A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

No. Kant did not lose the battle.

The facts speak in the sense of Kant, at least more than in the sense of the representatives of the total nihilism.

It is a fact that all human beings are not free from causality, and it is also a fact that humans are spiritually or intellctually free from everything they can think and imagine, because thoughts and imaginations are also facts. We have two parts of the world, at least for humans, and the first part is one of the unfree will because of the causality, whereas the second part is one of the free will because of the intelligibility. Because of the fact that the first part dominates it is impossible that humans have a free will; because of the fact that humans can partly control causality it is possible that humans have at least a relatively free will (you may also call it relatively unfree will). So the position of a determinism that includes an indeterminism is correct. This means: The human will is determined, and this can never be changed, and indetermined, and this can be changed.


If the greatest degree of stable social freedom is promised, then this promise should also be kept / held.

“Providing” means establishing the means or method. If the means are not established, then they were not provided. There is no promising involved.

When you fully understand SAM, there is no need for promises.

James, i find meaning theory, to supplant indeterminancy inadequate, for the same reasons why hermenautics trump signs in representing meaning in terms of the will.

Did anyone have any idea what that meant? :-s
… anyone ?

But what about the most humans? Please do not forget that most humans want promises.

since i put my foot out, i am obliged. Ricoure’s signaling is inadequate, in terms similar to the futility of Schpenhauers failure to present the world-qua meaning as will and representation, to objectify the will. The theory of meanings referred to through lingusitic analysis of the Viennese Circle, is similarly
faulty. So i believe, trying to find meaning definitionally, is gpong down the wrong road.

All or most humans are not required, not even a significant minority. SAM is only for those who, at any time, come to understand it, no matter how few or many those might be. SAM is not one of those “if only everyone would believe” kinds of programs. It just works as soon as any few bother to try it. Of course, there is still the ability to screw it up if it is not fully understood yet. But once it becomes understood, it never goes away (similar to the concept of forming a family).

Obe / Orb / Orbie (I wonder what you next username will be: Orbi? Urbi? … URBI ET ORBI …). :wink:

Please tell me what your point is. :slight_smile:

Hello, Arminius,

I am going to be fairly safe in saying that this was my last name change. I do not think there is anything wrong with a name change, some ILP members do one worse, they change their identty, therefore becoming sock puppets. So, really you never know who is who, and that kind of gets confusing. Clarity is bliss, as far as i am concerned.

That brings me to Your question about what i was trying to say, to support my decision to vote ney.

Actually, James asked me to explain, which i did, now i have to explain the explanation. Bear with me dinner calls , thereafter i would like to get into it in a more supine manner.


Thanks for your response, Obe / Orb / Orbie.

Yes. And I expect even worse than the first.

I have no issue with your, very considerate, name changes, but the very, very, very most serious problem is with what many people call your “word salad”, meaning that you seem to be (give the appearance of) just stringing words together that don’t really appear to be coherent. Believe it or not, I understand why this is happening, but the issue is whether you might be able to make the extraordinary attempt to compensate.

Please try, very slowly, very slowly … very … slowly … to express, bit by bit (multiple posts if necessary) exactly what you really meant to say … please.

a witch summoned some demons. the demons burnt a city.

who burnt the city? the witch? the demons? the book that told her where the demons were? or the fire?

Back. I wanted to draw perimeters around Your question, regarding the will, as it’s development in history is concerned. This in it’self points to meaning , which usually derives through meaning per se, and precludes the developmental depth of how it got there.

In the case of will, Schpenhauers is instrumental, he tried to objectify will, to account for it’s absolute sense as striving toward an absolute will, as an objective leading to it’s object : it’s representation. This object is to overcome the vanity of existence, an existence which has denigrated the object of the will’s representation of it’s object. It’s a recovery effort of the romantic notion, which can not be recovered definitionally.

The romantic notion depends on the ideal object, the ideal is a complex notion supported by religious, aesthetic, and conventional attributes. The last of these, are products of established authoritarian stratified social systems of aristocratic governance.
The German disassociation from the conventional religious hierarchy, with the Protestant Revolution, started this process. The actual demise of aristocratic values did not happen overnight, but acute individuals saw it coming, far in advance.

The will, as the motive behind the power to sustain the status quo, was under attack. The will, lost it’s central absolute position, hence Schpenhauer’s critique of the existential sorrow, inline with Goethe’s sorrow. Romantic notions were under attack, a very painfully realized process, invading all forms of belief, art, religion, vested interests, and so on.

