file name
compatibilism, free will: part 4/5/6
last edit
Jan 2, 2022 1:37 AM

//essay on evil?

everything we do- we do because we think it is the best decision to do in that moment. the underlying operator here is "what we think is the best decision.

and what we think is best is based on a myriad of causes and conditions outside of ourselves.

as such, there may be no such thing as evil or malice. conflict, terrorism, etc all stem from ignorance and cognitive dissonance. in some sense the collective consciousness as one being is basically trying to resolve itself. from a classically evildoer’s perspective- he thought he was doing gods work, and was actually doing good. his underlying operator was good...different essay.

bad programming

no free will

//put this in essay on what truth is? belief vs fact?—> or maladaptation of reality.

it also seems like it is impossible to truly believe in a lack of free will. one can build a career arguing determinism, but one cannot truly ever espouse this believe and feel it. one may use it as a tool of philosophy to reframe events, behaviors, and relationships, but never to know this moment-by-moment. and and I wonder if theres something to be said of that or if theres something indicate of that.(ref: truth is about what is good and of optimal software programming of mind for flourishing, not a dead fact).

//put in orbits of truth?

does desire supercede the concept of no control? like one could argue where did the desire come from? but that may be a change of subject, there may be an infinite orbit or regress of infinite nests surrounding desire vs determinism - compatibalism. like i WANT to follow logic and reason. i would NOT want to jump off the bridge - and the i WANT to not have that control- such a control wouldn't even make sense. if we were in

infinite nests coming in and out of each other. orbiting each other. referencing each other. a self referential system.

thus, to have free will is to suggest doing actions that fall outside of this system of desire, logic and reason. and there is another word for doing things that do not adhere to what one wants or to what is reasonable - insanity. and who would want to not follow logic (alluding back to the orbits of logic and want -how they. other go hand in hand). the concept of free will is then paralyzing. to do something you don't want to do, or to make a choice or to MAKE a desire, which leads to an infinite regress of where did that desire to create a desire come from? etc.

the paradox here is that even if you said you had free will, you would want to choose the water fountain that was the most logical for you. your "want" came from the substrate of logic. in some sense my wants and the system of logic are compatible with each other.←- put in orbits odf truth. or compatibilism.


it could be the case that the touting of the dichotomy between free will and determinism was a fallacy to begin with.

in a way, since i could argue that i am my body, and thus i AM my height, that to say that “my height picked it” is a false dichotomy- that since i AM my height, therefore i did choose it. there is no such thing as “height”, as something independent from who i am. There is no somebody to whom height is attributed to. There is simply height. do not have a height. i AM my height

it could be that i am logic and reason itself, that to say that i am a body that is nested within logic is false, but that i- being logic- am nesting a body i

but rather-to see it as perfect alignment/ to use this philosophy as a tool and gateway for understanding of the perfect congruency of oneself with the universe, and also congruency with other people. I cannot hate another person. I cannot resnent anyone.

By default, I believe myself to be a free agent navigating through a world that I was born into. I am able to see, feel and pick up allegedly inanimate objects at my disposal, and they appear to have no force over me. I assume I am a being with an internal mind living in a reality that is external to me. but i am a part of everything and everything is a part of me. thus everything is one continuous flow.

like a puppet i am strung towards the master of logic and reason, and i am only free insofar as i love my chains.

My understanding of humans, and all beings for that matter, transforms them into manifestations of logic that self-express and self-grow. - so therefore people ARE logic? therefore an expression and governance of logic is a governance of themselves, thus they not only have, but ARE free will?

I feel this when I listen to ambient music and watch people. They appear in and disappear from my purview like self-exploring, self-maintaining entities that express life itself. - so they ARE life? people don’t live life, they aren't in life, they ARE life. when i see a friendly person smile - that IS life. that IS logic. that IS love. it isn’t controlled by love.

Determinism also leads to self-compassion. I need not live in regret of past decisions. I need not hate myself for what I am. My actions are that of logic. I am, in essence, an offspring of the universe, and that all my visions and ambitions are that of the universe. There is no seperation. me making dark is actually the universe wanting to make dark. logic, reason, mathematics- i am a part of them, in fact i was sprung out of them, i originated from these systems.. in some sense i am simply a beaker in which the universe resides in and radiates. and thus what is best for logic to express itself is what's best for me. I am a son of logos.

in ref to water fountain: You can’t not see how 1=1=2.- yes because it is one and the same, etc etc.

that scene in devs...looking into the future. you would SEe what you WANT.

so what is most logical/rational/tramlines is also what i want. so its fully compatible and one thing. no free will/free will sugests a disparity between the two systems. but it is all one thing. it is what you want.

so in essence, you wouldnt want to have free will.

compatibilism could very well simply be a sexed-up determinism. it seems like the whole concept of free ill crumbled under scrutinity of semantics. which indicates to me that there was a fallacy in the premise to begin with, between the dichotomy of life vs. consciousness, of man vs. logic.of determinism and free wil.

//on free will: part 4: we have total free will (wrote about this eleshwere):

There’s an argumaent to be made that you are the totality of your existence- and that you are indeed in control of everything

Including your heartbeat

Think of it this way- free will is when you act upon a choice you want. You wouldn’t WANT to have the choice of varying your heartbeat- because thats dangerous

Your body is working in accordance to what is actually ideal for you and what it can do

If you have perfect infinite free will- the outcome would be the EXACT same

You would control your heart to beat in the exact same fashion

And thus you can extrapolate to say that you indeed are doing so. And you wouldn’t want to suddenly change your heart beat to prove to yourself you can do it- same way you wouldn’t want to throw yourself off the balcony to prove you have the choice to do so

Flip side- this is an argument that states that it’s actually BETTER that you can’t exercise these choices

Whatever is happening right now is the best outcome for yourself- and the awareness of that actually improves your life- not makes you feel entrapped

If existence was built such that people were hurling themselves off rooftops due to something inside them telling them to do so- we would have an existential problem- but most, normal heathy sane people don’t have that inclination

cause to say that there is an underlying substrate of logic, or of consciousness (AH I WROTE ABOUT THIS ELSWHERE - THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS TO BE SEEN AS A SUBSTRATE IS WHAT TERRIFIES ME" THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSSCIOUSNES, JUST LIFE. LIFE!".) is to make an entity out of it. and remember that essay on trust and nothingness - when you are so COMPLETELY IMMERSED IN SOMETHING, it feels like NOTHING.

its like that buddhist allegroy - he sees a mountain, then goes through the ardous process f enlightenement, with all its harrowing nature, and confuson, chaos, dread, not seeing the mountain, existential insanity, only to come back and see mountain again - this time as an enlightened man. — also link this to that mark pritchard sad alron creature that has a subtle smile on his face as he flies across and between the grids of harrow and beauty. - ref to there can be no beauty without terror.

in reference to DEVS: when i see into the future of myself: i would see what i would WANT to do. which is an interest twist on things isnt it? i see what it is i would want to do- it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

if you love your chains, the chains stop being a chain. for "chain" is embedded with a lot more than material reality.