobody knows the truth, right?
This si the method the cunt on ILP has adopted - was trained to use by some charlatans in her past.
She's an easy target - low IQ, very needy....desperate to find an absolute final resolution, governed by emotional criteria...
I mean, she states it openly that her motive is to make people come to a compromise.

How has she do this?
By making words vague; detaching them from reality; spreading self-doubt, insecurity...
She offers no definitions, no explanations ....like Kropotkin and others on ILP they go there to piss & shit on everything and everyone, as if this justifies whatever absurdities they need to cope - their ego needs.
By pissing & shitting no all perspectives, their own is, somehow, validated...as if undermining or debunking evolution Theory proves the existence of god as creator.
Their duplicitous - they say they want to know truth, or to share perspectives, but they don't.
The cunt wants to undermine the very possibility of truth - the Krop artists is there to inflate his ego by validating the convictions he's settled upon.
The cunt doesn't begin with what is, but with what could be, or ought to be, using gaps in knowledge/understanding to imply that whatever naïve absurdity she wished were truth is made possible, since nobody knows the absolute truth, in a 'no god world'.
Her abortion and fre-will obsession is a defence against superior/inferior minds - nobody can make an error because all is fated, all is inevitable.....all is determined.
Everything that happens, according to her post-Abrahamic mind, could not have been otherwise.
Nobody can ever make a mistake - except objectivists of course - because nobody has a choice.

I trace this back to Schopenhauer's use of will - he eliminated god from god's will and made will a unconscious replacement of god's consciousness....yet maintained intentionality.
Groundless will - existing outside space time - causality.
So Abraham's one-god, minus the god part. This was adopted by Nietzsche, so that he can then focus on what he was good at: human psychology. I mean, Nietzsche's entire thesis is an analysis of the means of philosophy - the human psyche. He offers us a way to cope for the loss of god - god's death - which he announces, taking it from Schopenhauer's elimination of 'god' from the concept of 'god's will,' as an explanation for life and existence.
Nietzsche offers as replacements for the implications of 'god's death', e.g., 'eternal return' compensating for the loss of 'eternal life after death', so as to break out of Schopenhauer's pessimism.
He, Schopenhauer, dismisses 'force' - my version of energy - in that it is too obscure, like Kant's thing-in-itself, and prefers will because it is more intimate.
The romantic notion that man is the measure of all is implied.
this is an ancient practice.
Man understood the incomprehensible by projecting what he did understand into it - so everything had a spirit, an intent, a consciousness.
This connects to my analysis of empathy and how modern man automatically associates empathy with sympathy/antipathy....primarily sympathy - projection.
All becomes subjective.....man's self-knowledge/understanding becomes a universal truth.
Using Will Schopenhauer explained how life emerged - implying that existence is governed by intent.
The goal is to create a complete theory - because humans need completion.
This is why men need god - the concept complete, offers certainty, finality.
Completion finalizes as will wills willing - circularity. Universal telos....

____________
Denial of free-will is a denial that man can break god's laws, go against god's will, now simply will - will to life, will to power.

It is not the randomness or chaos of nano-physics that ultimately, negatively affects or diminishes human free-will.

Rather it is any example of 'free-will' demonstrated that ennobles Mankind.

The path-of-least-resistance in Morality is for mankind to readily give his Autonomy, his Freedom away, at the first sign of trouble, challenge, doubt, fear, anxiety, any stress will do. Just as the Christian must give himself, his Autonomy to Christ, before it is sold back to him at a lower value. There is never a price low enough that mankind won't pay, to evade his responsibility / autonomy / willpower in Life. Every excuse offers him an Exit to life's suffering, pain, and agony.

This is why the common man is not too far derived from his Animal self. He has no spiritual / moral strength.

He has no Free-Will. And the desperately degenerate ones, parade their slavery around as a mark of Pride.

Chaos, or the unforeseeable, is what necessitates real-time adaptation, explaining judgement and choice as an essential part of survival.
Otherwise, what is implied, is that judgment/choice are a farce, emerging to multiply suffering and a subsequent awareness of helplessness.
The denial of any degree of free-will implies that the human brain evolved not to help the species survive but to help it become aware of its impotence.
Existential mockery.

From Freud to Bernays, and to this day through Bernay's proteges (whomever they maybe), the "American Dream" has captivated and dominated the mass's minds. The vast majority of the public believe they are 'Free' according to these Hollywood produced delusions. This is how the average "Westerner" judges his / her Freedom. Movies are effective, but regular television programming is much more so, because of its amount of consumption and subtle messaging. Once the mental defenses are removed from the average Westerner's perception, then all manners of manipulation can be weaved through Mass Media. Why else have there been so fierce political battles over...Twitter, for example?

