Free-Will

Æon wrote:

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'.

To preserve "innocence" is to preserve the victim identity - innocence signal worthiness for positive rewards, for praise.
A victim requires a victimizer.....and if not god, then humanity, or some ambiguous whole - absolute order manifesting natural laws etc.
God's will is replaced by the ideal or will - abstraction.
Anything to accuse or hold responsible, other than themselves. Any degree of culpability is a tainting of the perfection of their purity; their goodness; their innocence.
The Abrahamics spirit must not be held accountable...nothing it has done deserves what happens to it.
In their superstitious narratives shame/guilt are weaponized to explain why negative events occur - man's will is to blame; his pride, his daemon....and this must be expunged, rejected as the demon's trickery, as a falling that must be corrected to return to the state of purity.
So, free-will is rejected....as is morality.
Morality is collective rule - collective will - over individual will; both must be rejected.
Man submits to fate - god's will, fate, universal order, the inevitable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And so the most "miserable creatures" are those clinging to their "individuality" as the only thing left to them to believe.
Regression to the manimal state that knows nothing other than its sense of self - and this, too, remains, for it, a mystery.
An animal only perceives other as not self - and has no true understanding of itself; it is subjective individuation, and nothing else.....and only categorized as belonging to a group, a species, a genus, by objective humans.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

One cannot be 'innocent' and have no Free-Will.

Because in order to be 'innocent', you must have a relative Standard of measure and judgment. What is this relativity and measure? What is one 'innocent' compared to, except, somebody that is Guilty? And what is Guilt, except a fear that you are "responsible" for some set of actions and consequences? You can be blamed. This blame can be correct, or incorrect. This blame can be accurate, or inaccurate. This blame can be based in reality, or completely imaginary. This blame can be external, or internal.

The hypocrisy of Innocence is basic: blame others, but, you-yourself remain blameless. This is what the Prole sees as his/her own "Justice", and the nature of his/her political power. The Prole envies the Elitism of the Bourgeois, to walk slightly above the social justice system. Why do the rich white elitists get to be 'racist', but I don't?! That's not fair!

This is the nature of Western political power, judiciary ideology, along with "social justice" Marxism. It's all based from the point of 'Determinism' vs Free-Will. This is where everybody becomes exposed.

Innocence/guilt has to do with responsibility.
Having no free-will implies you are not responsible. Another's will is, or your will has been coerced.

No accuser is necessary.
If I were the last man on earth and I burned down a forest....I am responsible.
I caused it, either intentionally or accidentally.
I hold myself responsible as the cause.
If I do not....I never learn....I cannot learn, and so I repeat the same errors or remain true to my bad judgements.

Yes, to be responsible, you have to be able to "blame" yourself, which most of humanity either cannot do (no self-consciousness) or will not do (causing a breakdown in their own admitted moral values).

It doesn't even matter if you do or do not, since this does not change your participation in events.
The only thing it affects is the individual's ability to adapt.

Rejecting responsibility when you are a causal agent in an effect, does nothing but ensure your demise.
The cosmos don't give a shit if you feel innocent, or if you do not accept responsibility, or if you refuse to acknowledge your participation in what occurred.
Subjectivity only affects the subject.....and through this it may affect others, e.g., stupidity for example, is its own defence, but this doesn't mean it is immune to the consequences of its stupidity; stupidity affects all in its vicinity, directly ro indirectly.

This is why morality evolved.
To discipline the idiot, and the degenerate who cannot do so himself, even if he does not know why his stupidity and degeneracy is bad for the group.
Using a simple threat/promise mechanism to discipline simpletons and degenerates. God is an idealization of the collective.

Also consider the various 'negative' connotations of blame in the American-English lexicon...people presume it is something morally bad / wrong / evil and want to avoid it. The automatic connotation is "not good". This is the moral inversion / perversion.

Some groups of people are... magically, responsible for themselves (rich white males), but everybody else is not (poor black females). This is postmodern propaganda, which again subverts and controls the public & private sense-of-self. Only some people can be/come responsible for themselves, but not others, and why? Marxism says: because of Oppression. Rich white males oppress everybody else. They don't say How or Why, exactly, because that would entail that poor black females must compete in this realm of self-responsibility. They would not be able to 'blame' others for their own lives and excuses.

