Free-Will

Parasitism requires a twofold deception of Free-Will.

First, the Parasite must conceal his own methods of draining a host of its energies.  He must pretend to have no Free-Will, that he too is one of the victims.  Then he can spread denial of Free-Will within the victim population, and subsequently blend into it, because he "practices what he preaches".  He has no free-will (a self-imposed lie).  And his victims have no free-will.  Because neither have free-will, the Parasitical method can continue unabated and undisrupted.  His ideology is blended into both predator and prey.  Only his actions expose him, which he can easily deny.  "Your eyes deceive you."

A Parasite will never advocate for Free-Will so as to imply that inferior choices have negative consequences.  Because this would inevitably lead to exposing himself.  If it is an inferior choice to trust a Parasite, who seeks to drain you, then it would at least be an inferior choice to continue denying one's Free-Will as complicit in the predation.  The victim would need to cope with such an inferior choice through blatant logical contradictions and hypocrisies, "Yes I'm a victim...but I chose to be a victim."

Denial of Free-Will is the simpler method.

Convincing the victim that s/he 'chose' the inferior choice, but must be Proud of choosing, is slightly more complex.


Abrahamism chooses the second strategy. Humans have Free-Will because "God said so", and only because God exists and 'imposed' it on humans. Free-Will is then contingent on God, not on any conceivable human action, event, choice, or particular example of willpower. And if God is negated, denied, doubted, or removed in any form, then so too goes Free-Will. This puts Secularists in a bind. How do the Secularists account for Free-Will? If anybody's paid attention to philosophical discourse in the last two decades...they don't. They don't account for Free-Will. And most of the "Secular Humanists" rationalize in the same manner as Abrahamics, use Sam Harris as an example. There is no Secular defense of "Free-Will" as-if Humans were capable of individual...let alone collective moral accounting for general responsibility.

It becomes political.

State Authorities and "Representatives" are accountable...to a degree, by which they can be bribed, bought-off, persuaded, and threatened by angry mobs and Marxist anarchists. And that is the limit of their "Free-Will". Free-Will as conditioned by the State.

Free-Will requires some ingredients:

1) general intelligence and memory
2) imagination to select an unrealized outcome out of many possibilities
3) evaluation of options according to their probability
4) execution of one selection and loyalty to its unintended/negative consequences
___complexity___
5) self-consciousness to identify 'self' as "making the choice" in the third-person
6) loyalty to a failed premise, choosing wrongly, "owning" a failure
7) ability to revise failed premises, is a failed choice worth trying again or not
resisting disassociation, the mind has a tendency to 'suppress' embarrassments/failures
9) objectivity, disfavoring preference between failed or successful choices

I believe as complexity increases (corresponding with increasing intelligence/IQ/self-consciousness), the more a mind must disassociate from positive choice preferences. In other words, Confirmation Bias diminishes and becomes suppressed, as a choice can have 'equally' positive or negative circumstances. Many choices in life are very difficult...where to live, how to live, whom to live with, which mates to pursue, which to reject, etc. In these difficult choices, it's tempting, and irresistible to most humans, to favor biases toward oneself or one's group and disfavor those against. This leads to many psychoses and neuroses, pathological thinking, irrational thought.

Because a negative possibility toward oneself, is Unflattering. It's embarrassing, to even contemplate a "negative" choice. But until the consequences come to fruition, how can the possibilities be known? Here is a problem with general cognition. Most of humanity are bogged-down by the mere prospect of any imagined difficulty. Thus, for the masses, unless a choice is 'guaranteed', it cannot be trusted. This is why the masses favor what is intrinsically-popular, the choices that 'work' for most people, most of the time, path-of-least-resistance.

Thus it is not "their" choice. It is the choice of everybody else. The choice is not "owned" by them, the individuals.

This is the difference of ownership of Choice among Free-Will. People do not necessarily understand a Free-Will that chooses other than what is popular at the time, outside of fads, outside of contemporary, postmodern culture, outside what is "socially acceptable" or politically correct.

What could Free-Will possibly mean then, except to "Choose" what is already chosen by the majority-rule, Democratically?

This is the 'Secular' version of Free-Will, which differs against the outline above...by making another's choice, into your choice. You did not "choose". You followed somebody else's choice.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Whether it be an absolute god, or circumstances, or totalitarian order, the average mind seeks something or someone to accuse and unload his personal responsibilities.
Anything to achieve absolution.

