Where does free will end?

by jgnat 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    There is the illusion that the ego is the big player in the psyche but it is just an illusion, as the unconscious is the very ground or base out of which consciousness emerges.

    Perhaps we can say that a measure of free will exists as the ego can choose a subject to think on, meditate on or simply day dream or fantasize about. Sometimes the unconscious can be very over powering it depends on issues in the unconscious has but we are unconscious of or are only vaguely aware of. Intrusive thought are like this as well as things that have caught our attention and we just can’t seem to get our minds off of.

    The formation of the “self” as a center organizing archetype of the human psyche may be the real big player and in far more control than the ego, there may be where a much greater degree of free will exists. But that is another subject about the “self” which one can do research on.

    I wonder if Sam Harris (or maybe Brian Green) has any ideas about self since I think he study eastern spiritual practices and must be familiar with the subject.

    Jung idea of the Self:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(psychology)

    Jungian understandings

    Further information: Self (Jung)

    In Jungian theory, the Self is one of several archetypes. It signifies the coherent whole, unifying both the consciousness and unconscious mind of a person. The Self, according to Jung, is realized as the product of individuation, which is defined as the process of integrating one's personality. For Jung, the self is symbolized by the circle (especially when divided into four quadrants), the square, or the mandala. The Wise Old Woman/Man can also serve as 'a symbolic personification of the Self'. [26]

    What distinguishes Jungian psychology from previous iterations is the idea that there are two centers of the personality. The ego is the center of conscious identity, whereas the Self is the center of the total personality—including consciousness, the unconscious, and the ego. The Self is both the whole and the center. While the ego is a self-contained little circle off the center contained within the whole, the Self can be understood as the greater circle.

    The Self besides being the centre of the psyche is also autonomous, meaning that it exists outside of time and space. Jung also called the Self an imago dei. The Self is the source of dreams and often appears as an authority figure in dreams with the ability to perceive the future or guide one in the present.

    [edit] Critiques of the concept of selfhood

  • dgp
    dgp

    Bookmarked for later.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Jnat,

    “frankiespeakin, I have read somewhere that when we make an unwise choice, we'll work overtime to make up reasons why we did. Mental backflips. I think this may explain why otherwise intelligent people fall for Rutherford's claptrap. ”

    Funny that you mentioned this

    Years ago I used to have a dialoged in my head arguing to myself about the rightness of a course I took,, and I would find myself making all kinds of excuses and using up lots of valuable thinking time,, gradually I stopped because I’d seen it as huge waste of time, and I was forming some type of thought loop that would just keep on repeating itself. What a relief!

    I still have my shadow to deal with as it is always bringing up past repression,, I just view them now kindly and nonjudgmentally, which has given me a measure of wholeness in my life. I think this to be “self” showing me stuff so I can un repress it.. I feel more and more alive each time it happens.

  • dgp
    dgp

    JGNat, I will be so bold as to assume that you would like to read a book by Doris Lessing, "Prisons we choose to live inside" (http://www.amazon.com/Prisons-We-Choose-Live-Inside/dp/0060390778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341890761&sr=8-1&keywords=prisons+we+choose+to+live+inside)

    Doris Lessing discusses the idea that we need to be more careful with ourselves. We are not rational and we should take that in consideration. We are manipulated and there are ways to predict how we will behave in a group setting. Governments and companies use that, to control us or to sell to us.

    I won't say any more because I would spoil the real pleasure of reading this great book.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    It ends when someone who cares..

    Takes you to a Doctor..

    ................................. ...OUTLAW

  • dgp
    dgp

    So where do high-control groups come in to this? At what point is a person's freedom to choose overriden? Does the same coercive techniques work on everyone? If we are so easily manipulated, must we revisit the foundation of our institutions? Must we be protected from ourselves?

    If I'm not mistaken, in one of his books, Steven Hassan states that the problem with cults is that they make you believe things. You are free to believe that Sung Myun Moon is "Father"; but the key point is that you must not be manipulated into believing that. This is a hard point to make to a legislator or a member of any government. I have the feeling that some people would not be able to grasp its true meaning. At least where I live.

    I wouldn't like anyone to protect me from myself. I know I am often bad, but I think my "protector" would quickly take control of me.

    If so, who would be the arbiter of good association over bad? Would our society end up being constrained by convention rather than by freedom?

    I would not define this in terms of good or bad "association". You should be free to associate with anyone you chose. The point is what is right and what is wrong.

    For better or worse, the members of Parliament would end up being those who say what is right and what is wrong. There should always be someone free to disagree with them and perfect what they did. They should make laws in the clear understanding that very likely they are wrong.

  • Irreverent
    Irreverent

    Hi nat! Some sound observations from a very intelligent woman. I think that I am more drawn to that. At times, I still feel sheepish that I allowed myself to be "conned" into the WTS belief system. I can rationalize why I allowed myself to forfeit my free will in this situation; there are other instances in my colorful life where I have done the same. I have finally reached a point in my life where I can say that I have reconciled many of my self doubts and have focused on who I really am so that I can make decisions based on what I believe in myself. This may sound selfish, having a spouse and friends who love me and care about me. However, the responsibility of expressing my free will has given my a personal freedom that I have spent an entire live tying to achieve. This responsibility is not burdensome; but it does emphasize that we are each responsible for our own actions. I agree that as a society, it is dangerous to try to protect individuals from questionable decisions made by their own free will. I chose to join the WTS. I chose to leave the WTS. Each day of my life is precious time that I can spend expressing the happiness I have in my live and sharing that happiness with my spouse, friends and those who I come in contact with each day. I am sure that I will missteps in my life, but they will not be the result of trying to be what others may want me to be. It will be the result of my own missteps. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter as well as the thoughts shared by others on this discussion board.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Is it too simple to say: Governments/Society should not interfere with the freewill of citizens to join a cult, but they should perhaps get involved when cults do not give citizens the freewill to LEAVE the cult. Esp because of how it affects children (who typically have NO freewill in the decision making process and how the cult's rules entrap them).

    Doc

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    I am glad you guys have picked up this thread and kept it going. I HAVE watched the recommended video, and the speaker makes a very good argument that free will itself may be a convenient fiction.

    I plan on scanning the scratch pad where I wrote my thoughts as I listened to that speaker. It involves in part turtles and attention.

    Let's say, for instance, that our decisions are made by our subconscious before we become aware of them. Might it be that our conscious mind chooses how long to pay attention to that decision? What I have read about brain development is that it is quite plastic and it will adapt to our varying need. A deaf person, for instance, may reallocate the brain real-estate set aside for hearing, and assign it to the visual. In that way - through attention - we may in turn affect our subconsious decision making.

    The other alternative, that free will is a myth, has far-reaching implications for our justice system and for democracy. If for instance, we acknowledge that free will really is non-existent, that would imply that the state may intervene more readily to curtail institutions that use mentally coercive tactics. But we are electing people from our subconscious (not entirely sure for rational reasons), so the elected officials may be no more trustworthy than the institutions we fear.

    Here's another argument that we might have it all wrong with death-row inmates. If the particular pattern of failure of upbringing is known, might we intervene beforehand to prevent murder in the first place?

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates.html

    Irreverent, it is great to hear from you. Good thoughts.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    DGP, your book suggestion is on my wish list.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit