Free-Will

When considering the psychology of the one who wants to absolve himself of all responsibility, we must first understand the power of the will to exert itself upon what has been determined.
A fine line we must weave between the predetermined, and predictable, and the unpredictable, necessitating the agency of perception and reaction we've come to call 'choice'.
Accepting responsibility for the past, is accompanied with the participation of what will come to be, through the actions of all that exists presently.
In turn those who shall live, and accept this burden, will accept the choices we presently make, in this way every generation of beings, participating in a reproductive family, will inherit and contribute or subtract, from this inheritance his own small amount.

If we are to accept the superposition of those who claim there is no free-will whatsoever, we will recognize the antidote of those who claim absolute free-will as a means of punishing those who apply it in a manner they disapprove.
For, as much as these are such authoritarian psychologies, governed by vindictive masochism, there are psychologies who are governed by a desire to claim innocence, and a child-like irresponsibility, as their defence.
The absolutes have always existed in human minds, as the two-poles of binary thinking.  
If not absolute independence, then absolute dependence, contains the psyche in an either/or dualism of noetic absolutes.
It's all one or its all nil, is where we are stuck.
The mind is unwilling to accept a more liquid alternative, that lies outside this rigid mental framework, though it hints at it, casting side-glances at it using symbols.
This new kind of thinking is a kind of liberation from the binary, using art to allude to what cannot be focused upon.

When we say 'determined' we imply what cannot be changed, and has manifested in presence, perceived as appearance.
The concept of a immutable, creator God, is this allusion to the past, that is continuously being added to with every choice and ever action - conscious and unconscious.
The conscious would be unnecessary if all were determined, unless we wish to believe that the cosmos is a joke, or it is, itself, masochistic, forcing itself to experience what it cannot change - making life a process of experiencing what is beyond its ability to, not choose, or to change.
Even the act of suicide would be entirely determined and not a matter of individual choice.

The past is inherited by an organism, and it has no choice in the matter, but what is inherited is potentials, which can be applied, or not, and to a degree determined by the individual itself.
The individual becomes a representation of past, that is contributing to it with every choice and every wilful act.
It inherits memories, producing potentials, but what it does with these is entirely determined by fluctuating circumstances, some following predictable patterns and others forcing a slight real-time modification, that may contradict, to a degree, automatic dispositions.
This slight choice to contradict the path-of-least-resistance, is the expression of a degree of free-will, that contributes to the past, and determines the future.

There is no need to 'punish' because the actor, the individual as natural agency, is the one that will enjoy the benefits or pay the costs of its choices, unless an external agency intervenes to adjust these costs/befits for its own reasons.
Why would anyone wish to punish free-will when it must face the consequences of its own choices?
Only if we wish the other to choose in accordance to our will.
Why would we intervene upon the 'innocent' one, if the choices are not its own, but are entirely determined by another, or by the past?
Would not our own interventions be determined, and not dye to our own volition?
If we do not intervene, allowing the other to suffer the costs of his actions, what guilt ought we to feel?

After-the-fact all outcomes could be claimed, or remain unclaimed, as if they belonged to another.
From absolute judge and jury, to absolute innocent child, born to be a spectator of existence.
An existence to be endured, like a slave the master's whip...stoically, with a chuckle - laughing at the tragedy of a master and a slave performing a staged event.
One thinking of both as guilty, and the other thinking of them as innocent; one punishing himself and the other for being who and what they are, and the other stoically enduring, awaiting the unfolding of what has been determined to occur.

The Abrahamic psyche on display.
Absolute master, god on earth.....absolute slave and victim of what he can do nothing about.

Absolutes only exist in the brain, as abstractions.
The word is also used to express certainty, or high probability.
An absolute is an abstraction created by simplifying/generalizing fluid space/time...converting phenomena into noumena - representations, interpretations.

Absolute = immutable, indivisible.

Free = independence.
Dependence = determined past.
Dependence = contingent upon dynamic, interactive energies - patterned and non-patterned energies.
Order/Chaos

Freedom is neither absolute independence, nor absolute dependence.
Past cannot be changed.
Past manifests as presence.
Presence is interactivity = Flux. Flux is interpreted by a consciousness, as appearance.
Interactivity = attraction/repulsion.
An organism is order...and so it can perceive and prefers what is ordered.
Order = dynamic patterns - energy/liquid/matter.
Chaos = non-patterned dynamic energies.


Chaos is what necessitates immediate reaction.
If all were ordered all would be automated...no consciousness necessary.
Life would be automatic reactions to predictable, repeating, events.
The unforeseeable necessitates creative reactions and difficult choices.

Abrahamism = 1/0 binary dualistic thinking.
Nihilism = noumena usurp phenomena - the representation is real, the represented is illusion.
Idea(l)/Real = the idea is real, the real is ideal - inversion.

Abrahamism punishes the actor for actions.
Though god created man, he have him absolute freedom - Adam/Eve.
The psychosis of Abrahamism punishes individuals for being exactly what God made them.
The choice of no choice = Christian dilemma.
The un-free free-will.
God gives man freedom, but if man contradicts god's will, man is punished with eternal suffering - a non-choice choice.

Reaction to Abrahamism - secular Nihilism.
Man is innocent, not guilty.
All his actions are not his own.
All he can do is validate them, take responsibility for what he had no choice in.
Slave psychology.
Salve is innocent of his own enslavement, and can only await emancipation - enduring slavery - Stoicism.
Master is innocent of punishing the slaves indiscretions.