The idea that this world, as it is, is the only possible world, is another duplicitous method of justifying the absence of agency by judging from the position of after-the-fact.
So, from the position of 'now,' the past is already determined, so this is the consequence of what has been determined.
But, as it was being determined - in the present- this reality, as it is, was not inevitable.

In fact, all life, all willful organisms, participated in what was being determined, along with non-life, non-willful energies.
Life differing from non-life by its ability to choose the path-of-more-resistance, rather than a-path-of-least-resistance, like a river flowing down a mountainside, or a stone rolling down a cliff.
Life can choose to move up the mountainside....and climb up the cliff.

I reject the idea that a will can only be free if it is liberated from need, for need and suffering, is the experience of existence, and the idea of a will existing by not existing, is absurd.
It is, perhaps, why Schopenhauer located Will outside causality (space/time - existence) and declared it as the only Will that was absolutely free.
If the criterion for existing is to not exist, then no god could meet it.
This is clear in the descriptions of Abraham's one-wod, because his very need to create makes his will unfree, according to this standard.

Any concept can be similarly rejected, by defining it in ways that would make anything in existence antithetical to the defined.

The paradox of using binary methods to represent fluctuating patterns, in a cosmos where order is not absolute, can and is misused to comfort oneself, enabling the mind to attain completion where none exists; even at the cost of one's freedom.

Self-denial justifying Self-rerpession
Rejecting the will's freedom attempts to deny an unconscious wish, explaining its unfulfillment by accusing the will of impotence so as to conceal its cowardice.
A method that must have developed as man became increasingly dependent on others, necessitating self-denial, so as to prevent challenging what is required for preserving access to pleasure.
A man would rather admit he is a slave than consciously acknowledge the reasons preventing him from becoming a master.

Sam Harris is free to disagree with Daniel Dennett, which tells you everything you need to know. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Most animals, manimals are akin to ants, that is to say they are on autopilot.

There is potentially a super-aware entity making conscious, deliberate choices behind the scenes.

The Three-Body Problem [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Autonomous (@Seanrothmans) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mind/Body.

Ego = lucid part of the mind. The part that identifies with 'I'.
But most of consciousness is subconscious and automated.
This doesn't mean it cannot judge and learn.

The body learns by repeating an action that resulted in positive feedback.
Addiction/Obsession is based on this.

The slave thinks of freedom as a liberation from something, and since he can never liberate himself from everything, he considers himself bound.
A master thinks of freedom as the liberty to do something, and since he is only limited by his power, he considers himself as powerful as what he can do.

In the head of the brain dead, the term 'freedom' has been defined out of existence.
To be free means, to them, to be independent form causality, and needs, and necessity.
In other words, absolute freedom, or absolute un-freedom; absolute independence or absolute dependence.

The infection goes deep.

The will can never be free because freedom, as they've defined it, is independence form existence itself.
God, as they've defined that bulslhyte word, is the only being who can be free...but then he isn't because he is also described as being dependent on human worship....so, in fact, not even god is free.

Anytime they feel threatened by a concept they define it in ways that makes it impossible, or contrary to existence.....because they are all fuckin' nihilists.
Afraid, insecure, desperate..self-hating... redirecting their self-hate as a hatred of nature, of existence itself.
Transsexuality expresses this self-hatred openly.

A nihilist reduces everything to absolute binaries.
One, singularity...even truth, in his demented psyche, refers to an absolute - an indivisible, immutable, certainty.
Once he's reduced it to that he can now easily negate it by inverting the absolute, thusly creating the dualism his mind thrives on.

But existence lacks absoluters... they can only ever exist in the minds of simpletons or charlatans.

This absolutism is reflected in their supernatural definitions of concepts they wish to be real, or wish were not.
Defining words, referring to concepts, out of existence, is defining them in ways that can never exist, or if they did would negate experienced existence.

To nullify their own participation in the determination of their fate, compels them to define 'freedom', or 'will', in absolutist ways, so as to then absolutely negate both concepts.
Yet, all they ever accomplish is to negate the idea in their own mind, participating in a collective understanding, establishing convectional thinking.
Routinely they fabricate absolute concepts only to negate them....like how they've defined 'god' or 'free-will' or 'morality.'

