Ever since the other front ends began having problems right after I joined, I switched to Blurtter.com
I wanted to comment on a comment you made at the other site. I laughed when I read it as it reminded me of an interaction I had with you.
You had said
For example, everyone seems to think they know exactly why I ask the questions that I tend to ask, and most of those "reasons" involve them projecting some level of "insincerity" onto my conscious intentions.
I remember asking you some time back what your belief was on something you had posted about. I had gathered for some time you usually never actually staked a position on a subject, more presented and sat back to study the reactions. It was probably one of the couple reasons I began wondering if you were Baah. His approach was different, more prone to exposing the others bias as they often felt panicked by his presentation. I watched him decimate others by allowing them to be themselves and most never had a clue.
You are also a master at this, although you move the pieces differently which achieves a more subtle result usually involving more dignity for the person who believes they are their bias/position.
For what it's worth, wanted to let you know I have earned a lot from our interactions. I am often stunned at my level of ignorance, and appreciate seeing it exposed so I can study it/myself. It gets exposed quite often as I read your commentary. Not that I always find myself in agreement with some of it, which I suspect you may not as well.
I've really pondered your emotion underlying everything statement for example. I still don't know I agree. I was taught when I was young I before E, intellect before emotion. It appears this would be true to me. If the mind did not use intellect to categorize (good bad love hate etc) I don't know how we would form an opinion to lay the groundwork for the emotion. I'll continue to give it more thought from time to time as I do with things sometimes, but this one really seems to be I before E from my viewpoint.
after exploring this together.
perhaps we can agree that there is a "something" that is pre-intellectual, that motivates our thoughts and conscious aims.
maybe not "emotion" if you don't like that word.
it's probably "pre-emotional" or "sub-emotional" or "proto-emotional".
There is definitely something that in the impetus for intellect. I still am of the belief it is not emotions, as I still see that feelings are created by intellect setting the reference points necessary to evoke the emotions.
I don't know the origin of the motivations however, and I do find it feasible as I've read elsewhere that the motivations don't necessarily come from ourselves.
On a side note, I have been following with great interest the self destruction taking place on Hive 9which was the impetus of my post last week). In my meanderings, I saw the recent exchange between yourself and Lucylin. I found your dance regarding his unreasonable demands on your associations and motivations to be quite masterful. I used to watch Baah play him hard.
I've always found him to be a curious fellow. He has wit to be sure, but he gets so easily lost in his need to feel secure in his expertise it becomes an albatross that destroys him time and again, yet he refuses to see it. I tried a couple of years ago to subtly point it out to him, but he respectfully needed to stick to his cage.
Loved this response.
after exploring this together.
perhaps we can agree that there is a "something" that is pre-intellectual, that motivates our thoughts and conscious aims.
maybe not "emotion" if you don't like that word.
it's probably "pre-emotional" or "sub-emotional" or "proto-emotional".
INTELLECT ONLY SERVES E-MOTION.
every "intellectual" decision hides an emotional AXIOM.
It seems to me that intellect precedes and stores emotion. One must have a reference to hold an emotion. The closest reconciliation I could have to what you assert here is that a feeling might precede intellect, although I'm not certain on that even.
I do believe that feeling (and its extension of emotion) can and does serve as a catalyst capable of transmutation. Perhaps it's this new manifestation that leads to the belief that intellect is subservient to emotion.
Typing this out to see if I can agree with the intellect being subservient to emotion. I still can't. It seems to me that while many submit to their emotions, this in itself is not proof that intellect serves it.
To acknowledge ones emotions is to have categorized it and placed it into an intellectual category. Emotions seem to me to be a side effect of an intellectual acknowledgement.
Perhaps you could give me an example of some completely emotionless plan or goal.
Please see my latest post. I tried to give a lengthy detailed response of both personal experience and observational, yet I'm not sure how compelling you (another) will find it.
Certainly the e-motion of "free-will" is "easily observable".
However, your e-motion has no basis in your conscious decision making process.
(IFF) you PLAN to do something (THEN) your PLAN must be CAUSED by some desire.
Your WILL is a measure of your ability to PLAN.
Your WILL is a slave to your DESIRE.
Your WILL is not "free".
I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think will is tied directly to any desires I hold, although at times it can be. When I mentioned being in a state of feeling that is separate from intellect desire as is commonly understood is not present. Desire seems to me to be an emotionally driven phenomena, which is created by intellect. When one is residing within feeling those attributes are lacking.
