Free Will

To get the obvious out of the way - I do not argue for the existence of will, "free" or not, separate of causality. To me the ontological theorizing of self-valuing commands that all causality is seen as emerging from the logic of self-valuing, and that all constitutive grounds of self-valuings are ultimately reducible to the principle of self-valuing, as operative on the smallest scale; as 'being sets itself against nothing' - as it emerges, not in a Big Bang but gradually, from this first principle mechanism. So I see self-valuing as the first type of cause, the most fundamental cause that is possible to be conceived of.

But the implications of my view on free will are as follows. As self-valuing is the principle cause to all cosmic movements, and the forces between the most basic (principal) self-valuings and between and within the non-basic ones constitute multi-layered clockwork-causality, there is a dialectic between self-valuing causation and 'objective' causation. Most of this is captured in the objective frame, but, the logic of operation that a self-valuing is constitutive of, is not accessible from any other view than the value ontological view. In other words, we can not understand all the causal relations within a self-valuing otherwise than as constituting a self-valuing. Value ontology gives us a logos to interpret the causality within a system as a whole. Self-valuing logic is basically the key to intra-systemic causality, wherein 'system' is not identified as the whole of the universe but as systems we can identify as separate from 'the whole' if there is such a thing, in any case, of 'the rest of the universe', i.e. systems that we can identify as systems, with an operational logic and measure, at all.

This reflects on the universe and free will as follows: within the universe, there are smaller and greater self-valuing-systems, which operate onto each other, in such a way that they sustain each other or one destroys, compromises and/or (in part) absorbs the other. As self-valuing is the root-cause and the primal logic of this behavior (the will to power), and causality itself is subservient to there being a root-cause, a root-consistency (see my consistency post of a year ago), and since 'will' or 'freedom' are only the measure in which a system is able to operate on it's self-valuing logic compared to the degree to which it is determined by encroaching systems, 'free will' simply means to me 'determining power'. This does not mean that there is any kind of freedom from causality at all, because self-valuing is a hard causality. But it is significant nevertheless since our consciousness is nothing but a high degree of self-valuing. Consciousness is self-valuing, which means that consciousness is, when it is focused, concentrated, a fundamental cause. As fundamental as the cause of the universe.

The trick here is of course that we can not determine our consciousness - our consciousness can not operate on our consciousness as if from outside - everything we do to focus our consciousness and to increase and strengthen it, is derived directly, causally, necessarily, from the already-operative causality from which our subjective being emerges, which includes all the forces that work on, threaten and fortify our self-sustaining logic.

Many people have no 'free' or primordial will whatsoever as they are only conscious in a social sense, plus the instinctive sense of pain and pleasure. But as soon as a human finds a logos that allows him to direct his course based on his own conscious devices, which means, as soon as he is able to discern values that apply only to him privately, he has established a causal-chord connecting his actions (reactions) directly to the logical (not temporal) cause of his being as a structural coherence; self-valuing.

When a human has attained this degree of consciousness, he is unstoppable in whatever action he takes, even by (apparently) logical impossibility of his aims. Napoleon is a strong example of such a being, so is Nietzsche or Mozart. People who defy 'reality' are drive by this 'free will' - their will being free from absolute external conditioning. Even the slightest modicum of self-determining consciousness is experienced as an ocean of freedom. But, and here is the crux - it is a freedom that compels one to a necessity - to a fate. This is the very highest form of self-valuing in humans - the connection a priori to what they will amount to - to their penultimate experience and value. All other degrees of self-valuing (pleasure, comfort, power) are made inferior and can be discarded, once the supreme self-valuing of ones role as an individual, subjective cause, determining the objective cosmos is sensed. Napoleon:

" I feel myself driven towards an end that I do not know. As soon as I have reached it, as soon as I shall become unnecessary, an atom will suffice to shatter me. Until then, all the forces of mankind can do nothing to stop me. "

" All my life I have sacrificed everything - comfort, self-interest, happiness - to my destiny.
I felt that I could abandon myself to the most brilliant dreams. "

Self-valuing requires a context. The first context can be said to be 'nothingness'. Napoleons context was the state of France, the European forces threatening to destroy France, the absence of leadership and organization (self-valuing) in post revolutionary France. In this context he was able to come to a supreme consciousness of his self-valuing, a supreme manifestation of his structural potential - an immortal destiny. So there are two logics operating on each other: reflective causality (objective, linear, inter-systemic) and deflective causality (subjective, circular, intra-systemic).