Does this nullify the concepts that define these concepts in ways that refer to experienced reality?
No.
The pagan gods are not negated by their nihilistic absolutist definitions and nullifications of their god concept....nor is free-will negated when the terms refer to experienced pheneomna.....all they do is declare and nullify their own absolutist definitions.
Same goes for the concept of morality/ethics.
They continuously declare and nullify their own definitions of both concepts...but leave the concept referring to expense reality unaffected.

They are in a constant war with themselves.....declaring and then nullifying their own abstractions, their own supernatural definitinos....with no external referents.
Their problem is that they cannot nullify the phenomena these terms refer to.
All they can ever do is create and then negate concepts with no reference to anything experienced.
Ideological masturbation.
Mass solipsism.

They are now attempting to define male/female out of existence....and this is where they've overplayed their hand.
In those other concepts the phenomena are behavioural complexities, whereas in this case the phenomenon is physical, tangible....and so it is difficult to nullify and redefine in a way that would validate their nihilistic objectives.

It's an easy formula to repeat.
I've gone through it in threads dedicated to language and nihilism.
The first part is to detach the word from a concept that refers to something all can experience.
"Purify" it by converting it to an abstraction with no external referents - the concept using semiotics to refer to other concepts, fabricating a self-referential web of words.

Selling it to the majority is also relatively easy, because they are already predisposed to shamelessly accepting anything that offers them relief; anything that validates and justify their belief in what is contrary to experienced reality, because there is the source of their suffering and need.
Any concept that contradicts this source of insecurity is welcomed.
Zero integrity to resist. Easily indoctrinated into anything that promises salvation - code for relief from suffering, anything that promises pleasure.

Then the creative ones can fabricate pretty prose, in support of this pleasing alternative to experienced reality.
This will create cults, each adopting a different nihilistic, pleasing, narrative.
All will share disdain for experienced reality, i.e., nature, as the only source of suffering.

As I've said elsewhere, words are now given a new utility.
They no longer concept the mental concept, abstraction, with the phenomenon, in the experienced world, but words refer to other words, fabricating a semiotic weave of text, that not only evades making any contact with reality, but is valued by the degree to which it contradicts, theoretically nullifies, experienced reality.

Free-will is a perfect synthesis of abstractions.
'Free' and 'Will'.
Both words refer to nothing in the world, to what is active, but only to text, conventional utility, dictionary definitions, to texts in books supporting the same definitions...
'Will' no longer refers to an act....nor does 'free' qualify 'will'.
Both words are now defined out of existence.
To validate their shared definitions one must find it 'outside experienced existence.'

Think about how they've defined free-will and what would be required for that definition to be validated.
Impossible, or one must declare an occult world where their definitions hold true.
In this world they can never hold true. Because they, charlatans, made sure of it....and the myriads of desperate degenerates flocked to be included in the ruse.

Think of how they've defined free-will....not even their omnipotent, omniscient god could meet their criteria.
Not even their god has free-will, so how can a mortal man?
This is all intentional.
Why do they flock, so passionately so desperately....why do they have no shame, sacrificing what little integrity they have?
To achieve what?
What pleasure do they seek?
They seek salvation.
Relief form culpability.
How else can they ever hope to live-upo to their own ideals, if they are not absolved of all responsibility; all sin; all intentionality.
How else can they remain innocent victims?
Remember, this is a Judeo-Christian'Ilamic slave ethical system.
Victim is the highest position on its slave hierarchy.
Think of the relief an atheist would feel when he adopts this method of self-absolution.
His life choices are now revised. He could not have chosen otherwise.
His entire life was determined, by an external agency - if not god then vile men, full of vices.
He, too, a victim of fate.
All those regrets falling away.
This was the only life he could have ever lived.
Not because of an absolute god, but because of absolute cosmic order.
No man could have ever acted contrary to cosmic order.

A play in words.
The absolute singularity, oneness, named god - Abrahamic god - becomes a more rational abstraction: universe, absolute order.
Everything follows the paths laid out to them by cosmic forces.
Shall we check the stars?