Master/Slave are trapped in a performance.
Both innocent of their own condition.
The cynic is born.
The one who laughs at the circumstances, believing it could not be any other way.
The only 'rational' reaction is an expunging of nervous energy - laughter.
Laughter at the determined circumstances.
Nobody is at fault....slave and master are both will-less automatons, acting out what has been determined.
Both are ignorant of what will occur.
Will the slave free himself?
Will he fight back?
Will the master take pity on the slave?
Will he become even more brutal?
Nobody knows...nobody can do anything about it.
Nobody knows what has been determined.
The choice and the outcome will appear inevitable, after-the-fact.
No matter what happens, the events will be determined, and the actors will be acting them out.

Absolute guilt, is remedied by absolute innocence.
Master/Slave are either entirely guilty, or entirely innocent.
They are writing the script, or following it.
There's no room for improvisation.

Abrahamism, if it is not determined, then it is divine, out of your control. Or, "free by divine decree". Only a certain people are 'chosen' to negotiate with the divine.


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

Abrahamism converting to secular Idealism.

If God did not create man, in his own image, then what determines his actions, and his choices?

Paradise becomes Utopia.
The after death, becomes the immanent future.
Creator God, becomes determining Order.  

The noumenon usurps the phenomenon - the idea(l) corrects the real.
Mind completely overcomes body/physical = independent.
Mind is completely bound by body/physical = dependent.

How you define a word exposes your intent and your integrity.

The word 'god' can be defined in a way that will make it incomprehensible, surreal, supernatural, eternally unattainable.
The Greeks defined gods in pragmatic attainable ways - their gods were experienced daily, constantly.
The word 'self' can be defined pragmatically, or in a way that makes the concept nonsensical, and forever unattainable.
The word 'race'....the word 'sex'....the words 'female/male'....the word 'human'...the word 'absolute'....the word 'freedom'....the word 'morality'....and on and on.

Using words man can comfort, lie, trick, pretend....
World remains indifferent to human word-games.
It is up to man to use words to engage the world, rather than to try to evade it.
Either way he will face the consequences, if not sooner then later.

Man chooses from what options are available to him...and with his choices he determines the consequences.
His options are determined and are limited, by the past, but not decided in the past.
Man's choices will determine his future choices, adjusting his options and the degree to which he can divert from them.

Will involves multiple levels. If a degenerate wishes to have free reign, it takes the argument of will down to the lowest level where it can engage. It also freaks out if any level it cannot engage on becomes the field in which it must be conscious. It is the management of consciousness which is a management of will, for whatever is not distinguished cannot be adapted to. A race of simpletons need not understand the levels higher than them nor empathize to fear it and accuse its countenancing as an act of malice. This race would constantly try to destroy any progressive structures, culturally or institutionally, for fear of being left behind - and redefine progress into that which causes them no fear, meaning also (for an arrogant race) no responsibility. Will focuses energies, a lower level will is less focused and scattered. The non-progressive race wishes to keep wills unfocused, as their incompatibility with its refinement becomes sharply obvious. They prefer instead to scatter it. By this scattering, they free their own will to buddy-up with the retarded and unfocused, while also leaving paths open to retreat to another kind. Sociocultural structures are monopolies of attention: multiculturalism disallows any focus socially.

Positive Nihilism: Man is absolutely free, and is the governor of his own fate.
The world is willed into existence, either by God, or the community, or the individual.
From Abrahamism to Marxism.
In both punishment is given not for freely willing but for willing contrary to an external will: God or State
The individual is not punished for choosing, but for choosing 'wrongly'.
The ruse, the lie of Nihilism. It posits an absolute which ought not to be applied, used, on 'moral' grounds. Morality becomes the representation of God's will, or the communal will, the State.  

Pure Nihilism: Man is absolutely un-free - innocent of all responsibilities.
Even accepting or denying responsibility is not of his own volition.  
The absolute negation of everything that gives man options, that exposes man to a fluid, fluctuating, existence.
Only one antidote to the positive Nihilist is available: the equally absolute, nullification, of his mental abstractions.
The absolute, existing in his mind, as abstraction, can only be nullified with another absolute existing in the head.
Absolute nullification of personal responsibility makes even the acceptance and denial of it a matter determined.
Man is audience of his own existing, forced to rile against his fate, already determined, or to stoically endure it, also already determined.
Passive-aggression: to cynically laugh at one's own fate, because one is unable to change it in any way.
Accepting responsibility for what is not of your will, is a masochistic game the master imposes upon the slave: he punishes the slave for what he is not responsible, knowing the slave must accept it and endure it.
The Christian, being another version of 'positive' Nihilism, did not punish the individual for applying his free-will, but for applying it in contradiction to God's, or the State's, or his own. The individual is 'free' only in as much as he will use this freedom to follow and submit: the total subjugation of the will that chooses its own enslavement. A willing slave is better than a resisting one. The slave becomes his own enslaver - master no longer needs to build and maintain costly prisons.