The absolute will lost it’s bearing, to effect the conventional status quo, and the will became bound to change. Nietzche saw this clearly, and his solution was the overcoming of Appolonian idolatry of the will,
And connected it with the earliest motivator, the Dionysian power of the preconceived myths of primordial gods, who played tragically in a theatre of literal interaction between man and God, between between the symbolic and the literal. Here, the interaction created symbiosis of God-men, one foot in the heavens, the other on earth. This primordial consciousness nihilized the difficulty of the objective view of the will, the will became a power , because it effected the representation through direct involvement with it. The myth became the object of the meaning of reality, through which it gained it’s power.

This should strike a familiar chord, with the utilization of the erotic aesthetic replacing the one of sadness over the maintaining an absolute and objective will, devoid of sentiment. It is to the Greek ideal, that He returned, where the erotic aesthetic was resurfaced. The power of the will arose from a re-association with the underworld.

The will, with Nietzche did not depend on the will’s existential connection, it freed it from it’s containment, and became it’s own master. It’s representation became irrelevant, the aristocratic value of the will guaranteed it’s absolut existence as an idea(l). it pre-existed in a series of recurrences, guaranteeing it’s ontological certainty.

After the defeat of the Axis powers, such philosophy was ‘proved’ to be nihilistic, unsupportable. existentialism replaced the meaning behind the archaic power of the myth, by relegating it to the nihilistic nothingness, and brought to center stage the democratic, anti monarchical system of the French, those who in essence defeated them.

The existential reduction was supposed to raise the will to be represented in societal terms, hence the needed a social foundation , based on a new social contract. Communism was seen as such a venue, but after long last, the Hungarian Revolution disaffected Sartre from seeing it as a solid foundation.

what followed was the predictable conflicts between post modernists, and positivists, sign and meaning theories conflicted with heuristic and hermetically approaches to regain the representation of the meaning of the will’s representation, as a form of assurance of it’s freedom to act.

Thus we get to the point we are today, with the coming of technocracy , and social engineering of societal model of control. The will can no longer be a representation, the myths surrounding it have been declawed by progressive deconstructions. The will has become liberated from it’s mythic power, even relatively speaking. Nietzche didn’t want to kill it, he just wanted to set the stage where his warnings would be heeded. It was almost a foregone conclusion that he was not heeded. I believe that He really knew, what was coming. To me, he is more of a soothsayer, then a problem fixer. He unveiled the Birth of the tragedy.

I see nothing but pure determination, which is not of the self. Self determination has become a myth.

And taking on cue Your imprimatur to go on with this,
I return to ontology, Your and mine favorite underlying ground, without which, the edifice of the above would not hold up, after Sartre’s disillusionment with communism.

The word salad part is at once a schizophrenic derealization from conventional literature to free flow type writing, and the similarity can be noted, as perhaps avaunt guard may make another leap from the likes of Joyce, Gertrude Stein, and others.
Meaning has lost its associative bearings, and the reader is asked to work with the writer to fill in associations of his/her regard, making such writings both confusing and challenging. Literature is becoming less literal, as a result of the effects of entropy, on all forms of art. (A popular word around here)

Now having expunged that demon, I go to the reduction of phenomenology it’s self, toward the very basic idea, and I will read Your new post on the impossibility of nothingness, thinking it has bearing on what we are discussing.

Poverty briefly, it is the predicate we are dealing with, What preceeds what, the idea (of the will) or, it’s representation, in the formation of the meaning of the world(Scopenhauer’s words), but substitute existence. As with all triads, the World, the Will, and it’s representation, has precedence with Existence, Essence, and Being, of the Arabian philosopher Averroes, and Avicenna, so it’s noting new, new garments old ideas.

But with Schopenhauer placing the will squarely in the middle, suggesting that it is existentials which have put the will in a precarious position, he places blame on existence, hence assigns it as vain. (The vanity of existence.). He sees no exit from here, and becomes a Buddhist, because traditional Christianity is under attack as well, due to the denigration of the Roman Church by Protestanism.

