Free-will
Return to the pedantic
In the section " The Future" I posed three questions, of which the first was; " Is man in control of his own destiny" I disseminated the question to show that questions, by the use of particular words and the way in which they are couched, can be very confusing with out first giving a precise definition of the words one is using for the context one is using them in. So it is with my original section title: Civilised by Choice and Decision, that we need to have an understanding of words I am using. I also, In the conclusion to The Future I said that the nature of inevitable change and growth would be dependent on what we see as the choices that confront us and what decisions we make to those choices. This section looks at just that:
Choice, Decision and Free-will
Free-will
Let me first start with the word “freedom” as it has been so commonly use in the ubiquitous philosophical debate of “free-will”.
Let me hit this one squarely on the head, to start with, there is no such concept as “absolute freedom” other than as a notional term, it can only exist in practical terms as a relative concept: to be free from something. For example; Let us assume that I want a process that I wish to be free, that process would have to be without constraint or order of any kind in order to be "free". Take for example an un-tuned television where the pixels of the screen would fire for all intents and purposes completely randomly without any discernible control or law as to the make up of any given pixel at any one time (all right I believe this is the back ground “noise” left over from the “big Bang” or something like that”) this would surely be a reasonable example of a process that is devoid of limitations and therefore be in freedom? But it is not free, it is not free to be ordered it cannot take on any form or order or it would no longer be free because freedom itself would be a limitations. Freedom itself is its own limitation. I conclude that freedom as an absolute dose not exist.
So in terms of any human function that requires an analysis or judgement there must be some form of critical criteria that would constitute a limitation and ergo cannot be free ( in a total sense)
A Long Standing Debate
One cannot, I suspect, call oneself a philosopher without having added to the plethora of existing comments on the topic of "free will". But I am not motivated solely to write on this subject as an academic rights of passage, but more because, to my mind, the debate has not yet been put to rest. A debate, in which, the implications are so far reaching as to go to the heart of defining what I would call "the human condition". I feel that, within the out come of this debate, hangs (in the balance) a legitimacy to the concepts of ethics, morality, and indeed the futility or other wise of any philosophy! If such a conjecture be true, then the importance of a satisfactory resolution to this debate is self evident. I suspect that, from this topic being so well written about, others throughout history have seen the same implications that this debate provokes and shared a vision of importance.
Trying to Understand the Debate
I have read several commentators descriptions on this debate and have found many of the explanations very confusing, not because of the commentators explanations but because the successive adherents on both sides of the debate endlessly attempt to reconcile, in one contorted way or another, the two main stand point: Freedom and responsibility. My confusion is further compounded by the “back to front”, manner in which debate is couched, in that much of the arguments appear to be driven by the implications; That of moral responsibility only being possible, if exercised by some one who has choice, ergo freedom! We want man to be morally responsible therefore he must be free.
In a nut shell the essence of the debate runs something like this:
“Is man a free agent or are his actions determinable (by reason of causality) ?” and if he is not a free agent what are the implications in regard to him, having a morally responsible for his actions?
Incompatibilists, compatibilists, libertarians, and soft and hard determinists
To me, the argument for determinism, (whether I agree with it or not) is that it dose have a logical basis in causality. The empirical evidence of one action causing an other, is self evident, whether one can extrapolate, simple causal laws to the chaotically complex workings of human behaviour is perhaps debatable, but never the less plausible. I am unconvinced by the argument for freedom that says, in the immediacy of a given moment we have if we choose the ability to effect a decision for that moment, and that moreover the voice of our moral conscience, an innate device cannot be subjected to a conflicting unprovable scientific theory, such as causality. Incompatibilists, compatibilists, libertarians, and soft determinists masticate the original piece of cud, to further my confusion as they chew the debate over.
My Christian Heritage
I was brought up with in the Christian doctrine, where I encountered a not dissimilar debate. I suspect it is where much of the language used in this debate has come from. The church, adopting much of the analogous metaphors, (such as, man being enslaved to sin set free, To do god’s will, etc.) John Calvin, to my mind exemplified the mind contortions, that on the one hand the final out come is already known, predestined. yet on the other hand one has freedom.
Let me first start with the word “freedom” as it has been so commonly use in the ubiquitous philosophical debate of “free-will”.