Control the Medium, Control the Mind

Those of the Book, know this rule well, and employ it.

Morons reduce it down to a personal issue like:
They refuse to believe they could have chosen to act, or do differently than what they did....
So, after the fact, they insist that they could not have chosen otherwise...
Why?
Because they refuse to accept any degree of responsibility for the consequences - particularly when they are negative.
This is related to Abrahamism and their delusion that they must remain "innocent" to be worthy of eternal life, ro salvation.
And that leads directly to victim psychosis - the eternally innocent must be victims of something or someone else.
They aren't responsible because something or someone else is.

I mean the insinuations of Nietzsche's 'eternal return' confuses their desperately degenerate minds....because it implies teleology and these fuckers claim they don't believe in it.
Isn't "the same" the telos implied in eternal return? Isn't the eternally repeating an end?
Again man's obsession with complete, perfect, wholes, to get rid of uncertainty.

But, morons make such self-contradicting leaps - self-deceit is part of the psychosis.
Some believe they are anti-arche, anti-collectivists, when all they are is anti-admitting they are dependent, or admitting they feel lost and cannot identify with anything, so they proudly declare themselves anarchists and individualists - subjective - leading straight to narcissism.
A few may sense the self-deceit and laugh it away as a universal truth - and they become cynics.

The feeling of not belonging, of being an outsider, is more a by-product of nihilism and Americanism: absent fathers, destroyed families, miscegenation, destroyed traditions, culture-of-no-culture, hedonism, globalism and its open borders open markets...etc.

Being an outsider has a lot to do with intellectual capacity. If you're above the average, or especially far above it, there is less and less you can relate to the average mean. This alone makes you an outsider, outside the norm.

And yet, through the affirmation of free-will - via choice - a man accepts his responsibility, unable to accuse anything or any other before and above himself.
This is the essence of acknowledging one's participation in one's own destiny.
The other is a challenge, a competitor, a resistance to be overcome.
The other is what should be comprehended, not dismissed no matter how insignificant they may be.....because they participate in existence and existence is the free-willed man's object and objective, and every piece - great or small - is part of it.
And so an analysis of one's enemies - those who compete for/against and/or threaten his objectives - must be understood - known - after one understands himself - know thyself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

For the psychotic victims bad and good things happen to them; for the aristocratic noble spirit it is what happens - its power determining how much it participates in its own fate, and so it holds itself accountable for all tis failures as it does for all its successes.

This is how an individual adapt. If it cannot acknowledge its participation, its own errors, then it can never improve; it cannot learn. If it always accuses an other for everything that happens "to it" then it can never find the source of its failures.

For the masses, the vast majority of people and civilizations, Free-Will and Determinism are reflections of Authoritarianism.  The masses are in social hierarchies that never "grow up", never mature beyond a certain point, and thus never rise politically or physically.  Consider that the average man, and woman, are forever children, or teenagers, stunted in growth.  Few will become an "adult", in the sense of individual autonomy and capability to take control over one's own decisions, moral and ethical dilemmas.  Because an adult, becomes a parent, who is then responsible for a child.

A child cannot care for a child; because a child cannot care for itself.  Yet this does not stop this majority trend.  What does the mass then do?  They require an Authority above biological father and mother—this has been the role of the Church for thousands of years.  Priestly authorities represent a pathway to your (Abrahamic) ancestors.  After all, the Church controlled Education, Marriage, and the Graveyards.  The masses could not, and still cannot, give-up this historical link.  They still are not 'free' from it, despite being "Protestant", protest meaning a child's ongoing temper tantrums.  "God is Dead!" declares the children, as they scream and hit and cry in bed, hating their parents who won't let them have ice cream for dinner.

The Western Protestant is pathetic.  He thought himself 'Free' from the Church, yet kept all of its integrity and control intact.  He never 'freed' himself from it.  He is more dependent upon it then ever before.  Look at Western "Liberalism", and this is their best attempt to create a competitive moral system, easily manipulated and juiced by globalists and marxists who exploit them monetarily.  How much is a "trans" surgery, for example, who's getting paid and how much??  Imagine paying for your own suicide.

A counterfeit Lie, as the ulterior choice to the Big Lie.... these are the alternatives offered to you by Western Civilization.

It's obvious that if anybody truly desired "freedom", then they'd need to dig much deeper and below the roots, to a time before the proliferation of these Abrahamic infections.

The grand delusion of recovering Abrahamics:
If nobody holds you responsible then you are not....
So if you jump off a bridge, and nobody holds you responsible, what ensues is not your fault.
If you take another's property and this leads to him losing his job, and nobody holds you responsible, then you aren't.
Causality requires a conscious agency....and if not god then who?