I will accept (for now) that plan(ning) might be necessary, although the planning itself manifests in feeling independent of intellect utilizing word structures.
On free will, I remain ignorant on its existence. There are so many variables on whose origin or limitation prevents me from speaking with any certainty. The extent I can speak of free will would be limited to intellect/emotionally charged constructs, in the sense that one can choose not to submit to their demands. I believe there is a larger picture than that however, an environment that due to ignorance alone would seem to negate pure free will.
I believe much of this dilemma is trying to utilize intellect/word structures to classify/define something that defies such methods (feeling/will). What takes place there seems indescribable other than very generic surface descriptions that fail to capture what takes place. One example of this is I don't know I can place in words what part of myself is capable of action when in a state of feeling that is giving the direction to the will. It is above my intellect.
Ok, sticking with the "rock climber" framework.
(1) - Why are you climbing the rock?
(2) - Is there something at the summit that you want and or need?
(3) - Are you even trying to reach the summit, or are you perhaps merely trying to get slightly "higher" than you are currently?
(4) - How do you decide where to place your anchors?
There are to many variables to place them all in one category.
I will attempt to see if I can point one more time, but I fear that my descriptive abilities will not be up to the task.
There could be a myriad of reasons to climb the rock. Exercise, travel, safety etc.
This also will weigh in on the second and third points you ask.
The fourth point/question you focus on is probably the closest I can come to addressing this.
I would submit that one could decide on placement through a couple of ways.
One would be experience, such as either watching others or through direct experience. I would also say that there is a state of being that I have been alluding to where one somehow knows, without there being anything concrete to point ones intellect at. Its a knowing that originates from the feeling area.
Having said that, I'm ignorant of what is taking place in the area of feeling, or who or what is actually in control of this natural place we have been trained to avoid in exchange for intellect. Because of this ignorance, I can't speak to free will.
I do know that many decisions and actions originating from that area are not subject to plans from the intellect, although at times it may allow input. Things are much faster there, faster than intellect. Desires as are generally referenced are not in control, as I said I'm not certain of the control. Things are so fast, and just are for lack of a better way of talking about it.
I wish I could say something more concrete. The only way I can point at an avenue for understanding is for you to place yourself in some kind of danger and its possible for you to detach from your intellect and enter fully into the realm of feeling. My apologies I'm unable to be more descriptive on this area.
It sounds like you're describing "flow-state" which many high-performance athletes report experiencing, funny enough, even rock-climbers.
A "flow-state" is achieved by training your body to move without sending "questions" to your prefrontal cortex.
One rock-climber described a sort of "waking up" when they would reach the top of a climb.
It was as if their body was acting automatically.
This sounds like the exact opposite of "free-will".
It seems like it is, but I don't believe so. Feeling is another state that I believe is probably our natural state. It is much quicker than thought/intellect state, and I believe due to that it is impossible to grasp intellectually what is taking place.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not certain such a thing as true free will exists. I know that in situations that involve intellect that there can be a limited expression, however it is confined to the realm of syntax. But there is much to the world that is not chained to that room. I will expound more in the form of a question in my reply to your next comment.
(1) don't you exercise in order to achieve the goal of happiness (e-motion)?
(2) don't you travel in order to achieve the goal of happiness (e-motion)?
(3) don't you seek safety in order to achieve the goal of happiness (e-motion)?
I can say that many choices I've made in my life were made knowing that they would make me unhappy, but the benefit to something else outweighed my happiness. I know many are slaves to pursuing happiness, but that is a choice they are making. I still see that those who are acting from emotion due so willingly, they have allowed themselves to become slaves to their emotions. But, it doesn't have to be so.
Learning is not a "free" act.
Learning is like programming a machine and a machine is not "free".
Any action that is not an explicitly intellectual "decision" cannot be an "act of will".
I am thinking we have a different description of the word will. From my vantage, will has little to do with intellect. Will comes from the world of feeling. One can think to move their arm all day long without it moving. It must be felt (feeling) to to force the movement. One does not consciously think of breathing as another example, yet the will ensures it happens.
A question please, as your statement appears to suggest that intellect can be free. I mentioned in a previous comment that in a limited context bound to intellectual constructs one has a limited amount of choice. So my question(s) is/are this.
Have you ever stalked your thoughts?
If so, can you explain the origins of most of them?
I ask, because in stalking my own for many years, I can say for myself that the birth of thoughts seems to be independent for the most part in anything I'm doing to make them manifest. Many thoughts from antiquity have pointed to them having a foreign origin, or warned one against allowing them power over oneself.