As always the real exists outside human contrivances, and is fluid and fluctuating.
No need to punish the application of free-will, in whatever degree, because the individual is rewarded or punished by the consequences of his won choices.
The past cannot be altered (chosen); the vast majority of existence is beyond the individual's ability to intervene, to impose his will and alter; his own disposition has already been determined as one that comes easily and naturally.
So, freedom is the reaction to the unforeseeable, forcing the individual to adapt, diverge from the determined.
Freedom is only possible in the ongoing present. It is a reaction to the unforeseeable...one aspect of the unforeseeable is the will of others.

A pragmatic approach to free-will does not attempt to change anyone's mind, or protect them form his own judgments.
It opposes any intervention that protects the individual from the consequences of its own judgments, and expressions of free-will.

There's no desire to punish, as the process, if allowed to function as it does in nature, leads to an outcome.

Subjectivity is the desire to reduce all to a wilful choice, but then it also proposes protective measures to maintain the delusion of parity.
The positive Nihilist wills existence into being and then lies or is violent against failure, finding excuses and scapegoats.
If the absolute one cannot be created then it must be the fault of another. The absolute, the intent, is never in doubt.
The pure Nihilist is driven by the desire to reduce all to nil.
All is either meaningless, or equally false. There is no free-will, meaning all are equally automatons just doing what has been determined.

The one God of Abrahamism is replaced by a secular absolute Order, represented by the 'one'...or the absolute is levelled down to a uniform 'nil'.
Absolute guilt, or absolute innocence.
One is either master, refusing freedom because of fear, or one is salve, refusing the very possibility of freedom, and the shame of denying freedom to evade culpability. The slave is only the one that acknowledges and accepts the master's will, what has been determined for him.

The 'absolute' is a given.
No degrees, no levels mirroring fluctuating interactivity, and order/chaos dynamics....an absolute oneness or noneness.

Positive Nihilist declares his absolute truth, convinced that his will can create worlds...then he accuses some malevolent other when he repeatedly fails to bring this absolute into the world.
Instead, he may selectively pronounce phenomena as validating his noetic construct - words on top of more words.

The Pure Nihilist also declares his absolute negation of truth, as his truth. His words are world destroyers.
He can never fail, because he has nothing at stake - literally nothing.
All he has to do is find fault, laugh, ridicule, evade, and wait for death, while indulging in distracting hedonistic excesses.

One acknowledges the other as his only adversary, because both take the nihilistic paradigm, the binary absolute literally. They share their confidence in linguistic power.
Their paradigm is built on the mathematical language - 1/0.
Words are always referring to abstractions that are vague enough to be proclaimed absolute.

Fragmentations, reflecting cosmic dynamism, are imploded into the binary 1/0.
It is their shared underlying mysticism. The code of existence.
Not representations that approximate, but truths that usurp the experienced.

We are convinced that the world could only have been as it is, after-the-fact......from our own existence, to the minuteness of happenstances seem to us to be predetermined because of the lag time between conceiving and existing.
The brain requires a period of space/time to gather data, and process them.
No matter how fast this process is there is, nevertheless, a discrepancy between the phenomenon that produced the stimulation, which was then processed as feeling, sensation, or integrated into an abstraction.

We can say that we are looking-back, as we live forward.
Most of our processes are automated, as they always are in lower life forms, but in man and higher life forms the faculty of judgment arises, producing the possibility of intervening on these automated reactions.
To achieve this the mind must intervene upon the automatic reactions, that have evolved over thousands of years, and reprogram itself to react differently - we call this second-nature.  
The process is laborious and uncertain, requiring many hours of 'training', meditating.
It begins with self-knowledge....acknowledging what is occurring and how.  
A phenomenon interacts with a medium, the medium interacts with the sense-organ, and the organism reacts automatically, the mind becoming aware of it after-the-fact, as if it were occurring without its consent.  
This produces the illusion of 'god' which is then secularized in the belief of absolute order - essentially the fundamental trait of omnipotence/omnipresence, and sometimes omniscience are retained, and the anthropomorphic traits, alluding to Abrahamic superposition, are 'surpassed'.
This is interpreted as 'progress' or 'enlightenment'.

Free-Will

Two words.

Free = not absolute independence.
Will= not an external force.

Freedom is the act of contradicting, or diverting from past, which establishes a path-of-least-resistance.
A path determined by fluctuating interactions...always changing.
This method requires no consciousness. The shifting environment determines the least-resistant-path undertaken by a process. It is a relationship between aggregate energies, and resistance, or the attrition of interactivity.
The will acts as a focus.
Will = aggregate organics energies - directed by stored memories - precedent.

Higher life-forms can project mind further ahead, or into the future, evaluating probabilities in relation to cosmic possibilities.
This makes it aware of more than the immediate.
It's a way of compensating for the mental lag i spoke of above.
Only then can such an organism, with this ability, choose a path-of-more-resistance.
A path that contradicts or diverges from what has been determined.

In a sense nihilism is this contradiction pushed to its intellectual limit.
It becomes self-destructive.

Satyr wrote:

In a sense nihilism is this contradiction pushed to its intellectual limit.

What is really simple and dullardly, with epicyclic justifications, can appear deep. Especially when there is no cost or meaning, and people simply say words out of base fear and cost aversion - whatever it is that maintains spectacle and vagueness; keeping the other blind to what's obvious.

