Free Will is All There is
Edmond Wollmann
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Date: 1996/09/09
Message-ID: <3234F9...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Jeff Inman wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes (to Jonathan Dunn):
> >My aim is to allow you to recognize that you cannot have a deterministic
> >universe and be aware of it. So basically anything as far as points made
> >without this recognition are moot. If you have a habit and are not aware
> >of it-it is deterministic that you will practice it. If you become aware
> >of a habit-it is no longer a habit-awareness has changed it. This is the
> >crux of the philosophic thrust that you seem unable to acknowledge.
> I have to agree with Dunn that this seems like a bad argument.
Well there are a lot of things that would have to be resolved here,
for
one thing everyone talks as if determinism automatically implies cause
and effect, this is not necessarily so. And vice versa. It is also not
a
given that free will is devoid of cause and effect, and my
philosophical
perspective allows for effect within the free will scenario. Finally
you
gentlemen are as aware as I that we wouldn't be the first to fill a
few
volumes of writing deabating it. But I choose the free will idea not
because it is a nice philosophy but because it is the only one that
fits
with other mechanics that I know work.
The argument above is simple. If you are capable of objectification a
system cannot be entirely closed. If the system in the strictest sense
is derterministic-meaning only the illusion of choice but not "really"
any,
then objectification as in the example of a habit CAN prove if you are
so willing, that we can only be "outside" to some degree in
observation of
the idea that has been created in order to observe it. Now I have
heard
all the arguments of determinism and knew from the beginning where he
was going, I also know that he cannot prove the reverse-nor can you.
Therefore as a counselor which may make a difference at least between
you and I-I don't know if he counsels, but between you and I the
difference
is that I have been able to observe the difference between applied
awareness and none. And the difference is marked. Now I know the both
of
you will say this does not prove anything as far as free will but my
perspective is not based on the typical argument of either soft
determinism or free will per se. It contains many other things. And I
also know that regardless of either you can still create a reality
that
appears determined and that is your choice-you are doing it by arguing
it now. But I see little value-all things being equal to argue FOR
one. I
could as well as you guys can, why? You must admit it can be argued
anyway-it is the consequences for what I know to be true that I will
not
relinquish. Therefore if my arguments are unsatisfactory for anyone
they
are encouraged to follow what they think and it inspires them to do.
Nothing can be proven TO anyone, and to propogate intent based soley
on
the fact that you know it can be argued the limiting way, to me is
senseless, now that is not an insult, that is a choice and my
perspective which is based on service.
> Makes
> much more sense to me to suppose that the "free will versus
> determinism" thing is a false dichotomy propagated by folks who don't
> really understand what either thing is.
It is very difficult for anyone to truly understand it at all, yes.
> But, meanwhile, in the narrow
> understanding of these terms, determinism seems much more coherent.
Well here again like Jonathan, you are not willing to do what you ask
me
to do, and that is provide a coherent premise for an argument first
rather than just say it seems. I can argue other reasons that fit with
what I propose and they fit neatly, I don't just participate in the
free
will argument because it seems that way, it has been demonstrated to
my
satisfaction throughout my work. But I cannot adequately cover all
aspects in even 50 posts. If you really review my posts old and new,
you
will find many different ways to look at it. I also realize that a
MILLION posts will not convince someone with that perspective because
like the habit there are certain perspectives that they just cannot
reverse or redesign without work on the awareness of the pattern. This
habit idea is more important than you are willing to acknowledge. And
the DEGREE of determination is dependent upon its recognition, but
even that
is an illusion and it is still all choice albeit manifesting in many
different possible ways.
> Can you make an argument that demonstrates why "realization" can't be
> deterministic?
Only analogies you know that, and you cannot make one against it other
than that either. Which is the reality when you go to sleep at night
the
fact that it seemed like a minute or that it was "actually" 8 hrs or
whatever? Both of you know it depends on the experiencer, and the
materialist determinist will give the credence to one reality and the
metaphysist to the other. And thats about it, it is a choice is the
only
obvious thing about the whole argument.
> Seems to me that it could well be that our sense of chosing things is
> an illusion at some level.