Let me hit this one squarely on the head, to start with, there is no such concept as “absolute freedom” other than as a notional term, it can only exist in practical terms as a relative concept: to be free from something. For example; Let us assume that I want a process that I wish to be free, that process would have to be without constraint or order of any kind in order to be "free". Take for example an un-tuned television where the pixels of the screen would fire for all intents and purposes completely randomly without any discernible control or law as to the make up of any given pixel at any one time (all right I believe this is the back ground “noise” left over from the “big Bang” or something like that”) this would surely be a reasonable example of a process that is devoid of limitations and therefore be in freedom? But it is not free, it is not free to be ordered it cannot take on any form or order or it would no longer be free because freedom itself would be a limitations. Freedom itself is its own limitation. I conclude that freedom as an absolute dose not exist.
So in terms of any human function that requires an analysis or judgement there must be some form of critical criteria that would constitute a limitation and ergo cannot be free ( in a total sense)
A Long Standing Debate
One cannot, I suspect, call oneself a philosopher without having added to the plethora of existing comments on the topic of "free will". But I am not motivated solely to write on this subject as an academic rights of passage, but more because, to my mind, the debate has not yet been put to rest. A debate, in which, the implications are so far reaching as to go to the heart of defining what I would call "the human condition". I feel that, within the out come of this debate, hangs (in the balance) a legitimacy to the concepts of ethics, morality, and indeed the futility or other wise of any philosophy! If such a conjecture be true, then the importance of a satisfactory resolution to this debate is self evident. I suspect that, from this topic being so well written about, others throughout history have seen the same implications that this debate provokes and shared a vision of importance.
Trying to Understand the Debate
I have read several commentators descriptions on this debate and have found many of the explanations very confusing, not because of the commentators explanations but because the successive adherents on both sides of the debate endlessly attempt to reconcile, in one contorted way or another, the two main stand point: Freedom and responsibility. My confusion is further compounded by the “back to front”, manner in which debate is couched, in that much of the arguments appear to be driven by the implications; That of moral responsibility only being possible, if exercised by some one who has choice, ergo freedom! We want man to be morally responsible therefore he must be free.
In a nut shell the essence of the debate runs something like this:
“Is man a free agent or are his actions determinable (by reason of causality) ?” and if he is not a free agent what are the implications in regard to him, having a morally responsible for his actions?
Incompatibilists, compatibilists, libertarians, and soft and hard determinists
To me, the argument for determinism, (whether I agree with it or not) is that it dose have a logical basis in causality. The empirical evidence of one action causing an other, is self evident, whether one can extrapolate, simple causal laws to the chaotically complex workings of human behaviour is perhaps debatable, but never the less plausible. I am unconvinced by the argument for freedom that says, in the immediacy of a given moment we have if we choose the ability to effect a decision for that moment, and that moreover the voice of our moral conscience, an innate device cannot be subjected to a conflicting unprovable scientific theory, such as causality. Incompatibilists, compatibilists, libertarians, and soft determinists masticate the original piece of cud, to further my confusion as they chew the debate over.
My Christian Heritage
I was brought up with in the Christian doctrine, where I encountered a not dissimilar debate. I suspect it is where much of the language used in this debate has come from. The church, adopting much of the analogous metaphors, (such as, man being enslaved to sin set free, To do god’s will, etc.) John Calvin, to my mind exemplified the mind contortions, that on the one hand the final out come is already known, predestined. yet on the other hand one has freedom.
Is Man a Free Agent
Making sense not the truth?
Well, where does one start with what needs so much unravelling? Before we start with the substance of the argument I should like to start with mechanism of how we look at such arguments. I suspect, that ever since man had intellectual ability to have an abstract awareness of his own existence, he has been trying to make sense of himself and his surroundings. As indeed, many would say is a fair description of what philosophy is about today. But if philosophy is the in effect the mechanism of how we look at such arguments one should point out that making sense of a situation, does not necessarily mean looking for the truth about it.
Plausible Construction
I would like to think that the purpose of philosophy, is to come to, as an objective understanding of reality as one can; a truthful analysis rather than a plausible construction, that "ties the ends down," as it were. Not implying that philosophy does not make sense of things, but that the overriding principle should be is to make sense of things with an honest purity of motivation. You might argue that I am being unfair to our forebears, in saying that they were dishonest in their making sense and I would concede that I'm perhaps mistaking ignorance with dishonesty. Nevertheless it would still be true to say that faced with ignorance, not knowing, early philosophers still found it necessary to construct plausible explanation, to his situation. Like politicians, a philosopher cant say "I don't know".
Philosophical Truth Corrupted by Fear?