What would be the only punishment for those who apply their free-will to contradict shared interests, as these are defined by the elites?
God was invented to represent this stated and often unstated, shared will.
Sheltering has prevented natural consequences.
What is left but 'guilt', the sublimation of shame into a communal framework - memetic punishment, when genetics are denied relevance.
Guilt punishable by an eternity of torture.  
Biblical narratives state it.
Adam and Eve were given paradise.....if they did not break God's rule...one rule to taunt them and test them.
The punishment has been, ever since then, shame and guilt that cannot be erased, but only through a lifetime of suffering, and surrender to the only Will permitted.
The story implies it clearly.
Will of man is free to submit to the will of god....another way of saying absolute order.
Contradicting this rule risks eternal damnation.
Freedom offered as a taunt, a test.
Abrahamism is sadistic and masochistic.

This narrative is secularized, made mundane, brought down to earth, along with Paradise lost....Utopia immanent....in the future.
Forever out of reach. Forever pushed away by bad judgments, poor choices.
Absolute order replaces the image of God.
Free-will is verboten...to all but the One. All others await his choices, made for us, on our behalf...and we must endure his Will.
Life becomes a test of our endurance.
Will we accept the determined as our own? Will he accept god's love?
Will he challenge the rules and risk universal retribution?

This psychosis is not present in nature.
There is no need for an external arbiter, a universal authority, to punish the misuse' of freedom, to whatever degree we have it.
We must simply not intervene.
The actor will reap the benefits and suffer the costs. His errors will be punishment enough.  
But post-moderns don't like this idea.
No, there must be a Will, that decides.
If not god, then society.
If not Deus, as absolute authority, then universe, as the one, whole, authority...absolute order.

They must stand behind something, or someone else.
They have a 'right' to be protected from the severity of their wrong judgments.
They do not know what they are doing?
Innocent children, never do.
They cannot even decide to change, as this is also not up to them.
They hope they will, they pray they will....but will they?
They don't know.
Something and/or someone else decides, has already done so, since before they were born. This is a farce, a scripted play....and they are marionettes, dancing to the pull of strings, vanishing in the beyond, in the hidden below, in the above.

All that is left is to endure...to accept the universal decree; to say 'yes', to all that will befall them.
A slave screaming 'YES, more!!!' as his master whips him, for reasons he cannot know.  
The christian must bow before his god's authority.
Thy kingdom come, thy WILL be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
The secular Modern must accept what has been determined, and he can do nothing about.

The thing about reality, called existence, is that it does not require anyone's awareness, or acceptance to exist.
Whether you believe in race, or think its a social construct, will not protect you from your mistake.
Blaming others will not affect others, unless they are forced to deal with you.
Failing to acknowledge your culpability in your mistakes will only guarantee that you will repeat them, suffering the same costs.

Whether you accept Will as being partially free, and not absolutely free, or not free at all, will not alter the consequences...but only affect how you cope and deal with them.
The world cares not if you think you are a god, and your words are world-creating magic.
It will not suffer.
The world does not care if you think you are a impotent will-less automaton, suffering what it can never change.
It will not suffer.

All noumena are interpretations of phenomena, and the interpreter is the one who benefits, from good interpretations, or suffers the costs of bad interpretations.
The world remain mostly unconscious, and indifferent.
Success and failure within it is determined by how you relate to what cannot care about you, and your hopes and dreams...and your endless theories.

Nihilists like to project psychology as a defence. They do it first, and because they have no argument.
To cover their feeble reasoning, they begin with ad hom insinuations, usually by quoting someone who is supposed to intimidate, mangling what was stated to accommodate their passive agressivity.
Free-Will is now accused of harbouring vindictiveness, and they use Christianity as an example to despise and nauseate.
But Christianity never embraced free-will. they were forced to acknowledge it, because they could not justify how a Creator God allowed bad things to happen to 'good people'...how a absolutely 'good' god created evil.
They accept free-will piecemeal...not completely. They practiced huckstery, having been trained by their mother-dogma, their 'source'.  
They said...."Yes men were 'given' free-will, by god, because god 'loves them"....but then they go on and say "But if man uses this freedom to challenge god's will, then an eternal pit of torture awaits him."
It's a kind of feminine trickery - linguistic manipulation.
Like placing a man in a prison with no doors, and taunting him with an unrequited hope...
"You can leave any time you like, but if you do, I will hunt you down and kill you, in a very painful way. It's your choice."
We can imagine ourselves risking it in this case, because humans are fallible....but what of a Being that is described as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
What chance of evading torture do we have?
The entire thing is a sadistic taunt, forcing a bowing down, a total surrender of body and mind, of will itself; submission of the spirit itself.
That's a terrible example for them to use.
But the desperate continue to use it.

Here's the thing....nobody is advocating punishing anyone....ever.
What I'm saying is all, ALL must enjoy the rewards of their judgments and choices, and, AND, the price, the penalty, for a wrong judgment.

How is will exercised in nature, outside man-made environments?
What has been determined in past, is passed on to the individual organism as memory, as DNA code, setting up the limits of its traits - its potentials.
If all were ordered, all would be determined...no escape would be possible.
World is defined as the Christians defined their God, without the childish anthropomorphism - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent...absolute one...indivisible, immutable.
They do this with a mind-trick which I've described elsewhere...a projection into unreality to make the real a whole, a one.

Does anyone punish an animal when it makes a mistake?
Is there a priest to make it feel ashamed, or to make it feel guilty?
Is there a judge and jury of its peers?
No.
This is basic natural selection. Evolution Theory for men-children.

