Some Remarks on Free Will and Determinsim

[A Dark Philosopher]

I have been reading these posts and struggling with the concepts. I haven't been educated in this way so forgive my ignorance. I believe I grasp free will, but determinism escapes me as I am not sure what is meant. What is determined?
Do we all not get out of bed in the morning with some sense of will? The Itlad glossary suggests that we may not be doomed to repeat our personal dramas so will is definitely suggested.

I believe someone said will is in the domain of the eidolon. (Jo-Jo?) I think will belongs to eidolon and the daemon. I think of the brain research which showed the wills of the left and right brain in fact contradicted each other; i.e. The graphic designer vs the race car driver. I find this to be one of the more amazing bits Tony presented in his book. To me it explains how it is that each so-called individual is actually made up of competing wills and identities. Is it possible we don't think we have free-will because there is conflict of more than one will within us? If you take this further and incorporate the idea of an objective consciousness as Karl suggests or the concept of the morphogenic fields and telepathy as Rupert Sheldrake suggests, our so-called individual will is being influenced or perhaps even directed even further.

Hi Ruth, yes some of the more complex philosophical terms do need some background on occasion. Indeed to that end, our very own dear Susan Marie has began to compile and ITLAD Philosophy Glossary and in case you have missed it, it is here:
FORUM: Some Philosophical Terms/Ideas For ITLADians [by SM Kovalinsky]

Basic determinism theory states that ALL is pre-determined, including our feeling of free will. For example, as you read this, it appears to be your free will, to either continue reading or to shuffle off into the kitchen for a cup of tea. What you decide to do appears to you to be your choice. Determinists say that NO, what you think you choose is exactly what you were going to do anyway. This was reflected in the Q&A I did with the attendees at a recent lecture of mine as we discussed CHANGE, and the philosophical nature of such in a free will world against a deterministic world.

I totally agree with you regarding Johar's placing of "Will" within purely the Eidolon. I have only a few minutes ago written my reply to JoJo's comment adding that "will" is surely across the whole dyad, as you rightly state here Ruth. If we reject the determinist view then Daemonic Guidance is the will of the Daemon; the Eidolon thus has "free will" to either accept or reject this guidance.

If you take this further and incorporate the idea of an objective consciousness as Karl suggests or the concept of the morphogenic fields and telepathy as Rupert Sheldrake suggests, our so-called individual will is being influenced or perhaps even directed even further.

Absolutely, yes.

ADDENDUM RUTH: I just had an intuition, a flash, about will and consciousness. In Jung's autobiography, or an autobiographical essay of his, he remarks about the "number one and number two personalities"--these would correlate to Tony's eidolon/daemon. Using his own mother as an example, he wrote that her daily persona was superficial and silly, but her deeper self would shine through on occasion with profound remarks. The shallow would be consciousness, the deeper would be will, as per Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

I can't agree Susan Marie. Surely the shallow would be Eidolon and the deeper would be Daemon within the Jungian quote "number one and number two personalities", not Consciousness and Will. It's a very subtle difference to non Philosophers I know, but to you and I it isn't.
Would you agree, given the advances in science, neurology and epistemics in the 21st Century, or not?

[SM Kovalinsky]

Well, I must suspend judgment, though I certainly take your word for it, as I bow to your greater knowledge and far greater expertise. I know mainly the philosophy of antiquity, the medieval period, the Enlightenment, and the 19th and 20th centuries. I am weak on 21st century thinking, save for Steinhart, Peake, Le Marcs, which is why I was so intent on you and Tony bringing all up to speed. To me, the analogy applies, but what do I know?

[A Dark Philosopher]

Well, I must suspend judgment, though I certainly take your word for it, as I bow to your greater knowledge and far greater expertise. I know mainly the philosophy of antiquity, the medieval period, the Enlightenment, and the 19th and 20th centuries. I am weak on 21st century thinking, save for Steinhart, Peake, Le Marcs, which is why I was so intent on you and Tony bringing all up to speed. To me, the analogy applies, but what do I know?

I completely agree that in 19th and 20th Century thinking, the anology does apply. I do however question it now. We cannot hope to answer Quantum questions with Classical Physics and thus the equal applies to questions of Philosophy.