Does this change anything?
It only offers relief to those who want to die with the belief that they did the only thing they could have done.
They die pure and innocent.
Puer aeternus

Irony of Ironies
Whenever nihilists speak irony soon emerges... and paradoxes spring forth, as if from nowhere. They believe the irony is caused by their adversary’s self-contradictions, when it is how they’ve understood their adversaries, or misunderstood them – intentionally or not – which is the true cause.

Case in point... the true authoritarians are determinists, for they believe there is only one true way, and there can be no other way – the way which has ben determined.
To be honest, there are two variants of these cowardly imbeciles: positive nihilists, who believe they know the ‘one true determined way,’ because god told them, or because they’ve achieved profound insights into cosmic, absolute, order, and have managed to decipher the mathematical codes, and now they know what the determined path is. Then there are the true nihilists who declare the one true determined path as anything that is ...after the fact. No matter what the circumstances, those were the only consequences that could have ever been determined. There can never be error because even error has been determined and is part of the path already determined. So, after-the-fact, they know what the one true path is, and it is the only one that could have ever been.
Clever, no? Not really ...clever, in an infantile kind of way.
This is not what realists, like myself, claim. For us, there is no one true way, since wills are as free as their power allows them to be. So, there are multiple ways, but not all of them are equally successful, or equally accurate in approximating the consequences relative to the subjective individual’s objectives, and not all objectives are equally realizable.
Degrees... probabilities …across the existential board. No certainties, no absolutes, no one way.
We claim that what will be determined will be determined with or without our participation. There is no ‘one true path’ because fee-will implies that all wills can choose an alternate path, and will be advantaged or disadvantaged by their willful actions (choices), to the degree that they’ve accurately approximated the circumstances – consequences are determined by how accurate they’ve subjectively evaluated these circumstances, relative to their subjective objectives, and what other willful agencies will choose to do. There is, nor can ever be no ‘one true path’ to anywhere because this would negate natural selection and comic flux.
Especially, the concept of natural selection depends on selecting those who have judged, approximated, the odds more accurately, and have acted effectively, based on those subjective judgements.
Cowardly hypocrites, like postmodern determinists, want to preserve the comfortable ideal that a divine agency, an omnipotent force, determines everything, and they willing to accept the consequences of whatever has been willed, for them, if it only liberates them from the realization of the quality of their own minds. They desperately want to preserve this Abrahamic one-god, only they don’t want it to be obvious, but prefer it to be concealed in linguistic clouds of obscurantism. Such cowards mask their Abrahamic herd-psychology behind pseudoscientific and philosophical jargon, having replaced the concept of an omnipotent one-god, with the concept of absolute order, and a universe.
Same shit, minus the anthropomorphism.
They are the real totalitarians – they literally believe in a whole they call universe, or existence, or world. They are the ones that believe in the ‘one true path,’ nothing and nobody can ever contradict, because even contradictions are part of it.
Nobody can ever veer outside this ‘one true determined path’... because it is noetic.
They believe this because the alternative is much more painful than the realization that they are self-deceiving cowards, and delusional hypocrites, and that realization is that their quality of mind is what participates in what determines the outcome of their choices, meaning they contribute in the determination of whatever happens to them, to whatever degree their powers allow.
True, other minds are participating in what is being determined, and what is even more important and decisive, is that unpredictable chaos is an indispensable part of it all. Nevertheless, they and their quality of mind are factors in determining everything they suffer or enjoy in their lives.
So, nihilistic inversions once again. There’s no end to the mind-games, word-games, these effete fuckers will invent to escape reality.
One method is projecting upon their adversaries what they are most guilty of; a way of preserving their eternal innocence – their worthiness for salvation, so to speak.
Calling them ‘recovering Abrahamics’ is the least insulting thing one can call them.

Just to encapsulate...
Determinists believe in the 'one true determined path.' allowing the emergence of charlatans who can claim that they've read the stars, or the sacred scriptures, where this true path is laid out - in allegorical form - awaiting to be deciphered by the 'chosen' or the 'worthy.'

Free-will implies the opposite.....what is being determined can never be absolutely known, but can only be approximated, not only because there are myriads of free-willed life-forms but also because the cosmos is not absolutely ordered, but is also chaotic.
These three factors mean that there can never be a one true path.

Also, not all life forms choose the same path toward the same objectives, and some do not even share the same objectives as the majority.