What punishes the organism that makes an error in judgment?
The world, properly defined....environment if you prefer.
If I misjudge my environment, my circumstances, I suffer a cost equal to the degree of my error, and I enjoy the rewards equal to the degree of my accuracy.
No absolutes.
This is why consciousness is a constant evaluating, judging, juxtaposing, and adjusting.
If all is god, all is order, all is determined, then the organism can do no wrong.
Everything it does is correct, because it cannot do otherwise.
So the religious mind rejoices and accept his god's judgment; he submits to god's will.
He can do nothing else.
If he challenges it, he will go to hell for an eternity.

The secular nihilist laughs at his immature brother.
He's create a more sophisticated method of accomplishing the exact same end....surrender to fate.
He's changed the wording, the names, but this is also not up to his will....it has also been determined.
All he can do be a loyal agency for what has been determined.
He's the slave happy he's a slave...not knowing if he will even attempt to escape. If his master punishes him, he does not hate him, nor does he want to avenge himself....if it is not in the 'cards'.  
The secular nihilist has replaced the absolute god metaphor, with the absolute order, or absolute one.
All of it is entirely noetic...as no 'one' exists outside the mind....and no 'absolute', and no 'whole'.
the 'one' exists in the mind as a symbol, a representation....referring to phenomena that are simplified/generalized into what we call an abstraction, a mental model.  
Because what is in the mind is a creation of the mind, then the mind can imagine itself creator-god, accepting the identity, if it is a narcissistic trying to compensate for its insecurities, or it projects the concept into the vague beyond.....wanting to become a child, a woman, protected, cared for, loved and so on.

The abstraction can be defined as immutable, indivisible, because it is not multi-dimensional....and it deals with the dimensions it excludes with vagueness.
This has always been the method of the huckster magician.
the 'negative' the absent, is used to justify itself....or to approach it differently, the void, what man is ignorant of, is where he validates his delusions and sells them to simpletons with the same anxieties.  
Vagueness is the mist of mysticism.
In the dark, or the twilight, shadows merge what is distinct under the sunlight. In the demi-dark, the external mingles with the internal, the exoteric and the esoteric at par.
Mind is overwhelmed, as during sleep, with internal data, merging or adopting abstractions constructed from external data..
Wakefulness and sleep become one.
The body takes over, when the brain is shut-off from the outside the mind/nervous system/body triad; the mind projects without any juxtaposition with the present.
Body, using the mind to project what it desires, what it covets and craves....what it NEEDS.

But try to explain this to an imbecile born and raised in human environments, where an error is not faced with the ultimate price, as it would have in natural environments.
Would not such a mind begin to believe that all judgments are equal?
Would it not relate to the institution as a child to its father - loving his protection, comforted by his stringency, but also hating him for not being as forgiving as mother?


Does a christian hate a god that does not make sense to him; that displays cruelty towards his children no ' real parent ever could?
No, he professes love for him.
Why would a secular nihilists, who believes all is determined, hate or fight the institution that has replaced god, in his psyche?
Why would he fight back?
Same reason a child has a tantrum.
It does not want to leave parental care....and be free.
It only wants to be heard.
why does a women poke at her mate?
Why does she play 'hard to get', and challenge his authority?
Does she desire another?
Perhaps.
Perhaps testing the males worthiness....she wants to feel his 'one and only'; so special he is willing to put up with her taunts and pokes and insults.

The roots of egalitarianism and 'all is subjective and a social construct', mentality is based on the belief that there is no free-will., which connects us further back to the omnipotence of the Abrahamic one-god, as a monopoly of Will.
If all is determined then what is there to fight over?
Identity is an illusion.
There is no 'self', and what you see is will-less; a sack of flesh....a meat-bag.

A puppet.
This refers to the Platonic image of the psyche as a charioteer, on his chariot.


The reigns are the Will.
Using the metaphor we can visualize the same triad, adjusted to the idea(l) that there is no free-will, as inverted...switching reason with the passions - hedonism....
....or....as a vacant chariot with the reigns disappearing into the void, towards the determining past = Abrahamism placing a divine hand grasping them.

The difference between secular and Abrahamic nihilism is that the latter imagines a god, an idea(l), with a, absolute, omnipotent Will, controlling the triad....and the other places nothing, literally...a void implying causality - the chance interactions, which, are not really a product of chance, but hide a complexity, because even these secular version of Abrahamism imagine a vague omnipotent, determining absolute order replacing Will.
They may claim not to believe in telos, but telos, end, is part of their abstraction.
The movement IS the telos....not an objective.
This echos the Abrahamic belief that the universe is perfect, is whole, complete...in relation to life and living.
Life IS its telos, which is part of its becoming. Life evolved to appreciate its own goodness, its own perfection.
If this is not solipsistic narcissism, nothing is.
Change IS its telos...its perfection.

Christians use a similar method to convert their guilt and shame, into pride; their weakness, into omnipotence; their idiocy, into omniscience.
Jews use a similar method, because the Christians inherited it from them, to convert their survival at all costs ideal, into a choseness.
God is them choosing themselves. An inversion of natural order - the meek becoming proud and strong.
Islam does the same, albeit a more primitive method. Martyrdom is eternal life....killing infidels, is piety...destroying what is alien, is power.

Pragmatically one does not move away from perfection....because any movement is away.
One moves towards the ideal.
Change is baptized, and given a name....Perfect.
This is an after-the-fact declaration.
It IS perfect, because it makes life possible.
To Be is to be perfect. A convenient way to evade justifications.