These segregations and controls are in the moral, spiritual, religious realms, along with the political. It's in how people speak, and how the youth (especially age 13 and younger) are 'educated' in public schools, or privately throughout the populace. Why is there a separation between bourgeois and proletariat? What is the difference of education, why the elitism? What about the "White Man's Burden?" Consider the IQ-differentials between them—one moral system appeals to the upper, and another separately to the lower. The lower class of man, throughout the world (not just one society), appeals to the victim-mentality of the prole / peasant / serf. They are not "made" to be responsible, or become responsible, for themselves.

It can be a physical and mental limit as well. Most of humanity is not self-conscious, and maybe, cannot become so. They literally don't have the brain function for it—in the same way that animals cannot become self-conscious no matter how much they are nurtured / educated / primed for it.

There's a genetic variation, a hard wall, limit and separation.


This separates Liberal from Conservative. The Liberal believes that "education" can 'create' self-consciousness, out of thin air, and that even an animal can "demonstrate IQ" (in a way that a self-conscious human could), which is false. Consider textual Literacy, thousands of years of evolution within very specific segments of the human population. The masses were not, and never intended to be/come Literate. And they are not today either. They are "educated" to repeat their moral / ethic teaching, laws, and instructions. But they are not made to Understand them. They are not made to Question them.

This is why they cannot enter into Philosophy, and have no actual philosophical capacity.

You cannot reason with stupidity nor with degeneracy....so you must seduce, bribe or coerce it.
A moron cannot comprehend the long-term consequences of abortion, for example; the degenerate does not care if it stands in the way of expunging his libidinal energies.

Morality is the wrath of the collective coming down on the individual who wishes to participate and to gain from its belonging.
Whatever reduced the group's survival evolves into a moral behaviour that contradicts or sublimates it.

But long-term considerations do not influence idiots nor degenerates with no Investment in the future.
A paedophile doesn't give a hit what effects his sexual degeneracy will have on the child, and consequently on the future of the group.

My point is how the average views Free-Will, as some sort of mystical or magical ability possessed by their superiors. These 'Experts' are their Authorities, subconsciously recognized. But they avoid "Authorities" who speak out and against established, collectivized moral Norms / mores. They would never trust an "expert" who has not been approved by Academia / Cathedral. Again, this is also subconscious. So it is not actually about Expertise or Authority, but rather about the subconscious recognition of political power.

The proletariat only think in terms of this, and determine their "Free-Will" in its context. It's never about "standing apart", or even "Philosophy", although they love to pretend, and the pretense of this.

They do not have the "Free-Will" to stand out or against society.

They do not have the "Free-Will" that a self-consciousness implies.

And they will admit to all of this, quite readily, when challenged and pressed upon their basic beliefs and morals.

The average have replaced god with order.....and so all is determined means it is limited by order.
Natural laws, for them are God's Commandments.
All is determined means all is inevitable - fated. All follows a path nobody can escape.


I call them recovering Abrahamics because they think they are atheists when all they've done is replace god with an abstraction.
So, for them, all is determined means all has a reason, and is for the best....thinking of themselves as god's agencies.
This is why transsexuals are considered part of a divine plan - natural.....just as paedophilia and bestiality...everything that exists is of god, part of what has been determined by an external agency.
There is no error because all si part of the determined plan - it could not have been otherwise.

Innocence is implied by the total denial of free-will.
If even a portion of responsibility, of personal agency, is acknowledged then there is no innocence.

All linguistic-based paradoxes vanish when and if we begin with the act - in this case choice.
Then, mysticism and nihilism is replaced by ignorance concerning a phenomenon which does not disappear because we can't fully explain it.

The degree to which you accept free-will as a factor determines the degree to which you accept responsibility for your choices and their expected and unexpected, intentional and unintentional, positive and negative consequences.

Imagine...believing you are responsible for your actions while, at the same time, believing they are inevitable and you could not have chosen to act other than the way you did.

The Bible is the script of this mental dissonance - narrative of Adam & Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Adam is made in the likeness of god, to choose in the way he did by a 'creator' that already knew he would bite from the 'forbidden fruit' and yet he is still held responsible.