So if not pursuit of philosophical truth, what was the motivation of our early philosophers, in needing to make sense of his world. It was I believe, and perhaps still is, the fears engendered by his new intellectual awareness; to be aware of being in an existence in which we had no hand in ordaining, to become aware of our own impotence and perhaps in particular of his own death. I know of no early civilization that does not have some form of construct on the subject. The importance of these construct cannot be underestimated in the intellectual development of mankind. I am sure that early man was convinced of his constructs, indeed there very value, a as a plactator to his fears made it a necessity, but of course it did not make the constructs true.
I believe that this making sense of his fears can be seen as part of the original motive for philosophy and can be called the hidden agenda. In our modern thinking man still has his fears to colour his perspective. I suspect we would be kidding ourselves if we did not recognize that the purity of our philosophizing may well be corrupted by the desires of what we want to be true. Such corruption, I feel has been present in the debate of a man being or not being a free agent. I believe the philosopher, like Liberty, should be blindfolded to weigh each argument without passion or favour, and thus to be free thinkers, free from the fears of what might be the consequence of our thoughts.
An Unacceptable Reality
If for instance, we conclude that we are and all our thinking is, solely the product of causality, and ergo determinable then we have no free will to determine our own destiny. We are nothing more than puppets, automatons, set on a predetermined course, in which we have no say. I would argue, that in the face of such a depressing reality to our ego, we cannot be truly dispassionate to this idea being an acceptable possibility. And yet, if it is true, then it is true and if we are unable to say as such then that can only prove that we are not free.
As I alluded to at the beginning of this writing. the implications of such a consideration would render any further discussion of philosophy, ethics and morality futile, as all would be an illusion, a case of, the last man out turn - off the lights........... Not yet!
The Hidden Agenda
OK, so man has an axe to grind, he is not necessarily dispassionate in the outcome of his philosophizing. Indeed, the whole way in which he looks at this topic may be colour by his fears. Even in the way he has approached this argument, Has been that of “the light on or off” and not allowing room for anything in-between. The approach always seems to appear to be that of a confrontational standpoint; free will, light on determinism light off, and not the more exploratory investigation that one might expect from a truly philosophical outlook.
A salesman will tell you that the question "is man free agent " represents a (partially) closed question, requiring no explanation just yes or no. Although this is my question ("is man a free agent") it is I feel the away in which the debate has always been coached. Although the evidence may, or may not be there, I would contend that my hidden agenda, that of man's fears, has directed the nature of the debate.
Well, where does one start with what needs so much unravelling? Before we start with the substance of the argument I should like to start with mechanism of how we look at such arguments. I suspect, that ever since man had intellectual ability to have an abstract awareness of his own existence, he has been trying to make sense of himself and his surroundings. As indeed, many would say is a fair description of what philosophy is about today. But if philosophy is the in effect the mechanism of how we look at such arguments one should point out that making sense of a situation, does not necessarily mean looking for the truth about it.
Plausible Construction
I would like to think that the purpose of philosophy, is to come to, as an objective understanding of reality as one can; a truthful analysis rather than a plausible construction, that "ties the ends down," as it were. Not implying that philosophy does not make sense of things, but that the overriding principle should be is to make sense of things with an honest purity of motivation. You might argue that I am being unfair to our forebears, in saying that they were dishonest in their making sense and I would concede that I'm perhaps mistaking ignorance with dishonesty. Nevertheless it would still be true to say that faced with ignorance, not knowing, early philosophers still found it necessary to construct plausible explanation, to his situation. Like politicians, a philosopher cant say "I don't know".
Philosophical Truth Corrupted by Fear?
So if not pursuit of philosophical truth, what was the motivation of our early philosophers, in needing to make sense of his world. It was I believe, and perhaps still is, the fears engendered by his new intellectual awareness; to be aware of being in an existence in which we had no hand in ordaining, to become aware of our own impotence and perhaps in particular of his own death. I know of no early civilization that does not have some form of construct on the subject. The importance of these construct cannot be underestimated in the intellectual development of mankind. I am sure that early man was convinced of his constructs, indeed there very value, a as a plactator to his fears made it a necessity, but of course it did not make the constructs true.
I believe that this making sense of his fears can be seen as part of the original motive for philosophy and can be called the hidden agenda. In our modern thinking man still has his fears to colour his perspective. I suspect we would be kidding ourselves if we did not recognize that the purity of our philosophizing may well be corrupted by the desires of what we want to be true. Such corruption, I feel has been present in the debate of a man being or not being a free agent. I believe the philosopher, like Liberty, should be blindfolded to weigh each argument without passion or favour, and thus to be free thinkers, free from the fears of what might be the consequence of our thoughts.