A mind that believes it is un-free, and has no ability to be free, to any degree, is a mind that requires no enslavement.
It is its own prison.

Yet, a mind that convinces itself it is free, is not necessarily so.
A thought must be tested and made an action.
Whether you believe one thing or another is meaningless, if there are bars, and doors and keys keeping you physically imprisoned.

You mind can imagine and noetically liberate itself, because mind is not bound by natural order.
But the body it participates in, an is a extension of, remains bound.
In theory the mind can contemplate possibilities and probabilities, but the body remains bound by them, and can only 'break free' by converting the thought, the noumenon, back to a phenomenon, with uncertain outcomes.
what does not bind it to reality, is what allows the mind to be victorious, in theory, but not in practice.

If all that was requires is to think an idea(l), and believe in it with fanatic conviction, then the only action that would be needed is the repeating of it, and blind passionate faith.
A thought is always perfect, pure, victorious, when it remains inside the mind as noumenon.
In theory all ideologies, and dogmas are perfect.
Perfection, itself, is a mental construct.
Perfect for what?
Perfect in relation to what, compared to what?

Judgment juxtaposes and compares, theoretically.
When it is translated into choice, into action, behaviour, it is compared to another's, within a world that never picks sides.
He who integrated into his thinking more details, and less corrupting emotions, and who then converted the idea into a performance within world, and in relation to another, will benefit.
He who does not, cannot, will not...will suffer the costs, or remain convinced of his perfection.

Binary system applies, for Moderns.
Absolute one, freedom....or absolute nil, determinism, Creator god.
They cannot escape the Nihilistic paradigm - binary code = absolute 1/0.

Either man invents reality, and himself, out of nil, or he is completely the product of the immutable past, or an external will, creator.
Determinism replaces Creator.
Paradise replaces Utopia.
Future replaces beyond, the occult, the underlying.

Inversion = God is renamed Order, and placed ahead, not behind.
The present has already been determined in future.
It's not past manifesting as presence, but future manifesting as presence.

The image is indicative.
God as past implies a 'pushing'....god as future implies a pulling - Repulsing/Attracting, Hate/Love.
The first justifies itself as God giving m,an 'free-will' which is not really so. This free-will, if exercised, leads to suffering.
The second is all about 'love'...all is returning to the source - is being attracted into a already existing singularity.
Implosion, as opposed to Explosion. Introvert/Extrovert.
The ONE is not pushing away, nullifying...but pulling into itself the wayward nil. A homecoming.
God as Shepherd gathering his lost and scattered flock.

Scientific concepts, like one/nil, taken literally, and conceptualized as a 'beginning' = Big Bang.
God as 'past' immanently becoming present.
Life but part of 'god', the absolute one - universe.
God secularized, brought down to earth, in a coming future.
He is, and we are moving towards the absolute.  

God as 'mind'.
The human but an antenna channelling universal consciousness, will-less, following universal Will, or individual as creator-god of his own subjective reality
Mind is externalized or mystified - it is God.    

Body, the physical is irrelevant, or the product of the mind creativity.
Separation is imagined along the neural network, culminating in brain.
The mind extending and detaching from the organ - sanctified.
Body, including the brain, and the nervous system, is 'overcome'.
Mind can now be anything it wills, or anything an external mind wills.
Where is the mind? What is it?
It is everywhere, unaffected by time or space.
Mysterious and mystical.  

Language, logos, is its expression.
Language becomes divine.

The human brain finds it difficult to conceptualize fluidity, outside the binary poles, like the ancients mistook self-consciousness, conscience, for divine spirits talking to them, in private.
They felt they were communing with another - gods.
Internal dialogue leads to schizophrenia, if misunderstood.

Degrees, refer to process, outside absolute points in space/time.
Order/Chaos, interacting - Flux...conceptualized, abstracted, into dualities - binary code.
On/Off
Process and degrees is how we can begin to conceptualize the dynamic (inter)activity of patterned and non-patterned energies. An artist's mind, who is able to withstand the temptation to immerse himself in his own creation.
Artists engaging world intuitively, emotionally - attracting, embracing; scientist retaining a cold, rational distance - repelling, keeping at a distance to allow observation, to permit consciousness to proceed.
Chaos makes Will free.
Repulsion makes life and consciousnesses possible - discrimination, separation is awareness.

Hellenic Balance - asceticism.
Go too far either way and you go mad.
Degrees....a balancing.
Tension of attraction/repulsion.
Male/Female

We see the same process of development in animals who have yet to evolve the sens of self - self-consciousness.
When they see their reflection in a mirror they assume its another.



Bicameral Mind describes this development as the mistaking of the inner voice for an external consciousness.
We're now stuck on the stage of mistaking our abstractions, and their externalization using semiotics, for magical entities, independent from us.
Having invented art, as a byproduct of self-consciousness, we now confuse it for some kind of otherness, or we convince ourselves that something magical is occurring.

I would assume that if an animal could express itself it would also believe there is magic involved in its reflection with no dimensions. It sees itself, or another, but it has no depth.
Have you watched animals baffled, trying to find the other behind the glass? It's mind cannot process what is occurring.