This insanity, leads straight to the current Transsexuality insanity.
Mind/Body dissonance - compartmentalization, newspeak.

Nihilism necessitate schizoid psychosis.

Abrahamics (correctly) define "Free-Will" as a hypothetical, external source.  Freedom comes from Without.

This is categorically different than believing in Free-Will as Internal, presenting Agency, Autonomy, Individuality, etc.

The difference allows for Empathy from the Free-Will "Agent", but not from the Abrahamic.  The Abrahamic can only imagine an Absolute Authority, Eternal Divine Tyrant, with Magical powers, to Create and Destroy Matter.  Anything less than this imagination of their 'God', cannot compete.  There is a need for this Absolution, the promise of eternal safety and infinite Afterlife.  Ultimately, this source is based in Fear of existential threat, Death.  The Abrahamic cannot have a "Free-Will", due to this barrier of its own self-imposed Fear.  It is too scared.  It is a coward.

The more intelligent among the Abrahamics, may be aware of this fear-barrier, but they recognize even worse the Prospect and possibility of being free.  It would mean, immediately, and forever, that you-yourself would be a Causal Agent, and therefore responsible for the effects of your life, intended and unintended.  This would mean, "to do wrong" is possible.  It means that failure is imminent.  Mistakes will be made.  Harm will occur.  You cannot avoid it.  You cannot escape it.  You can try to deny it, lie to yourself and others, that you are innocent, when you know you are not.  These above-average Abrahamics, tend to become neurotic and obsessive-compulsive, or autistic, seeking 'exits' in fantasy or delusion.  They can become ideological fanatics, as catharsis for an outlet to these suspicions.  The cognitive dissonance needs a pressure-release, valve.

Even more intelligent than these, realize all of this, but don't want to give up the benefits of their religions and traditions.  Yes, they legitimize lying, but what alternative do they have?  Secularism?  Conversion to a sister-religion?  Admit to their perish, that their entire lives are lies, built on lies?  No, this leads to the justification and implimentation of the "Noble Lie".  They do it...for the "Greater Good", supposedly, hypothetically.

"The Ends justify the Means."

Denying choice is how recovering Abrahamics deal with shame and guilt, imposed upon them Biblically.
It's a secular correction of Biblical inconsistencies.
If all is determined - according to god's will - then they are not responsible for anything they do, so there is no need to make amends according to religious doctrines, and no need for heaven and hell.
No primordial sin, to feel ashamed and guilty about.
It is a way of becoming shameless, because for them shame/guilt is tied up with Abrahamism and they can find no evolutionary reason for the feeling of shame to evolve.
Guilt is associated with being held accountable by a collective....which they now declare independence from: their judgments are not accountable to any other's judgements - neither men nor gods.
If they absolve themselves of responsibility then they cannot be ashamed about anything, nor found guilty for anything they choose to do.

This is partially founded on Americanisms individualism (Americanism is secularized Abrahamism) - a man independent from all collectives; an individual with no past, no shared identity, i.e., sex, race, ethnicity; no imposed duties as a prerequisite for participation.
A god-man - self-creating, indifferent, independent from all earthly authorities, eventually including the body itself.
Here variations in nihilism determines how far these psychotics will take it.....or how much they can get away with; how many lies they can pretend are true without suffering the consequences.

In Americanism hedonism is the underlying motive. How many pleasing practices can be enjoyed without costs...this is the measure of their freedom.
As long as there are idiots making sure they are safe and provided for then they can pretend that they are supreme agencies, going around to satisfy their needs and expunge their desires.
There's an element of cynical, narcissistic superiority.
They need the collectivist fanatics to maintain the illusion of their superiority and independence - cynicism.

No it’s not. Our free will, our ability to choose, has been given to us by God - therefore it can never be over. That’s why you have the freedom to choose to not follow Him. And that’s exactly what these types of false prophets are hoping you’ll do, so you’ll follow them instead. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Negating free-will is part of their agenda - towards the establishment of an authoritarian world order - Americanism.
Deniers of free-will are always nihilists, belonging to Abrahamism or Americanism.
They want to imply that their totalitarianism is divine, in origin, or fated, written, determined by cosmic order...so as to conceal their intent.

