|
Post by crossbow on Jul 12, 2014 14:53:16 GMT
Is it free will if we are forced to apply said free will? Or do we all deep down in some cosmic beginning type of way, know we chose it to be that way? Have you read and contemplated the Adam and Eve story in Genesis? It is of course an allegory; a symbolic story representative of a reality far greater than can be generally fathomed and communicated by means other than symbolic. For pictures tell a thousand words but symbols even more.
About our self exist the layers of our personality, being physical/behavioural, emotional and mental, and at the centre of these layers is the consciousness which has stations with different roles within itself. It has its station of external awareness which looks outward at its surroundings, including, when it is rightly centred, at its personality layers of thought, emotion, body and behaviour, and its station of internal awareness which looks inward into itself, and within and up a stage is the freewilled station which directs the awareness to look outward or inward, and within the freewilled station and up another stage is the station of conscience, the highest sense within our self of what is good and right to do, and within and above the conscience exists that of which conscience is the voice. And of course these stations have a communication line running through them, a direction of flow that flows downward and outward from one station of consciousness to another and at the end of the communication line is an integration mechanism of the consciousness with the personality layers, a system of centres of consciousness mixing with and energising the substance of the personality layers. This internal communication line is like a rope, a staff or wand that at its base connects the consciousness with the surrounding personality layers; and in the other direction it runs inward and upward through the stations of consciousness, into, through and above the outward and inward awareness, through and above the station of freewill, higher and higher, further inward and upward, through and above conscience, through and above that from which conscience extends and is the representative of within our self, through and above that, and that and that, the line goes on, every so often converging with other lines of communication at nodes of unfathomably high stations of consciousness, and so on, inward and upward, a convergence, inward and upward, another convergence, on and on. Like travelling from a leaf on a tree up the stem from which it grows, up the twigs of the tree, along the branches towards the trunk, and eventually to the base of the trunk and the garden in which it grows.
Adam and Eve lived for a while in blissful ignorance in the garden of Eden where they had no knowledge of good or evil. At the centre of the garden there grew a tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were not forced to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, in fact it is written that God instructed them not to eat of the tree of knowledge, so that should they eat of it then it would be by their own freewill. And so by their own freewill they chose to venture upon the tree of knowledge and eat of its fruit, and then they were cast out of blissful Eden to the outer reaches of creation, so that they would have bodies, would struggle to survive under the illusion of death, and would experience and learn the lessons of existence and gain the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong and of truth and falsity, and themselves would become like gods.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jul 23, 2014 18:33:20 GMT
I have had many long discussions on this story. I would agree with how you have depicted it.
For instance if you take a clone of a plant, then put it in a new environment. You could tell the plant if it changed to the new environment it would die, but it would not stop the plant from being subject to the habitat. It would change in order to survive, but it would still need tending and guidance to grow to its full potential. This fact also shows there is a present consciousness in the blue prints. Even if it is a consequence of our own consciousness, it outlives ourselves and has a directing force over our constructs of movement.
I think the story shows we had to eat the fruit and God knew it, we were the highest humans could go and we had to learn consequences (good and evil). Or the fruit would not have existed in the first place, but it had to be our choice to take that first bite. Going from a perfect tuning to the energy and more then going with the flow, but to being a part of it. Then going to a total cast out of the flow, and only being able to remember what we have done. This portraying the separation from pure instinct, to conscious premeditated thought. So this would be a depiction of how humans evolved with memory and not instinct, giving us the difference to gain a upper hand in evolution. Not so that we would become like God's, for in his perspective it would simply be to become like him. He only needs one way to do it or make it work, but still maintain a spectrum of reality.
We can see in animals they have our same capacity of mind, we just have more availability with our memory in coordination with our body.
|
|
frler
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by frler on Aug 1, 2014 19:29:42 GMT
Question- Is there such a thing as free will?
Yes, when one becomes a master at observation that person may create his/her own world in accordance with his/her "free will". I would suggest that you love everyone and everything to attain the vibration of love. Jesus explained that we should love everyone. When you learn to love what you believe you dislike most, then you have learned to love thyself. Remember that we are all created equal but we have different skill-sets, each one of us is needed to work with the others to make this world a beautiful and loving paradise. I believe the most important lesson anyone can learn is to love what you dislike most, this is the same as embracing your fears. DO NOT Face your fears, that is like engaging in a war with your fears, EMBRACE your fears; this is like giving your fears a big hug and loving them. When one learns to embrace what they fear, ones fears dissipate or integrate within that being. I wish you love and light to help guide all of you on your journey.
Sincerely,
L.V.X.
Frater Richard
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 30, 2016 20:32:08 GMT
If you care for others, freewill cannot exist. I wish to do this, but I must do that. OK, so I was free to choose to do the right thing... say caring for an elderly relative, but I would much rather have gone off on a world cruise. My freewill is negated by circumstances if I choose the love path. Maat I love my children, and desire that they blossom into as-fully-conscious-as-possible adults. I therefore choose to encourage their awareness of the choices they can make, and the free will they can exercise. Them being teenagers, they may of course choose to interpret that as license to choose to do nothing, or play computer games. Which drives their mother bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 30, 2016 20:34:21 GMT
NOTHING in this world is truly free.... And you are free to believe that ;-)
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 30, 2016 20:59:08 GMT
Discrimination is a wonderful practice. Indeed, rational discrimination (viveka) is said by some to be the first step on the path of wisdom, enabling one to distinguish between the real and the unreal.