If I intend good by killing millions, then I am not responsible for their deaths, if nobody is left to hold me responsible...since I am the only one alive and I think it good, there can be no negative consequences to what I did.
This is how these morons associate morality with god, and so if there is no god there is no morality other than the opinion of others.

The idea that morality has to do with negative consequences upon a collective - group, tribe - requiring no god, nor their conscious judgment is incoprehensible to them
How could moral behaviour evolve among all social species, if it did not provide an advantage, independent of their awareness.
Because morality is encoded by man, it is not invented by man.
Man adds to it, but does not invent the behaviour nor the positive effects of such behaviours - ro the evasion of negative effects if one does not abide by these behaviours.

What does 'morality' encode?
Cooperation, tolerance, sympathy, altruism..... all offering an advantage to cooperative survival and reproductive methods.
No god necessary; no manmade rules.

Ethics, on the other hand, are human addictions, adaptations of thee moral behaviours, adjusting them to manmade circumstances and manmade objectives - projected as ideals.

Responsible is the cause...the primary cause.
Whether anyone acknowledges it, or not, it  not change the fact.

If I am the last man on earth and I light a fire to keep warm and this fire burns down a forest....then I am responsible for burning down the forest - no god, no humans are necessary.
I am the agency that made the choice to light a fire and chose the method and the place...
My free-will chose to act; making me a primary cause, a willful agency without which an effect could not have occurred.
That makes me responsible.

If I am retarder, like ILP members, then I will not hold myself responsible and repeat the same errors - every time increasing the probability of the same consequence reoccurring, and every time I will not learn, because learning begins by appreciating the causal events, and my own participation - great or small - in them.
If I am uber-retarded and comfort myself that the forest burning down was inevitable and that i could not ever have not chosen to light a fire, in the place and way that I did....guaranteeing that I will eventually burn down another forest, and myself with it.

Stupidity is its own defence, yes...but it is also its own demise.
Unfortunately, it can, sometimes, take others with it.
If stupidity were only detrimental to the individual, I would cultivate it....but it isn't.
Stupidity is dangerous to everyone within its reach....everyone within its power.
Stupidity and power are a dangerous combination....and modern/postmodern democracies cultivates both.

It exposes the need for, and constant appealing to Authority.

The masses depend upon its social institutions, primarily State and Church.  These supercede the biological family.  So mother and father are not enough.  It's as-if the mother is not the real mother, nor the father the real father, rather both are 'owned' and agents of the higher powers.  This is how autonomy is removed, displaced, and abstracted.  The masses are "not responsible" for anything, only "the leaders" are.  They, then, do not show nor demonstrate any doubt, distrust, nor disloyalty in these leaders / authorities.  Why should they?  They are obedient, mostly, usually, and that's enough to "live life".

This would be fine...until they bring their mentality into the Philosophical realm.  Some of these, above-average, are intrigued and attracted to the ideal of "free thinking" and "free thought".  After all, shouldn't it be easy?  All you have to do is...think...and sometimes write or express your thoughts to others.  Yet, what do they express?  And are they even aware of their dependency upon these institutions and unquestioned authorities?

The prevalence of appealing to Authority, is deep within them (genetically).  The older I become, the more convinced I become by 'Elitist' philosophies advocating for and demonstrating the practicality of a Master-morality versus a Slave-morality.  There is something in the 'soul' of a person or genealogy of people, which separate them apart, allowing a select few the opportunity for gaining 'free thought' if they Choose it.  And it must be a Choice.  Because Wisdom is not something that sits well forced-upon people who refuse it.

You cannot force a Slave to become responsible for him/herself.  They don't have the ingredients genetically, nor memetically.  They do not have a lineage of Leadership, nor the education required to cultivate such potential.  And this is the kicker.  Genes are not enough.  Genes are only the start.  You must take some select few, with potential, and then put them through fire.  Master-morality develops through practice and trial / Empiricism.  It must risk failure, endure pain, to succeed.  Otherwise how can a person, an individual, account for the Cause of such pains or pleasures of morality, or especially, to assign 'Blame' and 'Justice' to immorality?  The masses are not equipped for this, which most admit to after slight prodding.

They don't want the pain or struggle of Thinking, and especially not of taking responsibility for what is Thought, along with all of its un/intended consequences.

Thus they hand authority over to...the Police, the Priest, the Politician.

It's also why they rely on 'Quotes' from long-dead philosophers, never living ones, who exist to defend themselves from misinterpretation.  They need an array of dead bones, to cast their spells and predictions, so as to evade responsibility for being wrong.

