Problems with the Phenomenological Rebuttal of Free-Will cont….

The other way it could be is that all that you call your actions, intentions, emotions and experiences are all the actions of a kind of performer. You are just watching the performer do its thing and this performer has tricked you into thinking you are it. Much like a good movie or theatre company can make the audience forget themselves for a bit.

This would account for why we don’t know what we are going to choose before we choose it; what we will think before we think it. It would account for the opaque nature of the black box out of which all our experiences (I include intentions and decisions within that category) come.

Though both these pictures could be the case I genuinely believe we are merely passive observers in our lifes.

We have become so caught up in the drama on the stage that we have forgotten that it isn’t us up there.

Just like a play has a beginning and an end; life has a beginning and an end. Maybe at the end we’ll get to take our masks off and discover we were the same entity playing or the parts.

Or we might just go into oblivion knowing nothing forever which ain’t that bad if you think about it.

Problems with the Phenomenological Rebuttal of Free-Will

I have a number of prongs in my attack on the traditional conception of free-will (the conception that states that if two worlds were identical in every way then it would be possible for a person x in one world to make a different decision to person x in the other world).

Recently I have thought of an analogy, or model, to show the problems in the phenomenological rebuttal of free-will.

If you try to distinguish between what you have control over and what you don’t have control over you will find that the closer you look the less you have control over; until it becomes apparent that you are nothing but a passive observer.

Your thoughts just pop spontaneously into your mind. Intentions I would say are thoughts to and like thoughts they just spring up out of no-where. But it is intentionality (that is the feeling of intending to do something) that we use to distinguish between what we have control over and what we don’t have control over.

The will to act upon an intention is no different. It’s not as if you will to will to will to act upon an intention. The will just appears magically.

Now this could be the result of a necessary bifurcation in our being brought about by our self-aware nature.

It is a bit like watching your reflection in the mirror. Whilst you are aware of yourself and your reflection you know that your reflection raising its arm is caused by you raising your arm.

If all you had available was the reflection then you could be forgiven for thinking it was moving itself and not being moved by your own actions and in a phenomenological analysis we may be just looking at the mirror and nothing else.

The Aberrant is the Monster of Society and Society is the Monster of the Aberrant; The grounds for true compassion!

 

Tis a sad thing that few realize
That all are retards or none are;

That we are all abnormalities
Born with unchosen deformities;

That to call one shameful and evil
Is to call all shameful and evil.

But

If instead

We realize the truth:
That good and bad are nothing
But ways of saying:

I don’t like this”
And “I like that”

That give the illusion

That justifies the vicious acts
the likes of which were used
As the excuse to commit the acts.


Justice is ever the cover for man’s bestiality.

Have you ever looked

Into the eyes

Of a man

As he describes

What he’d like to do to those “evil” men!

And seen the same “evil”….

stare…..

Right back out at you.

As if it’s a dog on a leash

Just raring to go.

The collar, my friend, is untied by Justice!

No-one was born,
Given a contract to sign
Then told to live accordingly!

We were born free!

We washed up on the shores of life

Through no will of our own.

We owe no-one nothing!

And guilt is ever the illusion

Of the man who believed

The man at the docks who said

Gotta give us something

To be here mate! It’s only fair!”

And if a man wishes to murder
Who are we to say he’s wrong
In any inaccessibly objective metaphysical sense;
Because all we’re really saying
When we say

Murder is wrong!”
Is
“I don’t want to die, please don’t kill me!”


We have to be honest

About the basis
Of our legal system!


It just so happens the majority
Share preferences
That the majority finds bearable.


So we

The majority

Gang up on the “Aberrant”
On the “Freak”

On the “Retard”

And the “Criminal”


And with no justification

Other than might

We deny them the
Ability for fulfilment.

And I whole-heartedly participate

Because

I don’t want to get hurt,

Because

I want to keep my stuff

Because

I want to live in a world
Where we can all dance

Our freaky dances fearlessly

But there are those whose dance

We cannot tolerate.

We cannot like

Because it stops our dance.