As I've said...all value judgements are triangulations of a subject, its particular objective, and its subjective evaluation of the distance/path towards it.
Here natural selection is decisive.
Not all objectives are realizable, and not all paths successfully attain the same objectives.

Therefore, the subject is the central factor - the tip of the pyramid - in determining the consequences of its actions.
The subject's power/strength - determining the degree of its participation in what is being determined.
The subject's quality, determining the accuracy of its evaluations, and the attainability of its objectives.
The subject's courage, determining how much of what it can evaluate it can accept and integrate into its judgements and actions.

Following from the previous...

Who are these cowards and hypocrites accusing of being fascists, nazis, authoritarians, totalitarians, brutes, ignoramuses, if all is determined and nobody has a choice?
Are they, perhaps, expressing their nihilistic anti-existential, anti-nature psychosis, using representatives of these cosmic "injustices" to whatever they believe they deserve?
Are they, perhaps, expressing self-hatred by projecting upon existence all the faults they perceive in themselves, and everything "wrong" about their lot in life?

Nihilists create paradoxes, and then claim it is all part of cosmic mysticism....complexity...it's all incomprehensibly comprehensible, to them.
They define concepts in ways that make them impossible to exist and then bitch about it.

They complain about how meaningless existence is - meaning that all is without purpose, without a telos to justify their suffering, because they've defined 'meaning' in a way that makes it meaningless and they've confused it with purpose, which they've nullified because of the way they've defined 'free-will.'
They don't want to give themselves a purpose but insist that the cosmos ought to give them what they lack and can never have, because they've intentionally made it impossible for them to give themselves a purpose, and through this give their lives meaning - because 'meaning' simply means connectivity, inter-relations, how everything interconnects, interacts - so, the cosmos is brimming with meaning, and giving your life meaning entails making connections, by giving yourself an objective, a purpose, beyond the one already present: self-propagation.
All life has a purpose....and this gives their struggles meaning.....but man wants more.
He wants a purpose independent form him...a universal purpose, and fi it is not available then all is without purpose.

But how can they hope to do this when they've negated 'free-will' by defining it in ways that makes it impossible?
Like with god, they've intentionally defined the concept 'out of existence'......imagining it as either being absolutely positive or absolutely negative - something or nothing - one or nil.
The binaries of absoluteness.
The concept will either be supernatural, essentially contradicting existence, or it will be considered null and void.
This is the dilemma they've placed themselves in because they choose to protect themselves from the realization of who they truly are, as individuals, and are willing to sacrifice everything, including their integrity, to achieve this objective.
this gives them purpose and their life meaning....
Ironic, no.
Meaninglessness is what gives them meaning.
Nihilistic inversions.
Hopelessness gives them hope.
Slavery liberates them.
Acknowledging their complete dependence makes them feel independent.

As I've noted....what we call nihilism - beyond conventional definitions - is a defensive attitude using semiotics to construct noetic bastions around the ego......and these artifices can be anything that constructs a barrier between them and existence, and so nihilism is multifarious.

This is evident in the conventional definitions of nihilism - which are part of the paradigm itself.
How do they define nihilism?
The absence of god, morality, meaning, etc.
They've intentionally defined all these concepts by detaching them from perceptible actions, and then declare them to be non-existent....
But, you fools, how you've defined them makes them non-existent.....existing only as mental constructs with no external referents.
You've done this yourselves.
You've made existence meaningless, and morality a social construct...you've done this because you are hypocrites and cowards, desperately wanting to protect their ego from something very hurtful.
The motives are emotional, not rational.

Determinists are totalitarians.
There can only be one determined way.
No alternatives.
All is determined.
They will not allow diversity, even though they pretend to promote it.
There is no right or wrong way because all ways are right....as they've been determined.
God's will nullify human will. Humans have no will; all they can ever do is abide by god's will.
It's the biblical narrative again. Man warned and punished for exercising his will, contrary to what has been determiend....god's will.
Man reduced to a stone...

You can't even think of contradicting god's will, for it is also determined by his will.

Free-will implies there are a myriad alternatives, each with its risks and costs.
It's part of natural selection. Superior judgements multiply the probability of a positive outcome, relative to an objective
Without free-will there is no natural selection.... only creation theory.

They - nihilists - will do anything to escape multiplicity, into one kind of uniform absolute or another.
Why?
Because in gradations their lives are exposed and laid bare....
There's no hiding in words when the multiplicities of actions express an essence.
Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living, but also it exposes the spirit of higher life-forms - where 'spirit' refers to mind/body synthesis.