Well the conscious mind is psychologically known to be the psychic
material we are aware of-that is all. Perhaps if we had no psychology
whatever that allows us to understand that we indeed do have
unconscious
behavior (which appears as lack of choice) I probably would side with
you guys in a minute, but it is always a matter of awareness that
detrmines
the extent of these habits.
> Or, it could be that in some sense we do
> "choose", but since only one thing can ever really be chosen the idea
> that there are alternative paths is an illusion. Perhaps these boil
> down to the same thing. Positing many parallel universes in which we
> are allowed to make many different choices doesn't seem to me to offer
> any resolution. It merely makes the situation more complicated.
It is not parallel universes it is psychic material levels of the self
and these levels because of focus become appearently separate-which
creates reality to appear out of CONCIOUS control but it can be traced
to other levels of consciousness, the unconscious which can be dealt
with
right here in this level is one that is not some mystical thing that
we
cannot comprehend.
> If you are going to say that choices are not mere arbitrary accidents
> of "will", but follow from something like "intent", then it seems to
> me that you're going to have to explain how this could happen without
> there being some kind of "ordering principle".
It is reflected throughout the natural zodiac and astrology and it is
ordered but this does not force it into deterministic modulation.
> I don't mean this as a personal attack. I'm just curious about how
> you could support the position you seem to be taking. Like Mr. Dunn,
> I just don't get it.
Belief (Cardinal-intention)) Emotion (Fixed-momentum) Thought
(Mutable-dissemination effect), this is reflected in the DNA structure
of nucleotide bases, subatomic particle bosons, quarks leptons and the
four
forces, the Lorenz transformations, the four dimensions time/space
continuum proposed by Einstein, the structure of the pyramid, the
quarks
proposed construct, and the artificial construct of the person-ality
that can be seen through the horoscopic structure as the EFFECT of the
white
light of "All That Is' nonphysically being splayed and diffracted
through the prism of materiality-it is all one will, we just
participate in its
outcome and help to determine its momentum. The "proof" as they say is
in the observation of the "pudding" all around you.
> >Realizations are a contradiction to determinism.
Because a self contained (meaning no room for creating free will)
closed
system will have NO MIRRORS from which to view and percieve itself.
Just
like the Grand trine is a closed circut psychologically that the
individual uses to DEFEND against intrusion into its system of
support,
it is a habit, when its a habit-whether it is spiritual, physical, or
intellectual you cannot change what you cannot reflect on, and you
cannot create the extension of a reflection with a closed system. I
can't prove
it I have already told everyone at the beginng of this, you can only
prove it to yourself once the choice to PARTICIPATE in the creation
occurs. The same way I told you you would dead end with Shlyter
because
of his habitual ritual thought processes. No one will ever PROVE
astrology to anyone who is not WILLING to BELIEVE. It like all other
things in the Multiverse, is a co-created event.
> Okay. How?
> >Belief would be irrelevant in a deterministic system.
> How so?
Because it would make no differnce what you believed.
> >Define karma in a deterministic system.
> Easy. Seems natural as heck. But how can it be defined in a
> non-deterministic one? Does it become probabalistic?
Well you didn't define it-easy as heck I see-but it is simply the
momentum (Fixed) of ideation (Mutable) as the effect of belief
(Cardinal)intiation. This is nonphysical AND of course and natuarally
is reflected in the shadow of it called materialty.
> >Well my point is if there is great argument for a deterministic universe
> >why do anything?
> Because if you don't, something bad will happen? It's subtle, but not
> contradictory. Seems possible that there could be a deterministic
> universe in which I am faced with an angry lion and make the "choice"
> of dealing with it, rather than merely lying down. The only trick is
> that "choice" requires quotation marks, as do the words "random",
> "probability", and "likelihood".
Well this is just indecision, either it is or it aint.
> This position engenders a zen kind of insight into life. Saying that
> "our life is an illusion" doesn't mean that it is worthless and one
> should strive to "get over it". It merely means that enlightened ones
> have some irony and sense of "listening" in regard to what it seems to
> tham that they are doing.