As concerns the predictive possibilities that the systemic universe provides, I agree that there are innumerable possibilities of the universe projecting itself on itself - and I would say that a proper human predictor would function as somewhat the opposite of Napoleon - someone whose self-valuing is entirely latent on the level of consciousness/will, someone whose consciousness is structurally determined by the extra-systemic forces, who reflects a larger system of which he is part in the placid waters of a very fine mind. Who is to the greatest possible measure a function of the world he is born in - versus the Napoleonic type, whose subjectivity, set in a relative power/causal vacuum, gives birth to a new world order.

This would seem to indicate that we do not inherently have free will but rather we can obtain free will, through i guess determination...

let me clarify something though its been a while sense dealing with your theory of self-valuing.... how did the first self-valuing occur that effectively named (in the tao te ching meaning of naming)the universe? Or would you propose that there was no first that self valuing is like the god nature of the universe that has always existed?

Abstract wrote:

This would seem to indicate that we do not inherently have free will but rather we can obtain free will, through i guess determination...

Yes. Freedom, which is never absolute, is won by force.

Quote :

let me clarify something though its been a while sense dealing with your theory of self-valuing.... how did the first self-valuing occur that effectively named (in the tao te ching meaning of naming)the universe? Or would you propose that there was no first that self valuing is like the god nature of the universe that has always existed?

I created some thoughts on that, see below. But it's not crucial or even important to the logic itself. I say with certainty that what did in the end manage to exist, "come from nothing" logically (stand logically against the concept of nothing) and continue to exist, is self-valuing.


_____________________


- Something must exist because "nothing" excludes the active impossibility of something.

- Self-valuing is not merely descriptive of entities that can be rationally declared to exist, but it is also implied by the nature of that all that can be observed and declared to exist, including 'force' or affectance - potential to change.

- The smallest self-valuing is able only to value in terms of itself negatively. It's "valuing" is a deflection of which it is not.

- As two different self-valuings deflect nothingness, two things are created:
• Space, (the mutually deflected, mutual nothingess, rudimentary 'value')
• affectance - deflecting of positive not-selves.

-In the case of affectance, self-valuings value each other negatively in terms of their structural nature as deflectors, but they do behave similarly, and are thus perform similar actions. All deflect both nothingness, and each other.

- What comes to exist like this is any geometrical form. The simplest form to imagine is the circle: all self-valuings deflect each other "to the side", while simultaneously deflecting nothingess inward and outward. "Affectance fields" are circular, with the force distributed in the 'border'. Inward it is 'weak'.

- Such organizations of nothingness-deflectings may emerge so as the come into contact with each other. Due to the quantity of affect of such organizations, the greater things that come into each others proximity are, the more different they are from each other, and stronger they are deflected. But in some cases, the deflected negative existence of a 'sphere of affect' is so great that smaller spheres are drawn to deflect it as well, and 'join the circle', the affect-field. In that case, the affect field, a 'form', grows and is able to absorb even greater 'others'.

- The deflection of nothingness is the first priority. In the image of the deflection imprinted on itself, the self-valuing recognizes itself. This creates the terms of it's self-valuing' - it's standard of value.

- Such a standard can be recognized by other entities, and deflected (negatively valued) as well.

- Two co-deflecting self-valuings "come to terms", they positively value each other in terms of their own self-valuing (their deflecting nothingess), but as negative. They repel each other while positively 'recognizing' the object of negative valuation.