Judgements are inconspicuous actions.
Choices are judgements made conspicuous.
Life is judging and choosing continuously. This is consciousness - discrimination.
To differentiate and select, relative to an objective.

Denial of free-will - using linguistics - is part of the same nihilistic paradigm that has infested Western man for over two-thousand years - part of the same mindset that includes Abrahamism and Marxism.
It justifies itself through the absence of absolutes, such as omniscience - so as to then indirectly claim, through associations, using the absence of absolute awareness, knowledge as a justification for their absurdities and defensive denials.
They apply this same method to deny anything that contradicts their nihilistic objectives - race/ethnicity, sex/gender, quality, superiority etc.
Denial of free-will is part of the same psychosis that became addicted to Abrahm's one-god - God's will now converted to a faceless, obscure, Will, denoting the same totalitarian, authoritarian, absolutism.
If god will not determine their actions, then some amorphous agency, with the exact same attributes, will have to stand-in.

The objective is preserved....by simply using different terminologies and masking the same superstitions within pseudo-iscientific jargon.
Ignorance is the primary justification.
Since absolute knowledge is impossible, or as of yet, unachievable, then every perspective is equally possible....so why not choose the one that makes you feel good, or promises you pleasure?

Existential anxiety remains the basis of this herd psychology.
Whatever remains inexplicable, becomes the foundation for their metaphysical denials.
Forget perceptible actions...all must be converted to abstractions, represented by words/symbols, because only then can these concepts be semiotically affirmed or dismissed...absolutely.
Either/Or.

Humans have been doing this since they learned to convert their thought into drawing....or share them orally, via sonic patterns.
Whatever they could not explain, nor understand, they projected their fears and hopes into.

The methods used to deny free-will, is a template on how to deny any concept, including race/ethnicity, sex/gender, male/female, identity, morality/ethics etc.

Ideological/Dogmatic Connections
Abrahamism is metaphysical authoritarianism
Determinism is cosmic totalitarianism.
The former and the latter differ only in that the former identifies and personifies the cause, whereas the latter maintains it as obscure and abstract as is necessary to make it tolerable.
God’s will minus god.
Both are nihilistic in that they both disregard the act of will (choice), claiming that there’s an absolute force, agency, undermining the completeness of man’s willful actions/choices; both use linguistics, defining terms in ways that would make them impossible to exist, conventionally establishing said definitions through repetition and popular appeal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
When philosophy has become a political took, for the exploitation of human cowardice and idiocy....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Chaos does not prove free-will, it necessitates it.

Defining a concept by setting the bar in the supernatural, is disingenuous.

Free-will does not mean to be liberated from what has been predetermined, nor to make random choices.....thnis is what morons tell themselves to deny their own participation in determining their own fate.

Wil is to act, directing yourself towards an objective.
Free qualifies the quantity of options available.
These options are determined in the past, where you participated in their determination, to the degree of your power.

Power is what determines to what degree you participate in what is being determined.
Power is not omnipotence, or having infinite options, nor is 'free' to be independent form existence itself, independent from precedent.
This definition is nihilistic.
Nothing can be independent from its past, since it is a manifestation of it - past made present.

Chaos, or random energies, necessitate free-will, since consciousness must deal with the unpredictable.

If all were predictable and even judgments and choices, willful actions, were predetermined, then that would make them unnecessary.
There would be no reason to go through the pretence of judging and choosing...willing.
It would be superfluous.....if you had no agency and did not contribute to what is being determined.

These fuckers are so desperate to escape culpability, or regret, or the realization that they are partly responsible for what happens to them, that they would describe their own existence as a farce...a joke.

Sadistic Worship
Belief in an entirely ordered, deterministic universe where there is no free-will, is a form of masochism. It implies that consciousness emerges to observe and to increase its own suffering by remaining an impotent witness of what it can do nothing about; a ‘victim of universal order,’ and of a universal will – metaphor for god – that can only hope to stoically endure what hardships have been determined, i.e., fatalism.
All masochists desire a sadistic other to exact punishment upon them, for no other reason than for their own pleasure.
Has not Abraham introduced us to a sadistic god?
Can modern men give-up this relationship, now that they’ve been trained to identify with being masochistic victims, who can only make themselves enjoy the suffering existence has determined?

