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.
No, its been an observation of mine that will [ego] manifests from the area of feeling [id].
It seems to me that ego is a mental construct from intellect, dictating that our responses be tailored a certain way. Many are defensive or closed off to new ideas that challenge the fragility of these flimsy intellectual constructs. On Steemit/Hive the account named Baah was a master at exposing others enslavement to these constructs via their ego. I both marveled at his adeptness at probing and prodding, as well as at times feeling sorry for those who were incapable of seeing what he exposed to them. If you ever get an opportunity to check out his back and forths, I would urge you to do so. I mentioned before that while the approach the two of you took was vastly different (with my preferences being the approach you take which affords dignity and takes into account the fragility of anothers ego) that I sometimes speculated you two were the same person. You both have an amazing knack for seeing the foundations in others, in probing those foundations.
(IFF) ego is a "construct" of intellect (THEN) what is the origin of intellect?
In other words, is intellect merely a tool of our instincts? Which would make ego just one tool of our intellect in its quest to serve our instincts?
Which relegates ego to a "second level" tool of our instincts?
And yes, I did have some encounters with Baah. They seemed intellectually capable, but they grew weary of my gentle counter-punches surprisingly quickly and unfortunately (apparently) "rushed-to-disqualify" me.
Baah tried to "argue" that being "correct" (whatever the hell that might mean) is more important that being logical.
Baah then defended jumping to conclusions specifically to justify engaging in AD HOMINEM attacks.
https://peakd.com/hive-174578/@baah/re-logiczombie-q6k7dy
Baah also seems staunchly PRO-DOWNVOTING,
https://peakd.com/informationwar/@baah/re-logiczombie-q6k6fz
I don't know it's possible to know this answer. I lean towards a belief I read that says that it is a foreign installation by beings who feed off of the emotional energy they cultivate in us through it. It was further asserted by the same belief system that it was accepted due to its aid in survival. These are only tales to me, but after stalking my thoughts sporadically for almost 4 decades now I find this the most credible explanation I've come across.
A tool, yes. I don't believe it to be naturally instinctual though, but it has been trained into us to appear instinctual to the point we lose ourselves to it, allowing it to call the show as we believe we are it. Its many whispers via the internal dialogue lulling most to a waking sleep as submission to the God if intellect lives our lives for us. This is the fate we are trained to live.
That is how Baah tests others to see how lost they are in the spells of intellect they have bound to themselves. If one gets defensive, as most who he interacts with does, he doubles down to see if they are capable of seeing this in themselves. Usually the person focused on reveals they revere their belief so much they will defend it at any cost, resulting in their panicked rebuttals that reveal they hold things to be true they can't defend or verbalize the why of. Baah is much more than what many see in their encounters with him. As to his motivations, I'm uncertain. But there is a keenness to him, an ability to see that eludes most. I also have seen kindness in him that most would be to afraid to know, as to get that close to him one must not be defensive unreasonably.
I had surmised the possibility of you two being the same due to seeing in ways most seem incapable of. While i never belonged to any school debate team, I've know others who have. One facet of their training was to argue positions that they disagreed with, or practicing arguing both sides of the debate. I believe that both of you have this critical ability to do just such a thing.
In the book Demian by Herman Hesse he talks of the mark of Cain, insinuating it is actually a mark of intelligence. Using this as a reference point, I see this mark in both of you. So when I say I wondered of the two of you, it is meant as a compliment, although as I've stated, I always prefer kindness and dignity to the attacking approach.
As I said, your approaches are night and day, yet your intellect
And yes, he has always been outspoken in favor of the down vote feature.
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.
This doesn't match my model. id = pre-verbal, pre-intellectual
I like this.
Our primal instincts (which served us well for the last 8 million years) are maladapted to a modern context.
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).