An Unacceptable Reality
If for instance, we conclude that we are and all our thinking is, solely the product of causality, and ergo determinable then we have no free will to determine our own destiny. We are nothing more than puppets, automatons, set on a predetermined course, in which we have no say. I would argue, that in the face of such a depressing reality to our ego, we cannot be truly dispassionate to this idea being an acceptable possibility. And yet, if it is true, then it is true and if we are unable to say as such then that can only prove that we are not free.
As I alluded to at the beginning of this writing. the implications of such a consideration would render any further discussion of philosophy, ethics and morality futile, as all would be an illusion, a case of, the last man out turn - off the lights........... Not yet!
The Hidden Agenda
OK, so man has an axe to grind, he is not necessarily dispassionate in the outcome of his philosophizing. Indeed, the whole way in which he looks at this topic may be colour by his fears. Even in the way he has approached this argument, Has been that of “the light on or off” and not allowing room for anything in-between. The approach always seems to appear to be that of a confrontational standpoint; free will, light on determinism light off, and not the more exploratory investigation that one might expect from a truly philosophical outlook.
A salesman will tell you that the question "is man free agent " represents a (partially) closed question, requiring no explanation just yes or no. Although this is my question ("is man a free agent") it is I feel the away in which the debate has always been coached. Although the evidence may, or may not be there, I would contend that my hidden agenda, that of man's fears, has directed the nature of the debate.
How then might we approach this debate differently? What might be the equivalent open question?
How does man make decisions?
Let us first consider what a decision is. It is a process, The process must be initiated by an (stimulus) "initialising analysis" this can be pro active: (generated by thought by an individual from a given set of criteria) or more commonly as a reactive response to an external stimuli. From this initiator there will be established a set of choices between at lest two or more possibilities. Then there would need to be an analysis of the possibilities to determine the merits of the contending possibilities that goes up to make up the choice. This analysis would be from some form of benchmark with which to measure each of the contending possibilities against. And then indeed to measure the contending possibilities against each other.
An example might run as follows; a stimulus I see my cat coming towards me, and I hear her purring. (something at this point initiates of the decision conundrum) stroke the cat or not? Analysis number of variables= two, do it or not to do it. To do it; gives a pleasure on one hand but requires effort. Not to do it, requires no effort, nor gain of possible pleasure. Benchmark (the benchmark must be some form of pre program, a quantifier, to establish what is “good” or better (in this context) decision stroke the cat.
A Plausible Explanation
I think this gives a plausible (If overly simple) explanation of the decision-making process for the purpose of this debate. I would contend that everything, every movement however small is governed by a decision making process. 99% of which we are probably not conscious the aware of doing. I believe that we do nothing out of true whim that is to say completely randomly, ever thing is the product of a stimulus ether internal or externally derived. Any truly random movements or actions are the product of disease be it physical or mental. However what I have described is the simplest of decisions and indeed we probably shared this process with all mammals and certainly a good percentage of all animals.
Decisions by Instinct
It would appear that the key to this type of decision-making lies within the analysis of the choice, at the point where the benchmark or as I called it the pre programmed criteria is invoked. These type decisions, that is so say commonplace almost trivial, every day living decisions, are the type of decision we have in common with our animal ancestry. One can fairly assume we do not employ a high level of intellectual thought processes of morality and ethics. Nevertheless decisions are being made from some criteria, it is my belief that this criteria, in common with our animal ancestors, can be described by the basic instincts, that of survive in order to procreate. Although stroking the cat may sound as if it is far removed from survival or procreation but then the adaptation of survival to seeking pleasure and comfort becomes relevant in a western culture, where, for many of us true surviving is not an issue. So where dose that take us?
A stimulus (usual external) produces a choice conundrum, from which decision are being made. It would appear that the decision are being made from our instinctual nature, the analytical benchmark being "survive to procreate" being in common with other animal. These decisions are not likely to be anything other than determinable as they are following a pre programmed itinerary (evolution?).
A Higher order of Decisions.
However what of the more conscious decisions? Are they too made by the criteria of our instincts? If yes one must conclude that man is completely determinable with all that implies. If no, there must be some other benchmark that is in use, some other quantifying criteria with which we can employ in our decision making.
Where should we look for this new benchmark?