Having advanced to the point of realizing that all is fluid, the human mind cannot compute outside its static,a absolute abstractions.
It's looking for depth behind its own four-dimensional constructs, and when it fails to find it it assumes something mystical is occurring, or a ruse - some other is tricking them, when they are tricked on their own.  
There must be some other deciding for me, or determining  my circumstances.

It's either another or it is I.
The binary mind cannot think outside its bipolar absolutes.

Free-Will can be placed with the triad of Body<>Nervous System<>Mind, corresponding to Past<>Present<>Future.

Past = determined - immutable.
Engaged through memory as order, abstracted and interlaced into meanings.
Past made an Object - World.

Present = the dynamic Flux of (inter)acting order/chaos - Energy - Objective World, or world made an objective - Reality.

Future = Yet to be, undetermined, malleable - subjective.
The Idea(l).

Nihilist either dismisses the past or the present.
The Future a product of a determined immutable world manifesting as future...with no present to intervene.
Individual lacking any will, being a audience aware of the past becoming future.
World made ideal - world idealized.
Present, experienced as appearance, is negated - pure nihilism.
Individual is trapped between two absolutes.
or
The present, with no past, directed by a future.
The ideal shaping the Real. Mind as God.
Present projecting future.
Past is negated.
Individual is liberated from world - detached from reality.

Even the mind is, in a sense, bound by the natural world. After all, it exists within it, and is contained in the physical brain. Affecting the brain (physically, by splitting a skull open with force, or chemically, by using drugs or other chemicals) affects the mind.

Its contents are determined by the biology of the individual interacting with the world, meaning it cannot conceive of something out of nothing - it merely recombines what it receives through the senses in accordance with the mental biological predispositions of the organism. In this sense it is bound. The quality and the motivations of the organism determine what is formed in the mind.

The more extreme fantasies are still based on reality:


(wings like a bat, head like an octopus, two eyes and body like a human...)

I think I've expressed this opinion here before, but to me the determinism vs free will debate as it is framed in the mainstream circles isn't really a debate. Determinism just wins by default and is the obvious and trivial implication of the laws of physics as well as every day observations of causality. The idea of free will seems to be freedom from causality, which is to say that there are causes without effects, or effects without causes. So either there is a thing which doesn't interact with anything else, producing no effects (aka, it doesn't exist), or there is a thing which has no past (no cause). Neither seems plausible.

Our nature (including will) is determined. We are free to the extent we can act upon our nature. Freedom does not extend to acting contrary to laws of physics. The concept of freedom only makes sense in social philosophy, not natural philosophy, to me.

As for responsibility, the only objective way to define it is IMO in causal terms - we are responsible for what we cause, or in less absolute terms, we are responsible for things to the extent that we caused them. So I don't think determinism and responsibility are mutually exclusive - to the contrary, I think responsibility only makes sense in a deterministic context.

The practically most relevant point that has been made, and one which I agree with, is this:

Satyr wrote:

The thing about reality, called existence, is that it does not require anyone's awareness, or acceptance to exist.
Whether you believe in race, or think its a social construct, will not protect you from your mistake.
Blaming others will not affect others, unless they are forced to deal with you.
Failing to acknowledge your culpability in your mistakes will only guarantee that you will repeat them, suffering the same costs.

Whether you accept Will as being partially free, and not absolutely free, or not free at all, will not alter the consequences...but only affect how you cope and deal with them.
The world cares not if you think you are a god, and your words are world-creating magic.
It will not suffer.
The world does not care if you think you are a impotent will-less automaton, suffering what it can never change.
It will not suffer.

All noumena are interpretations of phenomena, and the interpreter is the one who benefits, from good interpretations, or suffers the costs of bad interpretations.
The world remain mostly unconscious, and indifferent.
Success and failure within it is determined by how you relate to what cannot care about you, and your hopes and dreams...and your endless theories.

Indeed, and to use the example of modern politics which is a relatable and observable thing that affects us all: though we may not have caused them to be as they are and so technically are only responsible to a small extent in purely causal terms (the extent to which we haven't changed what is already established because of our insufficient action), still they have disproportionately huge effects on us.

Therefore, in a modern political context, "taking responsibility" doesn't necessarily mean "I have caused X to come into existence" anymore, which focuses only on the past and present effects of our actions, but extends to the future and how some effects relate to us, even if we haven't caused them: "X is having certain effects on me that are undesirable, and though I may not have caused it, I must act if I wish the effects to stop".

Ultimately it only matters what we do. Whether we decide to take "responsibility" in our heads or not, or believe in X or Y or Z theory about free will, only matters to the extent it directs our actions. Reality isn't affected by beliefs but actions.


Even if there is something non-deterministic going on at the scale of quantum physics, it doesn't appear to have relevant effects on the larger scale of things. But I admitted in the past I'm not knowledgeable about this, so I won't get into it.

Some videos on the topic of randomness/determinism/free will that I've watched recently:

Dice are matter.
Matter is pattern.

1/0 are patterns.
Man is an organism and an organism is an amalgamation of patterns. He can only perceive, appreciate patters....patterns is another way of saying 'order'.

Laws of Nature are man's perception of patterns in the patterns.
Science deals with patterns - order.

Randomness is not - no causality.
Randomness is causality that cannot be determined.
The effect cannot be traced to the cause.