Free-will is but a qualification of choice, and choice is an undeniable act.
All else is them attempting obscurantism - "they muddy the water to make it seem deep...".....they convolute meanings to conceal their private or collective motives.

Christians believe in fre-will in the same way the ILP retard peacegirl believes in it:
Man has free-will but no choice.
Free-will for them is a means to exonerate god of responsibility while maintaining the belief that man can make things better....and create paradise....only now it's named utopia. Described in the exact same way....a fantasy realm where there is no violence, no suffering, no injustices, eternal peace and prosperity.

Just study Biblical accounts on how free-will was "given" - and yet not allowed to be exercised fully, freely...and how this determining absoluteness - named god - already knew what would occur - since all is determined - and still held the determined creation accountable.
Sadistic accountability. Adam was guilty for what his creation determined him to be.
Similarly, for deluded hypocrites, man has free-will but no choice....so free-will is accountability for what has been determined - I will punish myself for what I had no choice but to act out.
Insanity.

The rational position is easier:
Free and will are qualifiers of an individual's options, judgements and choices.
Free referring to how many options are perceptible, are available; and will referring to which ones are accessible, determined by the inherited and cultivated (nature/nurture) strength/power of a particular actor.

The actor/agency need not be human, as is often the case when these morons speak of free-will....but can be any life form...including plants.
Another similarity between Abrahamics and their secular versions - recovering Abrahamics who cannot let go of some of the same tropes - is that they only ascribe the possibility of free-will to humans.

The majority - not as hypocritical as peacegirl - have completely done away with the necessity for a self-cotnradictory narrative that both claims free-will and then denies it, just to preserve hope and shame/guilt as a sociopolitical psychological weapon. For them man is simply an automaton, no different from a stone....completely innocent and impotent. For them god has now become abstract, and neither good nor evil....simply omnipotent, determining, totalitarian....and man his multiple manifestations.
The goodness is maintained as they, also, believe all is for the 'better' and goodness is inevitable, expressed as a worship of progress and change.
change is always good because it always produces the better; progress, towards the future, is always a movement towards utopie...always good, so do not resist nor deny....other than earthly authorities promising you the better and claiming to be good - those are the 'evil'.....
So, man is now maintained as the source of 'evil' and god is now renamed universe, cosmos, described as absolute determining order.

In Nietzsche secularized Abrahamics, romantic idealists, disillusioned by the real world, find a new way to justify their herd psychology, this time liberated from a tangible authority with a face to make them feel shame.
This was the issue they had with Christianity's pagan remnants - it had a face, a personae, an identity to make them feel embarrassed for wanting to submit to its promises.
Protestantism, like Judaism, offers a intermediate relief by rejecting all earthly authorities, cynically exposing their flaws and laughing at them - orgasmic release of stress is followed by the experience of contentment, i.e., peace
Secularization went further, completely abandoning all idolatry and anthropomorphism, offering the idea/ideal, the abstraction, as an alternate absolution - there is no shame in submitting to an idea; no embarrassment is triggered by submitting to an abstraction.

Denial of free-will is an expression of this submission, rewarded with innocence - replacing salvation from responsibility, as the antidote to sinfulness, delivered Biblically in the form of a primordial breaking of a promise to abide by divine rules - itself, a concealed contradiction of free-will.

Word games have taken over...conventional thinkers abiding by conventional definitions; saints and heroes replaced by idols and popular icons expressing and validating them.
Words disconnected from the limitations of the wordly, become disconnected from reality - insane - and then reattach themselves to mental constructs that can be carried around and transmitted from mind to mind - restricted only by shared conventions and populism, fashions and trends.

For a slave born & raised in captivity, the term 'freedom' is exaggerated, in accordance with his imagination's ability to conceptualize with what it has no personal experience.
I've gone over this in regards to masculinization of females....what is imagined - or adopted through fantasy venues like Hollywood - is exaggerated in accordance with the corruptive forces of need/desire.
In this case, the powerless - those that have been "traumatized" by their lack of power - as Pezer, member of the van clan revealed - exaggerate power as omnipotence, trapped by Abrahamic ideals.
A "masta" is imagined as a dog would - if it could - a human's power to produce heat and food, from magical boxes...as an extraordinary power.
For them 'power' can only mean omnipotence, and freedom can only mean self-creation, independence from all authority, all laws - manmade and natural.