With out meaning to be obtuse, where should we not look? Presumably at the rest of the animal kingdom having already suggested that the empirical evidence of decision making in animals is exclusively done by instinctual behaviour. Clearly this is an aspect of the Human Condition. I could now go on, or rather refer back to my writing on morality to look for answers as to where we should look for a new benchmark. But lets stick with the notion of being free "from". As I see things, the driving force that motivates all life is as I have said ad nauseam, survival to procreate, being the summation of our animal instincts. But the specifics of that motivation in terms of attitude is one of selfish self preservation.
I started the discussion, looking at the notion of freewill to determine if man was just a puppet, an automitant set on a predetermined course. I felt that this notion of being "free" was spurious in that we could not ever be totally free. We, human have to get our head round the fact that we will always have some form of constraint to our existence: there had to be some form of order. The best we could get was to be free from our current motivations but supplanted by what? A new bench mark would represent a new motivation. But what is our current benchmark exactly and why would we need to change it ... just to have the notional jolly of being free?
Story of the Petri Dish
So on that note let me indulge my thoughts for a moment: I had a doctor friend some number of years ago, that told me of the rather depressing scenario of the corollary of “life with in a limited confine”. He told me that if one is to put a variety of bacterium with in a culture dish, certain events happen with disastrous results: at first all is well as the various bacterium devour the ample available food, they grow, and eventually become in competition with each other, sooner or later the dominant life over runs the weaker until there is only a couple left and eventual they too die from a lack of food and an excess of waste products. Such is the logical outcome of Survive to procreate.
Back to Freedom
The point of the above writing: Story of the Petri Dish is to suggest that there is a fundamental flaw to the processes of "survival of the fittest". That under certain circumstances the process is self destructive. The relevance to man is that he is or may well find himself in those circumstances, that of an organism in a confined space, set by his programming to destroy himself. If true and and apposite we should look to examine possible alternatives.
Freedom is relative, one is free form something in this case it would have to be free from our ....instinctual nature ? No, I do not think it is possible to change the basic survival instinct motivation, however If we separate the motivation its self from the method: the motivation is to survive but the method is one of competitive struggle. I do think we have the capability to modify the manner of achieving survival: from the "selfish individualistic" to the "common good for all". This would represent a relative partial freedom from the our instinctual nature. No we would not be free (as in a totality), as I have already said there is no such thing as absolute freedom. For there to be any kind of order at all, any where, in any situation, there has to be some form of parameter, laws that govern, dictate the order. Yes we are, I feel free to change the method of survival, by use of an extraordinary quality, that of belief. But then one has to believe in the power of belief.
Let us first consider what a decision is. It is a process, The process must be initiated by an (stimulus) "initialising analysis" this can be pro active: (generated by thought by an individual from a given set of criteria) or more commonly as a reactive response to an external stimuli. From this initiator there will be established a set of choices between at lest two or more possibilities. Then there would need to be an analysis of the possibilities to determine the merits of the contending possibilities that goes up to make up the choice. This analysis would be from some form of benchmark with which to measure each of the contending possibilities against. And then indeed to measure the contending possibilities against each other.
An example might run as follows; a stimulus I see my cat coming towards me, and I hear her purring. (something at this point initiates of the decision conundrum) stroke the cat or not? Analysis number of variables= two, do it or not to do it. To do it; gives a pleasure on one hand but requires effort. Not to do it, requires no effort, nor gain of possible pleasure. Benchmark (the benchmark must be some form of pre program, a quantifier, to establish what is “good” or better (in this context) decision stroke the cat.
A Plausible Explanation
I think this gives a plausible (If overly simple) explanation of the decision-making process for the purpose of this debate. I would contend that everything, every movement however small is governed by a decision making process. 99% of which we are probably not conscious the aware of doing. I believe that we do nothing out of true whim that is to say completely randomly, ever thing is the product of a stimulus ether internal or externally derived. Any truly random movements or actions are the product of disease be it physical or mental. However what I have described is the simplest of decisions and indeed we probably shared this process with all mammals and certainly a good percentage of all animals.
Decisions by Instinct
It would appear that the key to this type of decision-making lies within the analysis of the choice, at the point where the benchmark or as I called it the pre programmed criteria is invoked. These type decisions, that is so say commonplace almost trivial, every day living decisions, are the type of decision we have in common with our animal ancestry. One can fairly assume we do not employ a high level of intellectual thought processes of morality and ethics. Nevertheless decisions are being made from some criteria, it is my belief that this criteria, in common with our animal ancestors, can be described by the basic instincts, that of survive in order to procreate. Although stroking the cat may sound as if it is far removed from survival or procreation but then the adaptation of survival to seeking pleasure and comfort becomes relevant in a western culture, where, for many of us true surviving is not an issue. So where dose that take us?