So we gang up
And beat up
Those who can’t step to our rhythm.

To make ourselves feel better

We create the myth of morality,
Of justice!

To cover up the brute fact
Of the brute bullies we really are!

Do you accept this truth?

I do!

But it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

I must wash it out!
But what’s the answer?

My answer? kind sir:


If the resources are sufficient
Then comfortable accommodations
Are most pertinent.


If not then we are left with the question:

A quick painless death
Or a lifetime in horrid conditions.


Which would you prefer?


Given the choice
I’d give society’s victims the choice.

Seeing as it’s his fate to be decided.

The aberrant

Is a monster to society

And society

Is a monster to the aberrant!

Just a ramble

What are words but signs that point to concepts in the mind. Concepts not images for images are a sub-set of concepts. That is they can be reduced to each other.

What is language if not a set of pictures and do not these pictures come to express concepts.

There’s a problem here! Do concepts exist as words on a page or as mental content or forms?

If concepts are nothing but words on paper then concepts can be created by pictures. But if concepts are not words on paper. The words on the page being triggers for certain mental states.

But then they both comprise the same informational content.

Making sense of concepts requires a more holistic understanding that expresses the relationship between the Dasein, concepts and images.

There is no You!

So the other day I was talking about identity and how it isn’t a fixed thing. I think I was really talking about the ego, super-ego and id triad. The nature of which is protean.

The Id doesn’t always want the same thing. So the Ego has to constantly change its interactions with the super-ego. Out of this process arises the protean identity; which is the triads projection into the world.

The real you is just a passive awareness through which experience passes. You experience trees, roads, cars, shame, guilt, sadness, choices and so on. If you watch carefully you will see that there is no “I” experiencing any of this stuff; there is just the experience.

I’ve been suffering hiccups recently so I’ll use them as an analogy. A hiccup seems to pop up out of no-where. You don’t strive to hiccup it just happens. Watch your thoughts and you will see the same thing. You don’t strive to think a thought it just pops into your mind.

Watch your internal experiences and you will see they have the same character. Sure you may feel sad when someone dies. You see the death as the cause of the sadness; but there was no “you” there who acted as an agent to feel sad in response to death. It just happened.

In fact we are never aware of an “I” that is perceiving. Rather we just see stuff.

This “I” is an illusion created by language because language requires a subject to act upon an object.

Dialogue between an old man and a young man

Young Man: You’re an apologetic thinker

Old Man: I’m who I am. Not by my choice; but by the choice of the one who’s in control. [He means the biblical God]

Young Man: You could be open-minded like me. Instead of being a Liverpool fan clinging to the post bleating “we are the best” no matter what. You could be free to frolic in the sunny gardens where you can say a team is best because it’s scored more goals or something.

Old Man: I believe in the Christian God because I know; I’ve had a revelation. So have you! I choose to believe; you don’t.

Young Man: I don’t choose to believe or not believe. What’s the difference anyway? Belief and non-belief are fictions we create to give ourselves a means of creating an identity. To confirm to ourselves we’re here and we’re who we want to think we are.

Old Man: Will you choose to comment back? You have a choice; we all have.

Young Man: “I don’t choose to believe or not believe – – – what’s the difference anyway? Belief and non-belief are fictions we create to give ourselves a means of creating an identity.”

That was my comment back.

Old Man: That was your choice. So you had a choice! You also have a choice to accept your revelation from God; instead you chose the world.

And how’s it working out?!?!

Young Man: https://christopherjack101.wordpress.com/…/more-on…/

I did accept my revelation. I just saw that it was the same thing that had been given to millions of others with hundreds of mutually exclusive beliefs.

Old Man: And all from the one same [bilical] God.

Young Man: If that’s what floods your penis with blood then I don’t see why you shouldn’t go on believing it.

Old Man: I don’t understand why you have to drag the conversation down to the level of personal private parts…

Young Man: I like the level of the personal private parts. Think of me as some centipedy grub wrapped round your hard on, with a proboscis inserted into your japs eyes, that has one of those ball like things sliding up its length like a mosquito sucking blood as I extract whatever it is you keep in that shrivelled hole!