This guy is loony tunes, but he does have his moments of clarity.

Ecmandu wrote:

Urwrong,

You kinda articulated this when profiling but not really…

Let’s clarify an overarching theme in its own articulation.

PG and her author define determinism as peace.

You went into HER subjugation aspect but didn’t clarify her dominance attemp.

“If you’d just all obey me everything would be peace”

The author being male was trying to create a cult of dominance to get laid …. Standard male stuff.

Basically, you have the author declaring himself peace in existence and you have a woman follower also declaring herself peace in existence (if only you obey them).

There are BILLIONS of beings where if we just did what they told us to do, life would be better here.

No doubt about it.

This argument of PG doesn’t acknowledge a merit system either. “Just obey me and there will be peace even if you don’t like it, I’m the one who deserves it more, because my commands are peace.”

I’d venture to guess the author tried to use this to compel women against their desire to suck his dick for the “peace”. Lol!!!

But it’s also not funny as well.

Your analysis was on her subservience while avoiding the shadow side of her domineering nature….

Wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The difference is IQ.
It distinguishes male from female and insanity.

A high IQ insane person is either broken by reality - turning to insanity to protect the ego from being destroyed - or is completely oblivious of what reality is, depending on others to tell it, falling prey to all sorts of charlatans.


Ecmandu is of the latter.....he is a spirit that lacked the constitution to endure reality - it broke to protect itself, as much as possible, from what it could not endure, e.g., the inherent injustices of natural selection.
Nihilism offers such semiotic shelters for egos that can be broken but not made stronger.
Reality is unendurable to those that lack the constitution or were born & raised in sheltering, atrophying their inherent constitutions, to the point where they can no longer cope.

I fear Ecmandu inherited a low constitution, and a higher than average IQ, i.e., perceptible analytical mind.
This almost killed him - shattered his psyche (schizoid) - was his mind's protective reaction to this existential threat.
He now lives in an alternate reality.


This is not the same as with the majority who lack the IQ to perceive anything above their constitutional level.
This is why the majority are not overly troubled by political correctness since their mind can never perceive nor understand anything that is not popular or conventional; there's nothing to repress when there's nothing there.
For them modernity is simply...normality. They feel no pressure to conform, no thereat...their mind is totally determined by the collective - and so even free-will is a myth.
Humanity = god; god = humanity.

Whatever era mediocrity is born in it mirrors the beliefs and morals of that time and place, defending them with a passion - attempting to silence anything that contradicts them.
It doesn't matter when and where they are born, idiocy is always a reflection of that era.

For the dimwit midwit free-will suffers from the same linguistic detachments - absolutism.

Words/Symbols detached from referents in the world - beyond human artifices - and reattached on mental abstractions - mental abstractions that are liberated from spatial/temporal, existential, limits.
Then the binary takes over....if not absolutely so, then absolutely not so, where the 'so' refers only to what is on their minds, or in books as text, or to a collective conventional understanding.

Therefore, if man cannot be complete master of his own destiny, he must be a slave to it.
It's ironic when these 'slaves' are also worshippers of power, as in Will To Power, as their defining philosophy.....perhaps it is not ironic but inevitable that those who truly feel powerless would come to worship power as a hyperbolic force....omnipotence, just as those who feel love-less would come to worship love as a divine absolute force, god of love, god as love.

Abrahamism has not ben overcome; the Biblical god has not been murdered but reinvented, resurrected in a secular form.
This Will to Power, is, for them, a way of expressing Abrahamism's will to the divine; eternal return is, for them, another way of preserving the Abrahamic idea of eternal life; overman is another way of saying "pious man", chosen, saved.
All that has occurred is a translation, not a transvaluation...

Satyr wrote:

For the dimwit midwit free-will suffers from the same linguistic detachments - absolutism.