Determinism is the implication of not having any responsibility, other than accepting the outcome.
It is a submission to what you are not responsible for.
Like the christian kind of responsibility concerning the 'primordial sin'.
It is fatalism. Stoicism.
I submit to what I have no power over, and no way of altering.
A slave.
It makes shame into pride.
The slave embraces his enslavement...pretends to like it...to have chosen it. As if it could not have been any other way. He copes.
Because her has no choice in the matter.

Randomness is what affects the dice roll, and can never be determined.
Along with the other factors, like gravity, atmosphere, spin, temperature and so on, there's the random factor.
It determines the outcome but cannot be calculated, because it is random...unpredictable, inconsistent...a non-pattern energy/force...vibration/oscillation.

Determinism implies that the causes of what is determined follow a predictable, consistent, measurable pattern.
This makes freedom impossible.
Any degree of it.

Order is absolute. It is God, given a new name.

Randomness implies that one of the factors is unpredictable, inconsistent.
This allows a degree of free-choice, and makes consciousness a necessary trait, dealing with the unpredictable, and forever inconsistent.

Without it evolution would cease, as random mutations could never arise. All would follow a predictable sequence...and even divergence would be predictable...part of the ordered process.
This would make choice a nonsensical concept, and responsibility a cruel sadistic game.
To be held accountable for what you could do nothing about.

The Christians, as I've repeatedly stated, invented a lie...a self-deceiving ploy.
They claimed God, their god, gave man free-will...but then they describe it in a way that makes it a non-choice.
Some claim free-will was invented to punish the innocent, who are not responsible for what they are nor what they do.

But there is no institutional punishment, since the choice itself is a reward or a punishment.
No other is required when your choices produce consequences that are costly, or beneficial.
You are not responsible for your past, what you are...but you are for what you do with it.

The past is immutable...the present is dynamic....fluctuating...interactive.
In this present randomness affects interactivity, necessitating a continuous adjustment....choice.

Satyr wrote:

Determinism is the implication of not having any responsibility, other than accepting the outcome.
It is a submission to what you are not responsible for.
Like the christian kind of responsibility concerning the 'primordial sin'.
It is fatalism. Stoicism.
I submit to what I have no power over, and no way of altering.
A slave.
It makes shame into pride.
The slave embraces his enslavement...pretends to like it...to have chosen it. As if it could not have been any other way. He copes.
Because her has no choice in the matter.

I don't think these things go hand in hand with determinism.

If you accept determinism you are still part of the causal chain, so while you are caused by some things, you can cause others and so still be responsible.

I don't take pride or shame in the fact that the laws of physics are more powerful than me, or pretend to like it or embrace it, I just accept it because I consider it to be true.

Satyr wrote:

This would make choice a nonsensical concept, and responsibility a cruel sadistic game.
To be held accountable for what you could do nothing about.

We are already affected by things we can do nothing about, adopting the idea of free-will in one's mind doesn't change that.

But none of this is really practically relevant, so whatever.

We are affected by things we do something about.
We cannot change the past, nor control the world, but we can control how we react to it.
We have a choice.

If all is order, in other words God created it, then even our choices are determined...so we are what?
Onlookers?
The audience.
We are god appreciating himself?

If all is determined and is ordered, then why did consciousness evolve?
Automatic reactions would have sufficed.

Absolute order is another way of saying God.

Determined coupled by absolute order means all is going according to a plan...it's all part of a scheme...an intent.

So, for you, choice is nonsensical.
We either pray the god, the determining order, has determined good things for us, or we endure it......laughing at it, cynically. Laughing at our own helplessness.

Again...
Randomness (chaos) does determine the present....but ti also makes free-will, in the present, possible.
Both ordered (pattered) and chaotic, random (non-pattered) energies (inter)act...and this interaction determines the future.
Past is these interactions determining the present.
The past cannot be changed....it's determined. but the causal chain cannot be followed back to a cause in all cases, because some causes are random events. The cause is not absolutely ordered, it has random elements.
Like particles emerging and vanishing in space./

The past cannot be changed.
We experience the past manifesting as presence as God...as an absolute.
But this is not the end, the telos.
we participate in the manifestation of future in the present, with our actions, choices.
According to you, even our choices are predetermined...so you believe in the one-god, but you've covered him in scientific jargon.

Why blame or be angry or do anything?
Let's just wait and see what this order (god) has determined for us...and let's take it and ask for more.
We are slaves....our will is not our own.

If you're being raped...because ti has been determined to be raped...then whether you fight back or take it, is the same.
you have no responsibility, other than accepting what has been determined...embrace it an d say 'yes!!!' while it is happening.
Either choice is okay, because the choice has been determined for you.
Why feel bad about it?
Laugh at how the universe is toying with you; laugh at what it is making you do.

A lot of the free-will/determinism ideas seem to be about finding motivations, boosting the morale, of people.
I could look at determinism and get into the spiral of justifying my in-actions, my low level of aggressiveness, to myself by saying it is what it is and I can't do anything about it anyway.
But at the same time I could also justify my aggressiveness, my vigour, by saying it is destiny for me to take what I desire and to do as I want.

In that sense, adopting "free-will" seems to be more about wanting to change oneself. "Yes, I'm not feeling it right now but I should force myself into doing stuff because my mind is free to choose this path and I think it would be good, better for me to do that", and so on.

Free-will point of view in that sense is about a mind trying to control the body, being the master of the body (and with body I mean also the emotional part of the brain/mind).

Destiny/determinism is a point of view for the body being in control.