Also a rejection of all earthly authorities - the revolutionary spirit of the Jews, reflected i Protestant protest of Catholicism's authority.
Liberty from all earthly authorities - anarchy - because they've submitted to divine authority.
Straight out of Judeo-Puritansim, i.e., secular Americanism.
Slavishness, express in a multiplicity a diversity of shallow individualism, concealing uniformity of ideals, convictions, principles.
They all believe in the same shit, they only dress it up differently, give it different names.... worship the same shit differently, and this makes then feel unique, special, often superior, when equality is their shared ideal.
Competition over who is more free - more wealthy, more bohemian, more hip/hippie, more open minded and tolerant, more laid back and indifferent, more independent from the herd...more aware of the shared divine: closer to it, the chosen.
Salves establish their own hierarchies in the master's barn.
They compete over who will be the house nigger; the master's favourite.
Then they can live in the big house, dress up like master, and pretend to be cultivated and edumacated and refined, like their master.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Glorifying his slavery is how a man copes with his incompetence, his inability to see himself as he is, not as he wants to be.
This impotence becomes his shameful pride; his inability to become what he wishes to be, for even this is projected beyond space/time, making it unattainable - the perfect excuse.

What dimwits and midwits - desperate degenerates - call "sympathy" is the projection of their self-agradizing, self-flatering, overvaluations of themselves upon the other - a projection that lacks all self-critique that surpasses their tolerance levels.
It follows that their antipathetic projections would unload those intolerable facts about themselves they cannot even admit are present, unloading them as an accusation; self-cleansing, using another to explain why these unacknowledged parts of themselves often surprise them.
Antipathy, within the gene/meme binary takes on the self-cleansing method of projecting all those private impulses that contradict collective ideals concerning the 'good and virtuous'. The other becomes a scapegoat - in true Jewish tradition (Abrahamic) - of private contradictions of collective convictions and morals; ergo, 'fascist', 'racist', 'nazi', 'bigot, 'sexist' all expunge the individual of all those private feelings they are afraid will expose them as a fake to the collective.

The most telling observation and insight I gleaned from the ILP Determinist / Free-Will debates, is how the common man and woman both automatically presume 'freedom' of the will, means criminality and immorality. It means, to inflict pain upon your fellow man and woman with impunity. Psycho-analyzing this trend, I suppose that it comes from suppression and repression. The average human wants 'revenge', vengeance, against iniquity and tyranny that s/he felt as an infant, a child, a teenager, and especially at the point in a person's life when their physical / mental / spiritual growth is stunted and clipped. For example, a child who is sexually abused and molested, this stunting becomes a fixation that very few would ever overcome. It is a permanent mark, a psychological scar that they carry.

So too does the common man / woman carry this vengeance against their "Oppressor". Marxism / Globalism / Americanism taps into this vein, as its primary method of manipulating the masses. It gained this ability over the course of Millenniums of Abrahamic / Catholic control of the European peasantry.

Nietzsche referred to it as 'Ressentiment'.

Obviously the 'Christian' answer to Resentiment was Forgiveness. Christ is symbolic to Humanity, the "sacrifice to end all subsequent sacrifices". This creates a barrier between the common man and woman, to Christ, that the masses are unwilling to forgive, unwilling to let go of their vengeance. Thus the Christian morality is premised on an impossible task, that if you were to take away the Resentiment of the masses, then they would need a new one quickly to replace it. This leads directly to the immorality of the Christian religion, an endless string of hypocrisies and failed ethos, which the Catholic priest must forgive over, and over, and over again in confession. Christ is intended to be a moral universal standard by which the peasant classes cannot fully understand, cannot overcome, and must live in shame and guilt with eternally.

It also redirects physical and actual acts of Suppression into mythology and mysticism. Rather than confront your 'oppressor' directly, politically—rather a teenage son fight back against his physically abusive father, the Abrahamic religion commands that these relationships stay in place. It commands the peasantry to "turn the other cheek" when its own political elite and their police are sent to quell riots. The Priest sits next to the Politician. This is the "Left v Right" paradigm referred to in modern US politics. Both arms of governance act against the common man and woman.

This is another cause and reason why the average person, humanity, feels no actual 'Freedom' and reacts to the possibility of it, as predictably as they do.

They do not consider that Free-Will is ...for example, an ability to increase your intelligence, awareness, consciousness, to see and sense the universe and existence with greater ability. Few, or none really that I came across, would presume "Freedom" in this way.

They can't even imagine it; which is again expressed in their lack of freedom. Thus it is in the Imagination where 'freedom' is most vividly and immediately measured and known for what it is.


The average man, the Prole, cannot even imagine his own freedom.