Illusion simply means that there may be other elements as well-not
JUST
the percieved one.
> >It will still be only my version and is unprovable like everything else
> >in the universe. You cannot prove others experience. There are only
> >versions and agreed parameters and you will be foolish to attempt to
> >argue this premise.
> Irrelevant. This doesn't help us resolve whether determinism must be
> involved, or not. Could well be that epistemological problems prevent
> resolving multiple perspectives in a deterministic system as well.
> (Or maybe not.)
Well thats irrelevant, cause aint none of us here going to resolve it.
> >What would be the point? Why would you possibly need counsel in a
> >deterministic universe?????
> You are confusing the macrocosmic perspective with the human
> (microcosmic) one. Determinism, if it obtains, must obviously work at
> a level that is not opposed to the possibility that our experience
> would be just like it is. We struggle and contend. This doesn't mean
> that we are wasting our time, nor that the same things will happen if
> we don't struggle and contend. It means that, for whatever reason,
> our struggles and contentions are bound to follow certain courses,
> e.g. due to the specific things which we will encounter, the mood
> we'll be in when a certain choice presents itself, etc. It's not a
> prison.
> >Without meaning to sound deragatory do you
> >see the rediculous contradictions in your assertions? The counselor would
> >be analytically incorrect yes, because it would be redundant. If the
> >universe was indeed deterministic then this counselor would be under
> >great delusions and would serve no one by counseling. No one would need
> >to DO anything if the universe was deterministic!
> This is plain wrong.
Well now you cannot say this about this subject and you know it.
> You will find that there is more to this issue
> than you have granted, yet. The problem with non-deterministic models
> is that they actually *deny* the possibility of character, will,
> choice, intent, and ultimately, even, of principle. The end of
> science, as well. This is why quantum mechanics is (must be) a crock
> of shit. One can never prove anything in a non-deterministic world.
You can't prove anything in any world because there is no standard to
measure it against. There is no one truth.
> Especially not that it was non-deterministic. Such a proof would have
> the property of rendering itself inconclusive. Neat trick!
> >Jonathan Dunn:
> >> If you say 'by saying that everything is free will I state something which
> >> is both correct and helpful to others', then that is not something I would
> >> ever argue with. But if you go on 'and therefore when someone says that
> >> everything is deterministic that person is both incorrect and failing to
> >> help others understand'
> >If they are not improving the quality of life-to put all this nonsense to
> >rest-then no it is not service.
> Well, this should be irrelevant to our question. For now, let's be
> interested in thinking about things, and tough luck if it turns out
> not to be helpful to people. For now, our task is to be philosophers,
> not necessarily to be useful. (I think real philosophy is bound to be
> useful, but that's because my goals are generally philosophical.) My
> goal isn't to make people happy.
Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine. Service is the whole point in
mine. Because "All That Is" is all one thing, and my desire and choice
is to be in accord with it and its creations-not at variance.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Arcturian One
> Subject: Re: Free will is all there is!
> From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
> Date: 1996/09/09
Now THAT is some old, stale shit.
Spåmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: Free will is all there is!
> From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
> Date: 1996/09/09
> Message-ID: <3234F9...@mail.sdsu.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>
That's some mighty old screed, kook.
Dan Baldwin
>
>
> Well that is YOUR philosophy not mine.
So expect Edmo to plagiarize at some point a few years from now.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
Daedalus
>Subject: Re: Free will is all there is!
Prove it by ending your screed spree. I think you can't in a very
determinist way.
>From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Hey, aren'tyou banned from posting from there now?
>Date: 1996/09/09
A stale fart indeed.
Jade
Mr. 4X
news:35325a08.04051...@posting.google.com:
> Subject: Re: Free will is all there is!
> From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
> Date: 1996/09/09
> Message-ID: <3234F9...@mail.sdsu.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>
> Jeff Inman wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes (to Jonathan Dunn):
>> >My aim is to allow you to recognize thatSLAP!
You allowed us to recognize that you're a KOOK.
Chris Krolczyk
(snip)
Cripes, Edmo, are you actually *begging* to be
flamed for repoasting ancient crap like this?
-Chris Krolczyk