Words/Symbols detached from referents in the world - beyond human artifices - and reattached on mental abstractions - mental abstractions that are liberated from spatial/temporal, existential, limits.
Then the binary takes over....if not absolutely so, then absolutely not so, where the 'so' refers only to what is on their minds, or in books as text, or to a collective conventional understanding.

Therefore, if man cannot be complete master of his own destiny, he must be a slave to it.
It's ironic when these 'slaves' are also worshippers of power, as in Will To Power, as their defining philosophy.....perhaps it is not ironic but inevitable that those who truly feel powerless would come to worship power as a hyperbolic force....omnipotence, just as those who feel love-less would come to worship love as a divine absolute force, god of love, god as love.

Abrahamism has not ben overcome; the Biblical god has not been murdered but reinvented, resurrected in a secular form.
This Will to Power, is, for them, a way of expressing Abrahamism's will to the divine; eternal return is, for them, another way of preserving the Abrahamic idea of eternal life; overman is another way of saying "pious man", chosen, saved.
All that has occurred is a translation, not a transvaluation...  

This linguistic detachment makes them particularly vulnerable to linguistic magical spells, linguistic hypnosis, linguistic impressions...
Words/Symbols have a profound impact on their psyche.

Since mind is relatively immune to spatial/temporal limitations, their mind uses words/symbols to fabricate hyperbolic alternatives.

Two sources of memories (data) = genetic/memetic - body/mind.
Instead of mind being an extension of body, body becomes an extension of mind - inversion.
Body being a manifestation of past - representing the tangible, physical, presence mind interprets as appearance.
Mind becomes the divine - and its symbols/words expressions and representations of divine will.

Everything is reduced down to the mind's binaries - 1/0, good/evil, omnipotence/impotence.
In regards to free-will choice is dismissed as illusory, and free-will becomes an absolute concept, and not a qualifier of the act of choice.
If the mind cannot liberate itself from its needs/desires, it cannot fabricate its tastes, from nowhere, it is deemed to be completely dominated by life's own limitations, by existential necessities.

If I were asked to freely expose my self-love by freely willing my eternal return, then like eternal life beside Abraham's god, I would express my love of god if I could live forever in his shadow.
But willing it will not make it so, for willing is contained within existence, in its present state, and has no effect on the next iteration - just as karma has no effect on future births, not to be called rebirths for no memory is preserved to be reborn.

But love is blind and irrational - driven by what the mind considers mysterious, incomprehensible, forces, and so love of self can express no less a blindness of passion, despite the world as it is.

How much of my love would be sacrificed if I were to submit to desire, seeking eternal life under another's protection, and if all eventually repeats it does so whether I will it or do not.
What is left is the expression of self-love or self-hate until death, or until its memory slowly dissipates in time.

All definitions must refer to what exists, or what is within existence, and all meaning must refer to the same.

Free-will, therefore, must find meaning from within what exists, and since 'free' and will' can be defined "out of existence" both terms must reclaim connected to what is experienced, if not directly perceptible.

By "defining" words, representing concepts, "out of existence" I mean projecting them into a theoretical, Platonic idealistic realm which is nowhere but in the mind.
Even this alternate realm, this contradiction of existence, is found within existence in the form of mental abstractions which are nothing more than a synthesis of the existent or, in extreme cases,(nihilistic) complete inversions of the existent.
In this sense they are all reliant on chaos, which is now conceptualized as a more profound, deeper - complex - existence, and not a antithesis to perceptible order.

In this way nihilism can contradict perceptible order but maintain it in an alternate, more desirable, form.

Order/Chaos dualism is replaced by order/higher order, or real/ideal. the ideal always a product of the mind which then projects it into some imaginary beyond or some undermining and underlying occult., presented as more real than the perceived real.

I've offered my own process of moving from physis (physics, tangible, experienced roder) down towards the metaphysical by remaining aligned with the first - the firs, i.e., physis acting as a gauge to maintain mental decline, preventing the mind form going off into fantastic tangents based no the fact that they are pleasing to it; and form these two foundations moving upwards towards the ideal, always remaining in alignment (harmony, mutually supportive agreement) with the previous two.
This is where symbols/words must be sued as connectors of noumena with phenomena.