A stimulus (usual external) produces a choice conundrum, from which decision are being made. It would appear that the decision are being made from our instinctual nature, the analytical benchmark being "survive to procreate" being in common with other animal. These decisions are not likely to be anything other than determinable as they are following a pre programmed itinerary (evolution?).
A Higher order of Decisions.
However what of the more conscious decisions? Are they too made by the criteria of our instincts? If yes one must conclude that man is completely determinable with all that implies. If no, there must be some other benchmark that is in use, some other quantifying criteria with which we can employ in our decision making.
Where should we look for this new benchmark?
With out meaning to be obtuse, where should we not look? Presumably at the rest of the animal kingdom having already suggested that the empirical evidence of decision making in animals is exclusively done by instinctual behaviour. Clearly this is an aspect of the Human Condition. I could now go on, or rather refer back to my writing on morality to look for answers as to where we should look for a new benchmark. But lets stick with the notion of being free "from". As I see things, the driving force that motivates all life is as I have said ad nauseam, survival to procreate, being the summation of our animal instincts. But the specifics of that motivation in terms of attitude is one of selfish self preservation.
I started the discussion, looking at the notion of freewill to determine if man was just a puppet, an automitant set on a predetermined course. I felt that this notion of being "free" was spurious in that we could not ever be totally free. We, human have to get our head round the fact that we will always have some form of constraint to our existence: there had to be some form of order. The best we could get was to be free from our current motivations but supplanted by what? A new bench mark would represent a new motivation. But what is our current benchmark exactly and why would we need to change it ... just to have the notional jolly of being free?
Story of the Petri Dish
So on that note let me indulge my thoughts for a moment: I had a doctor friend some number of years ago, that told me of the rather depressing scenario of the corollary of “life with in a limited confine”. He told me that if one is to put a variety of bacterium with in a culture dish, certain events happen with disastrous results: at first all is well as the various bacterium devour the ample available food, they grow, and eventually become in competition with each other, sooner or later the dominant life over runs the weaker until there is only a couple left and eventual they too die from a lack of food and an excess of waste products. Such is the logical outcome of Survive to procreate.
Back to Freedom
The point of the above writing: Story of the Petri Dish is to suggest that there is a fundamental flaw to the processes of "survival of the fittest". That under certain circumstances the process is self destructive. The relevance to man is that he is or may well find himself in those circumstances, that of an organism in a confined space, set by his programming to destroy himself. If true and and apposite we should look to examine possible alternatives.
Freedom is relative, one is free form something in this case it would have to be free from our ....instinctual nature ? No, I do not think it is possible to change the basic survival instinct motivation, however If we separate the motivation its self from the method: the motivation is to survive but the method is one of competitive struggle. I do think we have the capability to modify the manner of achieving survival: from the "selfish individualistic" to the "common good for all". This would represent a relative partial freedom from the our instinctual nature. No we would not be free (as in a totality), as I have already said there is no such thing as absolute freedom. For there to be any kind of order at all, any where, in any situation, there has to be some form of parameter, laws that govern, dictate the order. Yes we are, I feel free to change the method of survival, by use of an extraordinary quality, that of belief. But then one has to believe in the power of belief.
A Conclusion: Moved on from Decision and Choice
Change; Why and How
Well the why, to changing our motivational drive, is I feel self evident, intellectually we can see that the prime motivation, that of survival, is in jeopardy if we don't. If we seriously believe this possibility the how will be in that belief, an intellectually derived conclusion. But it is more than just the cold corollary of mutuality that drives this compulsion to change, there is I feel an emotional element to this situation: it is as I have ready said we can see... see the wonderment of life as the spectators of the most wonderful thing in the universe Life We may have discovered the nature of our situation from the analysis of by our intellect, we may derive a belief structure from the power of our imagination but surely it must be the passion of our love for the amazement of life that ultimately motivates the change.
Well the why, to changing our motivational drive, is I feel self evident, intellectually we can see that the prime motivation, that of survival, is in jeopardy if we don't. If we seriously believe this possibility the how will be in that belief, an intellectually derived conclusion. But it is more than just the cold corollary of mutuality that drives this compulsion to change, there is I feel an emotional element to this situation: it is as I have ready said we can see... see the wonderment of life as the spectators of the most wonderful thing in the universe Life We may have discovered the nature of our situation from the analysis of by our intellect, we may derive a belief structure from the power of our imagination but surely it must be the passion of our love for the amazement of life that ultimately motivates the change.
Return to: The Duality of Existence
|
|