Sadly, too many people now associate the term "discrimination" with irrational and unwarranted bigotry and prejudice. Hi Tamrin Thank you for mentioning Viveka in this context. It has reminded me of some wise words from a yoga teacher I know. For "western" students (who struggled to get past the emotional blocks they inevitably raised with any use of the word "discrimination") he used the word "distinction". As in, by raising our own consciousness, we increases our ability to make distinctions. This was not an entirely coincidental choice of phrase. G. Spencer-Brown created an entirely new branch of mathematics called "The Laws of Form", which straddles the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. It includes a calculus of distinctions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 30, 2016 21:20:35 GMT
It seems this matter of freewill is harder for most of us westerners to comprehend today than it was one hundred years ago when we had more consciously Christian or "God fearing" societies. Hi Crossbow As you suggest, the time in history is significant. One hundred years ago, in Britain, Europe and North America (at least) the Reformation had already happened, the dominant version of Christianity was now the Protestant one, and more relaxed about the issue of free will than its predecessors. How so? (you might ask) In Britain, many of us have only a hazy idea of how Christianity got established. For example But he wasn't the first Christian Bishop, he was the first Roman Catholic Christian Bishop in England. There were well-known Christians that pre-date him, in Wales and Ireland especially. For example, Pelagius, born c.354AD, was a British-born ascetic moralist, who became well known throughout ancient Rome. Jerome apparently thought that Pelagius was Irish or Scottish, suggesting that he was “stuffed with Hibernian porridge”. Pelagius opposed the idea of predestination and asserted a strong version of the doctrine of free will. Pelagius became better known c. 380 when he moved to Rome. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius At the Synod of Brefi 560AD, held at Llanddewi Brefi in Ceredigion, we're told that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_BrefiWhat was all the fuss about? Pelegius had upset the applecart with a doctrine of free will. Even worse, he apparently denied Augustine's theory of original sin. Which is "the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden." Ref: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.Dealing with the threat to church business presented by Pelegius appears to have rumbled on, and been singularly important, as the Synod of Victory (569AD) appears to only have one thing on the agenda: condemn the heresy of Pelagianism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_VictoryPeople starting to exercise free will, and make their own choices, would clearly be bad for business for any organisation that had depended on its customers having no free will.
|
|
|
Post by crossbow on May 1, 2016 2:32:01 GMT
People starting to exercise free will, and make their own choices, would clearly be bad for business for any organisation that had depended on its customers having no free will. Like the victim industry, particularly common "research" sociology and mainstream clinical psychology/counselling, which in general pushes the belief that we are all victims of society and circumstance, that we are each born good and equal, and only made bad and unequal by exposure to trauma, fear and conservative thought. *** We can distinguish between distinction, discrimination, and freewill. Distinction distinguishes between one thing and another, but discrimination does more. Discrimination evaluates the differences discerned. Think of a non-discriminatory metal detector that can distinguish between two or more metallic items in the ground, but it cannot discriminate between types of metals, only between one metal item and another. Now think of a metal detector that has a discriminating function. Not only can it distinguish/discern between two pieces of metal in the ground, but it can also discriminate between types of metal such as iron and precious metals, giving a different signal for grades of ferrous and non-ferrous content in the metals that it detects, thus it distinguishes and evaluates - that's discrimination. Freewill comes after discrimination. So distinction, discrimination and freewill are built upon each other in that order. First is distinction, the ability to differentiate between one thing and another. Then on top of distinction is discrimination, the ability to evaluate the differences discerned. Then on top of distinction and discrimination is freewill, the ability to distinguish, evaluate, and freely choose. Distinction is a numerical or quantitative thing, whereas discrimination is of quality, but of course they run or grade into each other, as does freewill run and grade into them. Each ability is built on and limited by the one before or under it, upon which it depends. So as the first ability, distinction, becomes less chunky or less coarse, and finer in its ability to distinguish differences, so the second ability, discrimination, becomes finer too in its ability to evaluate those differences, and so the third ability, freewill, is enabled to make finer, more precise and purposeful choices. *** Related is intelligence. Identifying differences and similarities is the same ability, for to be able to discern a difference in an item in a group is to be able to observe lesser differences or similarity in the rest of the items in the group. IQ tests require one to identify differences and similarities to finer and finer degrees until the individual can no longer identify the differences and similarities in the groups of items presented. That limit of fineness to which one can discern differences and similarities, in comparison to the variance of that ability across society with a quotient of 100 being set as the average, is the relative measure of one's intelligence. Intelligence is measured by the fineness to which one can discriminate and generalise.
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on May 6, 2016 23:10:30 GMT
So distinction, discrimination and freewill are built upon each other in that order. That is a nice conceptual structure. So if the mental function is immature, disturbed, or disabled is there no freewill? I recall my eldest at age 5 minutes fighting the obstetrician. He was not going to take it lying down and lifted up his head as he struggled. Neck strength is unusual in a baby but is used in kinesiology as a measure of will. I doubt that my son was using distinction and discrimination but he certainly appeared to manifest a lot of will. And has done ever since.
|
|
|
Post by boreades on May 29, 2016 22:25:59 GMT
We can distinguish between distinction, discrimination, and freewill. I like what Crossbow says, and it has taken a while for the neurons to bump into each other. Distinction, discrimination, and freewill. These appear in other guises in personality models. The most relevant one is the "CAB" model. C = Cognitive A = Affective (emotional) B = Behavioural The act of making a distinction is a physical act (B) Discrimination is an affective or emotional response (A) Freewill is a cognitive response (C)
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on May 29, 2016 23:21:46 GMT
>The act of making a distinction is a physical act (B)
I distinguish tomorrow from next week. Is that a physical act? Time travel?
>Discrimination is an affective or emotional response (A)
Can I discriminate between a false and a true statement without emoting? For example: the sun did not rise yesterday! Can I assess that statement without emotion?
>Freewill is a cognitive response (C)
I suspect that is a subset of the contexts in which freewill exists. For example, can one object to the prospect of an unknown evil event - an unknown unknown, a sense of foreboding?
|
|