Free-Will in Abrahamism is a warning.
God gave you will, not to exercise it but to surrender it to his, proving your worthiness, to be saved.
Used to absolve god of evil, accusing man's free-will....man's agency.
Adam loses paradise when he dares to exercise his free-will.
This is 'sin'.... necessitating salvation myths to 'correct.
Secula nihilists - recovering Abrahamic - do not require a salvation myth because they deny they had the freedom to contradict god's will.
They have no sin, no guilt to absolve...they are innocent.
All is in accordance with god's will - cosmic order.
No need for a salvation myth.

In all cases they seek absolution.
Innocence....no guilt, no shame...no culpability.
They have no choice.

Nihilistic spirit.
Victim identity.

A play on man's awakening to life's brutality.
To preserve life, one must take life.
Ouroboros.
A consequence of man's developing selkf-cosnciuosness.....where nihilism must construct its walls of code to protect the ego.


As I've noted....nihilism is a multiplicity of defensive ideologies/dogmas....
A worldview.
It's motive it to protect the ego from its awakening to itself, relative to other.
It's emerging third-person perspective - objectivity.

Life always identifies with pain and suffering because existence is experienced as such.
He must purify his suffering, to feel worthy of salvation.....or, to at least feel unresponsible for his own fate.
He cannot cope with the idea that his life was partially determined by his own judgments and choices.
this is too painful.
Worse than regret, it is devastating.
He needs someone, something to unload his culpability.
He needs to believe that he could not have lived a different life.

We perform a myriad little unconscious and conscious actions, we make a myriad unconscious and conscious seemingly insignificant choices daily, and each of them causes a cascade of consequences we remain oblivious to.
Butterly Effect.
Every day we make seemingly insignificant choices - we choose one word and not another, we choose to push on the gas rather than the break when the lights turn yellow, we choose to turn left, rather than right, or forward or to turn back.... we choose to act rather than not....and all that we forget in the course of our daily routines.
But the cosmos does not erase the consequences because we've forgotten or failed to remain aware.
All those thousands, millions insignificant acts, seemingly trivial choices, accumulate multiplying the probability of a specific effect to materialize.
I'm not saying the actions and choices of other living beings, or the activities of cosmic flux, do not participate in the outcome, but what I am saying is that our own conscious and unconscious actions and choices participate in what will be determined.
Little significant choices over time lead to great effects - each one multiplying the odds.

Another thing to consider is how an individual can unconsciously sabotage his own conscious objectives.
He may believe he is doing what he can to bring about a specific outcome, but his subconscious may not agree.
He may subconsciously be undermining his own objectives and not even be aware of it.
He may be performing actions or making unconscious choices that reduce the odds of a particular outcome materializing....and then blaming the world, or his luck, or god, or cosmic determinism.

Every one of our conscious and unconscious actions; every on of our conscious and unconscious choices has a consequence.
These consequences compound and grow to great effects, and our acknowledgment and awareness is not a requirement.
Whether we know or understand our own participation in our own fate, does not matter.
The consequences remain unaffected by our judgements.
What is affected is our subsequent actions and choices that simply add to what we've participated in determining, to whatever significant or insignificant degree.
The degree is determined by our power.
The more power we have - not think we have - the more our actions and choices affect what will be determined.

Our power being the product of our aggregate organic energies, but also our influence over others.
Two types of freedom:
Freedom from....and freedom to.
The former is reactive, defensive, the latter is proactive, offensive...
A slave always thinks of freedom as 'freedom from,' and a master thinks of it as 'freedom to.'
So, free-will, for the slavish spirit is always an absolute liberation from causality, from his past, from what has been determined, seemingly without his consent.
The slave ridicules 'freedom to' by reminding himself that he cannot do anything he wishes - he is not absolutely free, because he is not omnipotent, and for him this means he is absolutely unfree and impotent.
This is how he comforts himself, trying to find parity with those he feels inferior to.
Since nobody, except god, is omnipotent, and absolutely free, therefore all are equally unfree and impotent.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Either/Or absolutism.
If the absolutely positive is absent (god, omnipotence, singularity, one, good, meaning), then its absolute opposite is present (nothingness, meaninglessness, void, nil, emptiness).
Either way absoluteness is maintained for the cowardly degenerate.
Certainty is preserved.
What terrifies him is cosmic uncertainty - the chaotic part of existence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
People prefer to forget, but this does not make the consequences go away - and because people forget all those tiny little insignificant actions and choices they've performed, and are constantly performing, the consequences are a surprise to them.
They cannot understand how things turned out the way they did, even if they participated in their determination, with their tiny little insignificant, conscious and unconscious, actions and choices.

