rafromca wrote: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.
rafromca wrote: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.
SM Kovalinsky wrote: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?