So from physis - phenomenon, appearances, interpretations of presence/present - we excavate an archeological foundation, i.e., metaphysis, before building upwards towards the airy heavens.
Architecture of thinking, using words/symbols as we would use nails, connecting the three parts.

Environments dictate what kind of structure we can build - geography, physical landscape etc. - and how deep a metaphysical foundation we require to support it, anchor it in the experienced world. From there we build up, towards the empty space, the sun/stars, the sky,... maintaining symmetry and proportionality as these are necessitated by the previous two works in progress, the movement upward dictated by the builder's motives (objectives, choices) - all in relation to world, environment whish is always the first and final arbiter of what is probable and useful.

**********
To put it another way....symbols/words are not arbitrary unless they refer to theoretical structures existing in the mind, shared by multiple minds, but not to anything outside their shared hive-mind.
Existence is the final arbiter, determining how symbols/words can be defined and how they can be used and if this use will be effective.
Words referring to abstractions or other words, existing only in minds, can only affect psychologies that can be affected by words - the construct being a building carried around in the mind from place to place, and across space/time.
This collective edifice is what is the Platonic cave - an idealized realm that can be shared but held to be distinct form mind to mind, necessitating script to limit how minds can imagine it, and contant reaffirmation to maintain collective discipline to a central objective, viz., its utility remaining entirely psychological, political....its potency only expanding numerically by the number of minds affected by it, and entirely impotent outside these minds.

***********
Applying this to any concept, such as god, value, morality, freedom, and will...chance....begins with the experienced existent, which is represented by the term "choice", referring to an action, and since this action occurs within existence it cannot be free from what exists.
Freedom, therefore, is a qualifier of choice, describing its options, not describing detachment from existence
Choice cannot be free from what exists - contingent.
Choice can only distinguish what is free relative to another willful agency, measured by the quantity and quality of its options.
Similarly, 'will' can be used, as Schopenhauer did, to refer to some imaginary state contradicting the existent - a 'thing' as in thing-in-itself, implying motive, even if it is denied; converting a source of incomprehensibility into something intimate and relatable - reducing anxiety.
If will is defined and anchored within existence - not is some imagined state where space/time is not applicable - then it becomes an act; the act of focusing organic energies.

Recombining the terms, with this in mind, makes free-will nothing more than a qualifier of choice, which is affected by organic needs/desires, and never free from necessity, and order.
If absolutely so, judgment and choice would be unnecessary - a costly brain would not be necessary and not evolve - nature being frugal - since all would be completely determined and nothing would be the reason other than increasing suffering - the suffering of one's own impotence; the suffering of one's unnecessary suffering.
What is implied is that existence is as the only way it can ever be - insanely repeating and determining the emergence of life to experience suffering and then multiply it by determining that it becomes aware of how impotent it is to affect anything about its own becoming.
A sadistic cosmos becoming aware of tis own impotence....or punishing itself by becoming aware of itself.

Is it any wonder Abrahamism would become popular among minds that believe this?

As such....cosmos cannot be absolutely ordered but must have chaotic energies - black matter, the dark void of space, the unpredictability of choice - necessitating a mind that can react - adapt, adjust - to the unforeseeable, increasing survivability.

Natural order - even in regards to chaos - is what determines what perspective is successful and which one is not....and this determined good versus bad, and alter good versus evil, factoring in human interventions, i.e., sheltering, with its own intuitional, ideological, objectives.
There is no equity in perspectives, there is only variances in relation to a shared world - adjusting not only to natural order but to any unforeseeable chaotic effects.

The original concepts for this were god and Satan - good versus evil - adopting a variety of allegorical representations - including Schopenhauer's will....and within them evil - representing chaos - was always subordinated to 'good - order - because ti could only be perceived through it, and so it was conveniently perceived as being inferior to it, and dependent upon it, whereas the inverse would be more accurate.

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

— Burn The Rainb0w (@BurnTheRainb0w) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

yes, and if free-will were not a qualifier of choice and an absolute, you would be right, again.

Abrahamics cannot completely overcome their Abrahamism....ergo they must go through stages....beginning with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to overcome decades, centuries, millennia of social engineering.
Not an easy task.