- This is why when we value in terms of our self-valuing; when we value, we 'push' - the greater the 'fight', the greater the resistance to nothingness. We seek to overpower, but first and foremost we seek to engage, that whichever 'speaks to us', is also inevitably that which has the power to absorb us.

- Survival as a form depends on capacity to translate that which is appropriated in the circle of affect in terms of the pre-existing form. "Selective forms" remain, other forms are respectively dissolved or transformed into selective forms. Sometimes selective forms are overpowered by far greater, but far less selective forms.

- The more selective a form is in what it can 'use' in terms of deflecting nothingness, the more capable it is to resist change.

- The more selective a form is, the more specific it's terms by which it values, and the more specific it's self-valuing.

- Man is a supremely selective form. The more selective man is, the more we can speak of a 'self'.

- Becoming conscious of being as self-valuing means: establishing a finalized Being. It means to have defeated the chance of being transformed by the very nature of being (deflecting non-being) itself - "imprinting being on becoming".

- From this perspective, morality is no longer a matter of adopting custom to ensure survival but risking unseen compromise of structural integrity, but of either inventing means to expand ones realm of influence (to attempt to transform the world according to ones self-value, to be able to value it more), or, where conditions allow it, simply maintaining oneself.

- Buddha realized the first nature of being - deflecting non being - nirvana as "being nor non-being", means "affect nor non being". It is however, being in the sense of deflection ("transcendental clarity"). It does not however contain the power to defend itself or resist the force of other structures from incorporating it. Kung fu has arisen to remain transcendently self-valuing and resist that which is to be valued as negative. Yoga is the simple resisting of resistance - dissolving the circle of affect (society, the roles one has to play to 'defend the family/country' etc) in order to 'face the void alone'. But it is still relatively affective, since the human body doesn't dissolve as long as all of it's atoms and subatomic instances affect independently 'attain nirvana'.

- "Spiritualized "martial" art but also dance is therefore more 'peaceful' toward the fact of existence, and more effective in maintaining structural integrity from which to deflect the void.

- All temples and religious orders represent spiritualized martial art, selectively organized deflection of the void.

I believe you over-reach in your understanding of the destructiveness of opression.

- Opression is a form, an organizational value that also happens to be able to hide much that it has no control over, like a pidgeon stretching out its feathers to appear to take more formal (as in geometrical form, like you describe) space, to deflect more nothingness and incorporate more self-valuing than it could be subjectively measured to. To over come opression often means to pat it lightly (no need to fuck up its plumage).

I also believe opression to be primarily a defense mechanism, used to scare both friends and enemies into belicose force re-direction. However, like all genetic memory, what is fine-tuned and forged to do one thing is often transformed into some greater evolutionary affectance, or many smaller ones, or more complex relationships. Quantum physics will be a silly parlor trick 1000 years from now, yet it may appear today to take up more space than is recovarable for other purposes. Its form requires this hiding, it is almost just a kind of consequence that later transforms itself into cause. There is actual, true power to a peacock's tail, and yet...

What, the hell, is "self-valuing"?

Is it another way of saying self-conscious?

Value judgments are based on comparisons.
This also applies to self-consciousnesses, as it is preceded by consciousnesses. Consciousness of other, is returned as a reflection, as a consciousness of self, in relation to the other - as a negation of it.

"I am that which is not the other"

To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.

Silenus wrote:

What, the hell, is "self-valuing"?

Is it another way of saying self-conscious?

Value judgments are based on comparisons.
This also applies to self-consciousnesses, as it is preceded by consciousnesses. Consciousness of other, is returned as a reflection, as a consciousness of self, in relation to the other - as a negation of it.

"I am that which is not the other"

To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is  a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.  

My question also.

Did you clarify?

screw-tin-eyes wrote:

Silenus wrote:

What, the hell, is "self-valuing"?

Is it another way of saying self-conscious?