Nietzhe sees this problem, and says, we do not worry about the existential priority, because essentially (here comes the word essence again), Being and the Will, are related. It is the Dasein, which derives it’s power from the mythological power of pre-conscious symbols, from which it has been truncated by a false morality. He wants to unbound a newly formed ideal paradigmn. Existence does not exist for him in the way existentialists think of it, it is derivative of being and not the other way around. Existentialists turned this around for political reasons for the most part, because at once they wished French philosophy again to become a centerpiece of a new rationality. It is fortunate, or not, that they too,failed, due again to the non workable (ethically) social -Communist contract, as represented by Sartre.

The post modernists have to deal with this in fragmented ways, and this disassociation is made somewhat credible by the likes of Attari and Deleuze, who feel the actual social-political consequences of a materialistic capitalism to blame for the anomanolous relationship arising between the literal world of art, and the cut up , disassociated world of the schizophrenic. Anti psychiatry could as well be as will be a rallying cry of the new disassembled world of meaningful communication.

Where does this duality take us? Into the darkness of bedlam, or the lightness of new art forms, reacting to the seemingly bottomless re-entry into Plato’s cave, of literal forms? This thinning out of symbolic richness coinciding with the one dimensional linguistic devolution of the disassociated meaning?

granted, this would be a critical point for both rationality and art, and the brakes were applied to stop this from happening around ca. 1969.

The abyss, almost looked back meeting it’s own gaze.
This is the hermaneutic of reason, colliding with the positivist vision of solubility through linguistic analysis. Hermenautics win hands down, as some would claim. (this is why psycho analysis is seen as a failed endeavor, in part)

Left the last is an apology of sorts, of sounding like a dogmatist,Mohicans I am not, of delivering presumptive lectures, rather then engaging meaningfully. There is a technical explanation, I can’t paraphrase, since I have no computer only a
pad, but working on getting a computer sometimes in the future. This is an obvious weakness, and I am aware of it, although it is not caused by a personal quirk, but it sure looks like it.

Free will = power + love.
All good beings have it.

Lezama Lima, author of Paradiso, for instance among Surrealists and Dadaists consider Finnegan’s Wake not English but a lingual dialect not to confound the reader but to illuminate by primordial commonality of all tongues.’

The hebrephenic quality may be a purposeful attempt to draw on this idea by Joyce.

‘From Neobaroque to Modern’, Lezana Limo

At this, point a charge of derailing an interesting forum must be countered, and re-associating this detour de force may be called for.

How is the question of the freedom of the will related to dis-associative linguistic interpretation? TYhe point of increasing irrelevance can not be avoided by most , not aware of the importance of Finnigan’s Wake, by some, considred the most valuable book of the 20th century’s modernism. How does this fair with intelligebility, literality?

To James, i think icould say with faire confidence, that it is mini,ally illustrative of the definitional analysis of meaning theory. The Hermaunatic
quality trumps the one expoused by literal sigification of meaning, inter alia. The need to fill in missing elements is working along with the communicator to get the idea across, a challenge increasingly requisite, in theis new brave world of multi ethnic, lingual challenges. The idea to expect a linear, straight one dimensional, analytic of logical expression, does not coincide well with the world of broken aphorisms, mirrored and re-reflected visions of a new evolving aesthetic. Meaning has to be willed as at once constrained by the reciver’s expectation,
as well as his participation of interpretation. The will is bound to respect the nature and capacity of the receiver-reader. A universal capacity needs to be considered as the most likely interpretation, while at the same time trying to satisfy the most esoteric and unique point of view.

Schopenhauer’s Wille (will) is Kant’s Ding an sich (thing in itself / thing as such).

The German existentialism as Heidegger’s Existenzphilosophie (existential philosophy) was the basis for the French; when Sartre started his philosophical career he was a Heideggerian, thus a scholar of the German existentialism as Heidegger’s Existenzphilosophie (existential philosophy); and when the WW2 was over (!) Sartre became more and more communistic, because it was opportune (!) at that time. Sartre failed at last.

There is no reason for being so pessimistic, Orbie. And by the way: relatively free will means both detmerminism and indeterminism. So the human life is not as much determined as you think. It is determined by causality - of course (!) - but not by spirituality (thinking etc.). The indetermination is an island in the infinte ocean of the determination.

It is not true that the will can no longer be a representation, and the lobby of the deconstructivists is not capable of changing this fact. The deconstructivism is just another expression of the nihilism.

There is fate (destiny), of course, but there is chance (opportunity) too. There is determination, of course, but there is indetermination too.