Everything must evolve, including Philosophy.

[SM Kovalinsky]

Truer words were never spoken.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Truer words were never spoken.

*bows respectfully*

[SM Kovalinsky]

Ruth: Certainly the way I am using the terms 'will' and 'consciousness' - as I learned them from Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and my beloved mentors, and which roundly resonated with my deepest instincts - are part of a continuum. Thus, 'will' would be ex profundis ( out of the depths), while 'consciousness' would be the mere 'surface'. You might almost say that there is a profound will, and a free - and hence groundless - will ( this latter is in fact what Jean Paul Sartre and all disappointed rationalists do in fact assert). The profound will would be able to choose, but only from its depths. Depending on the person and their individual development, eidolon or daemon could partake in this. Now, I know that A Dark Philosopher has been schooled far differently than have I - and there seems to be that basic conflict which I saw everywhere among my own mentors. He is driving at something which is far different than what I have in mind, and he is a Feuerbachian, and all diverse and sundry things which I make no claim to be. Now Feuerbach himself began as a lover of Spinoza, and believed as did Fechner - a most profound scientist/philosopher fusion and beloved of William James - in the immortality as reabsorbtion and re-combination into the depths of nature, the earth, etc. So I am not sure - although I am beginning to suspect - that his own philosophy should not be akin to that which Nietzsche everywhere and always insists on : Will as the ground of all life. ( Of course he is also an occult philosopher, and this opens a whole new problematic venue - and he is one of the neo-quantum theorists, so he can take this in a direction which I cannot---Tony may give over the Moderators role to him in this section forthwith, in terms of the science). However and notwithstanding this unavoidable conflict of semantics, ideology, epistemic privilege ( his, not mine) and the like: I am fascinated at the thought of Tony's daemon being the very portal to this will, and discussing this in person with me!!! I am utterly grateful to have found Tony's work when I did, and to be able to apply it as I did, and now, to meet the creator of the dyadic concept is a blessing. So I am all in all still satisfied with all.

[SM Kovalinsky]

I do believe, also, that this whole question of 'will' and 'consciousness' may turn on an a priori - that which precedes experience and knowledge - question: I would assert that will precedes consciousness; ADP/KLLM would have it as the reverse. If the quantum science of which he is becoming a key player can show that his is the true assertion - and I would need it explained to me as to a 6 year old - then it would be shown that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are wrong, and the Kantians correct. Of course, this is the sort of thing which occurs when a philosopher/poet type innocently and cheerfuly joins a blog/forum in which there lurk quantum theorists and at last I will say with Socrates that I am wise in that I now know that I do not know - I do believe the philosophy section must now diverge into the "classical" and the "neo-classical quantum" classes, or something like. Either this, or perhaps incorporate more quantum theory into this section, in order to vet the respective philosophical ideologies from whence these posts derive. What says Tony Peake on this?

[SM Kovalinsky]

ADDENDUM EX PROFUNDIS During a phone conversation just now with one of my beloved former mentors, divine inspiration has struck in the form of a sort of plan, which I shall post up forthwith.

[A Dark Philosopher]

I would assert that will precedes consciousness; ADP/KLLM would have it as the reverse.

Indeed I would, until an answer can be suggested to my often asked (but still as yet unaddressed) question:

From whence does "Will" originate, if not from "Consciousness"?

I await your response..............................

[Derkein]

I would assert that will precedes consciousness; ADP/KLLM would have it as the reverse.

Indeed I would, until an answer can be suggested to my often asked (but still as yet unaddressed) question:

From whence does "Will" originate, if not from "Consciousness"?

.

From all parties involved

Who decides is perhaps a more telling question, and the answer is - it all depends.
For some it is quite black and white, one aspect generally (but not always) has the overwhelming upper hand in the decision, for others it is not so straightforward (LOL) and conflicting drives and objectives vie.
For still others, at some stage in the day it is one which has the upper hand, at another time it is another
For a few, there is generally an integrated joint decision (but even for them - not always).

Whether the latter is a state to be envied depends on whether what you believe is your higher self is actually that.