Old man: I would never ever have talked to an Old Man the way you have talked to me! The sad drop in standards of this generation does not surprise me at all.

Young Man: It’s not a drop in standards; but an increase in freedom. I talk to you like I do to anyone. Rather than hiding it away and only furtively beating up the man of the cloth whilst Napoleon is out conquering the dirty houses; I nakedly luxuriate in the living room (whilst my mum’s watching on the buses) masturbating to rape porn and spunking on the dogs.

Old Man: No, Young Man! It is a massive drop in standards. We had more freedom years ago when I was your age.

You are just making excuses for your terrible and disgusting behaviour.

The way you treat yourself and others is awful.

Young Man: I treat no-body terribly. It is the stupid ideals you defend that forced people into ugly masks that is the disgusting behaviour you are referring to.

I treat everyone as adults.

You are just illegitimately extending the rules of your stupid sub-culture to include everyone. Sorry mate but you’ve gotta open your eye’s and see the beautiful fact that we can live out our freaky dances in freedom!

And standards!?

Whose standards would these be?

Who chose them?

I certainly didn’t choose them!

So you know what I’m gonna do with them? I’m gonna fucking defenestrate them! That’s what I’m gonna do. If you had two synapses to rub together you’d do the same.

It’s you and you’re stupid traditions and standards that have made the world the shit hole it is today: where everyone wears too much make-up and are too concerned with how they appear.

They constantly feel the need to consume because your fucktard of a generation has left everyone feeling guilty and ashamed when they don’t need to be.

It’s to alleviate the pain of the false guilt and shame that they have to consume and consume.

It’s because or your ideals and beliefs that the world is fucked up Old Man

And all because I treat myself in a manner you wouldn’t want to treat yourself doesn’t mean that the way I treat myself is wrong. It just means you would prefer to treat yourself differently. Most of how you treat yourself is driven by a concern about what the Jones’ will think of you anyway.

I’m a free individual and from the perspective of a trapped individual I appear aberrant. I am; but that’s because you (like most people) are trapped by your need to get other people to believe what you believe just so you can confirm to yourself you’re the man you want to be.

Whereas I’m free to explore idea-space fearlessly having left behind the illusion of an identity and the exhausting effort it takes to maintain one.

Old Man: People see how you treat yourself and it has an effect on others.

You can believe whatever you want. What you need is some common decency which is very sadly lacking.

Young Man: Often “effect on others” is just a term we use to justify being dictators to others.

I don’t like the way you behave or your sub-culture and I’m going to express that dislike by saying “It has an effect on me” when the only effect it has on you is your stupid opinion regarding that behaviour which ain’t yours anyway. It has been brainwashed into you by your parents social milieu and your own social milieu.

You need to discover who you are Old man cause currently you’re just a puppet dangling on the strings controlled by the media and powers that be. You’re just an empty clone of a man who repeats what he’s heard again and again.

The lights are on Old Man but I’m afraid no-one’s home.

Apologetic thinking and….

There are two types of thinker’s. I haven’t thought of a name for the second yet so I shall describe the first and most common. The Apologist.

 

The Apologist’s main concern in thinking and discussing are to come up with arguments for a concept or set of concepts they already believe in.

 

Richard Dawkins’ way of thinking – at least as he publicly displays it – is apologetic. His agenda is to convince people that God isn’t real. The thinking behind this is one in which a concept – atheism – is constantly analysed in order to discover more convincing arguments for it.

 

The thinking of most religious people is the same; which is why I lump Richard Dawkins and all stubborn atheists in the same bit of play-doh as Christian fundamentalists.

 

So when these people come across a new concept they don’t look at it with innocent eyes; immediately they are assessing it to see whether it can be used to confirm or deny their set of concepts.

Most of these people are obsessing over metaphysical conundrums which have been shown to be unanswerable for millenia. If, in order to ascertain the truth value of a statement you refer to experience, to what are you meant to refer to in order to ascertain the truth value of a statement concerning the causes of experience?