They desperately need to remain innocent, blameless, sinless, shameless, guiiltless....pure.
This is the only way they can feel victimized by forces beyond their comprehension.
Their powerless impotence must be made into a universal truth.
Their akratia, - lack of control - must be excused.
They could not have ever acted, chosen to do, what they did....or will do in the future.

Again...
If life has no freedom to will, then how is it different from what is lifeless?
My distinction between life and non-life is that the former wills, and it wills (chooses) what it judges (evaluates) to be good for it - good/bad determined by its objectives, which is primarily its own continuance (survival).
Reproduction being part of its continuance, necessitated by its mortality.

If life has no choice, then what is natural selection?
Who or what is selecting?
Why are they selecting if all is determined, anyway?
Why go through the trouble of developing the illusion of choice (selection), at all?
Is not the denial of free-will - determinism - an indirect affirmation of Creationism?
Why would it even be necessary to determine the illusion of judgement-based choices, if choice is illusory, and men have no choice at all?

If life is no different than non-life - a stone is no different than a cat; a drop of water no different than a dolphin; a speck of dust no different than a human being - then why was it even necessary for life to be determined into existence?
Does the cosmos have a motive...does it want to increase suffering, because that's the only thing that is increased, if we adopt the positions of these cowardly determinists, and Recovering Abrahamics.
Did life emerge to suffer and to have its suffering multiplied when it was determined for it to develop the realization that it is also impotent - unable to intentionally affect the degree of its own suffering?

How we define concepts - represented by words/symbols - determines our relationship with our existence.
If we choose the currently conventional definitions of 'will' and 'free', then our motives are tied into the current American zeitgeist - infected by Abrahamic nihilism.
We seek the relief it offers a compensation for the sacrifices it demands.
For the majority it is a reasonable sacrifice. They judge the advantages to be superior to the disadvantages.

Chomsky spoke of Manufacturing Consent, and we can affirm his reasoning when we consider the impact of propaganda and marketing on the human psyche.
A 'positive lie' overcomes lingering skepticism...and the masses are convinced that what they wish were true is actually so.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:
Hollywood - art of deception
Marketing = science of deception
Politics = power of deception, or through deception
Pragmatism = successful application of deception

All civilization necessitates a level of deception....like all relationships, but Americanism has made it part of its core principles, just as Judaism has incorporated nihilism into its dogma - what it calls its 'covenant with the divine.'
Power through weakness.

Existential Paradox
When a man reaches for power, he expresses and exposes his powerlessness.
Ergo, life wills because it lacks.

-------------------------------
Sidenote:
When philosophers formulated their Will to...this or that....whilst rejecting any degree of man's free-will, what were they implying?
What will life, or power?
Can't be man....can't be the individual for he, according to them, has no free-will.
What is determining their will to anything?
God?

At least Schopenhauer replaced god's will with will itself, positioning it - like Abraham's nihilistic one-god - 'outside' causality, outside space/time... outside experienced existence.
His recovery was obviously not complete.
Nor was Nietzsche's who spent his mind on battling the demons he inherited form his father.
Did he manage to 'live dangerously'?
He could not engage nature's most dangerous creature, woman.

The Germanic and English Races believe that, if you are Free to move about, not jailed, then you are fundamentally "Free".

The Hellenic and Jewish Races believe otherwise, that Freedom is a mental aspect, and not a physical aspect.

In America, this results in a Post-Liberal phenomenon... that American Liberals believe that the Southern Negro Slaves were 'Freed', because they were then "free" to move about and removed from ownership contracts, but the Older Cultures, the Old World, knows better than that. That is why the American Continent is not yet, fundamentally, "Conservative".

Because Freedom is note merely a physical attribute, not merely a matter of where a body can move to and from.

It is also, fundamentally, a matter of what can be Thought and Imagined.