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.
I agree.
The state that you describe is merely "acting instinctively" (without interference from our prefrontal cortex).
Instinctively = Naturally
Being the case, coupled with the meddling of intellect as it runs unchecked in most people, the question that quickly positioned itself to me years ago was then who placed the intellect within us, guiding its imprint on the masses to cast its spell(ing) to enslave? And to what goal? Once one sees these positions the questions manifest by the tool of enslavement (intellect).
To what end, who knows. It all comes across almost as a game by beings whose motives and purpose would be unknowable, especially given all the intricacies that make up what we do and experience that obscures being awake/aware.
This has been a most interesting discussion with you. I've had most of these discussion during my life since a young age with either books pointing at these things, and the many different thoughts/spells (intellect) that cascade in front of myself, the witness. You do me much honor engaging on this most difficult topic that most would find bizarre and perhaps maddening, to be avoided. Thank you.
Conventional Wisdom would lead us to believe that "intellect" is "required for survival".
Conventional Wisdom would lead us to believe that a seven year old, abandoned in the forest, could NEVER survive for more than perhaps a couple of days at most.
I admire your fearlessness.
(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.
You might "sacrifice" some short-term happiness in order to achieve some more valuable longer-term happiness.
For example, you might give your focus and energy to a friend or family member instead of indulging in a hobby, because you know you will find it more "fulfilling" and value that relationship more in retrospect.
You're really just trading one type of "happiness" for another type of "happiness".
I will disagree with this, although I can see how most would believe this to be true.
When one acts from a position of service, I can assure you often there is not only no happiness involved, but most often misery. Not everyone is a slave to happiness. Some (myself often in my life) capable of choosing what is correct over happiness.
Many sacred writing talk of this path, yet many who claim to be followers/participants of these paths are unwilling to shed their enslavement to personal happiness/gratification to bind this way of service to themselves. They are only willing to mouth their dedication as the pain that comes with such action is something most are willing to take on as a burden.
(1) how do you know "what is correct"?
(2) isn't "self-sacrifice" (abandoning "happiness") simply trading "nobility" or "honor" or "duty" or "goodness" or "righteousness" or "meaningfulness" for a more naive goal or "happiness"?
NOBILITY = OBSCURED HAPPINESS
HONOR = OBSCURED HAPPINESS
DUTY = OBSCURED HAPPINESS
GOODNESS = OBSCURED HAPPINESS
RIGHTEOUSNESS = OBSCURED HAPPINESS
MEANINGFULNESS = OBSCURED HAPPINESS
Often I feel it. I also do use a code that involves seeking the path that is most beneficial to those around me while (usually) leaving as small a footprint as possible. I believe through observation that the proper path is one that is conducive to there being a harmony, avoiding the divided houses where possible. Cancer is a good example of a house divided, and this same principle works in our other interactions with all of the life around us.
No, although I understand most would be driven by those motives. Before I say anymore on this, I must qualify that like everyone else, I have very petty, self centered programs that run inside of me. That at times I do succumb to these programs despite seeing at times what is what. But having said that, it doesn't invalidate what I describe or the experiences I've had with these ways.
The things you describe are all positions of intellect that are derived from a merchants spirit. It is possible, and many times my own choices are proof of this, that one can operate in a way that is detached and no longer subservient to a merchant spirit.
To go back to qualifying my statements, none of this is to imply that I do not enjoy happiness and when allowed (or I've been selfish) do appreciate its company. But there is so much magic when one drops the pursuit of it. If we chain ourselves to intellect, we also chain ourselves to the desires and passions of a merchant.
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.
When I say "will" (and thank you for clearing this up) and I imagine when other people say "will" the idea is that idea one has when they say, "I WILL DO THIS".
It's like a game of billiards when you "call your shot".
"9 ball, corner pocket".
WILL is a conscious expression of your intent BEFORE you act.
Using that context, I agree. In my classifications I refer to that as longing and it is indeed a manifestation of intellect, one that seeks to enslave one.
In your framework, are you combining "will" and "feeling" in order to achieve (manifest) an "act of will"?
No, its been an observation of mine that will manifests from the area of feeling. Once you start looking for it you can find it there time and again. I'm guessing it has to be in order to send energy through our nervous system, as well as whatever control it has to the field that we emit.
Yes.
Yes.
I find that most of my thoughts are in service of some impulse of my id.
It is these impulses that I question the origin of, the id. I'm not convinced it is part of our natural self. Compounded by the amount of effort that is spent in formative years training us to become servants to it instead of cultivating a relationship where it is a tool. With so many building a shrine to this id it has caused much dysfunction and unbalance. Using the law of karma, this compounds greatly with so many unable to even see how to get off as they don't even question whether they even can stop worshiping the tool.
Ok, perhaps we see this "id" slightly.
It appears to me that "most people" suppress their "id".
They sort of "beat it into submission" with their "will" ("ego).
My understanding of the "id" is the impulse of a child.
The "ego" ("will") is like an "adult" (often a cruel adult) who demands the "id" ("inner child") "just shut up and do what you're told" so to speak.
We tend to idolise the idea of "will" being able to "work through the pain" and "ignore your cravings for human attention and comfort", in other words, "grow the fuck up".
I don't believe "most people" "build a shrine to this id" (unless you mean "put it in a box").
I believe "most people" pretend their "id" "doesn't exist" or their own "id" is perhaps some sort of "adversary" to be "defeated".
The id is part of intellect. It was the original spells that were cast on us, and as time goes on other spells are bound to us that contradict the initial ones. There is much energy in these intellectual prisons, and they are quite often at odds with one another.
People do build their shrines to these constructs, and when they are contradictory dis-ease forms, sometimes to the point of madness. There are indeed many adversaries to be found among the lesser spells of intellect in oneself and the more dominant ones. It is in these schisms that one can really stalk the illusion of them while seeing the power they can command if one submits to them.
It certainly seems prudent to not "blindly follow" even your own thoughts.
However, there is nothing to mitigate your rogue thoughts except "other thoughts".
Which "thoughts" are "the real you"?
Perhaps none of them. I suspect that at most they can be influenced by the observer in us, which seems to (at times) command them through feeling. But we are entering a large area of speculation on my part now.
For all I know, the only thing about us that is us is the observer, along for the ride as these different forces all act through us. And by acting through us can seem as though it is us, due to the personal involvement we have as the observer.
We might be approaching the same conclusion.
"free-will" as a "fact" is logically-incoherent.
"free-will" as an e-motion (feeling) is like "love" (difficult to ignore).