Value judgments are based on comparisons.
This also applies to self-consciousnesses, as it is preceded by consciousnesses. Consciousness of other, is returned as a reflection, as a consciousness of self, in relation to the other - as a negation of it.

"I am that which is not the other"

To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is  a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.  

My question also.

Did you clarify?

I suppose there are three kinds of posts: those that deserve a reply, those that do not deserve a reply, and those that deserve to be deleted.

Let's find out if you can tell the difference. This current post of mine here notwithstanding, of course, and which is more of a courtesy to you.

Just to state my position to the concept of free will: I am a firm holder of the concept.

Capable

I suppose there are three kinds of posts: those that deserve a reply, those that do not deserve a reply, and those that deserve to be deleted.
Let's find out if you can tell the difference. This current post of mine here notwithstanding, of course, and which is more of a courtesy to you.


Oh?  You see, I thought philosophy is dedicated to critical thinking and this requires an independent mind, therefore the man/woman (philosopher) who purposely excludes or ignores a person or text, to me does not sound like a person who wants to pursue reasonable discourses.  In fact, he sounds very much like a person who is reduced to denial, simply because those that he chooses to ignore have "what it takes".


Fearlessness is also critical in philosophy.

Would a philosopher, or anyone else serious, entertain a troll?

Would you?

Quote :

Fearlessness is also critical in philosophy.

Yes, absolutely.

From condescension to insult.

I will take note.

Would a philosopher, or anyone else serious, entertain a troll?

Who is this troll you speak of?

Is it the original poster?

Is it me?

Is it anyone who asks you for an answer?

Stop being so 'sensitive', I was not calling you a troll. I was making the point that if a troll tries to talk to you, it would be absurd to entertain it as if it were serious or you had something to gain from the interaction. There are times when deletion of posts is necessary to keep the channels of real communication open.

Silenus wrote:
To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is  a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.  


Which one is it?

I would be interested to know.

The standard is yourself. That which you are is the logical basis for how you deal in the interactions that you have.

The standard of a being's valuing itself is itself, its own existence. It is its own standard, which means that in whatever relation or interaction you want to talk about, it sets its own standard in so far as that which it already is is used to determine the measure of success or failure.

What you are determines what you "ought to" be, and what you aren't yet but are capable of being is also a part of what you 'are', since the future unfolds from the present in causal determination. Possibilities comes from necessity. Self-valuing means that whatever a thing is, it "values itself" by setting itself as the standard for interactions. The actual standard will depend on the situation and circumstances. It could be strength, or wealth, or knowledge, or beauty, or any number of other things. That depends on the situation and circumstance at hand, but regardless of whatever the circumstance and situation merit here as a meaningful value-standard, the individual itself holds itself as the measure of that standard, as the originator and terminus of any value thereof.

What is the point of strength, or beauty, or knowledge, or wealth, if this has no translation into ourselves, if it means nothing to us? If that were the case it would be impossible to values these things. And yet, even though they are valuable, they are only valuable because they are valuable to us. Why?

Why is something like strength, or beauty, or knowledge, or wealth valuable to us? Because it enhances us, provides resources material or immaterial that assist our being that which we are, and increase our range of freedoms and possibilities available to us. Beings are built from truths, human beings are built from "ideas". What we hold as valuable is what accords itself to that fact somehow, whether or not we really know it or understand how or why.

Other than all that, I will let Fixed explain the idea, since it is his idea after all.

There is no such thing as a value itself, there are only values to something that is capable of having values. Food is only valuable to a being that needs to eat, and can happen to eat that particular kind of substance. Beauty is of no value to an ant, but high value to a human. A rock cannot value Mozart.

But a rock can value being a rock, in so far as "being a rock" is what a rock already is and is always doing: it holds itself as that which it is, it resists changing what it is. When a force passes through a rock the rock will resist being broken apart by that force, the molecules-in-relation and that constitute the 'rock' will try to maintain their cohesion as structure, and will do so unless the force is adequately strong enough to break that structure apart.

Everything that exists is a kind of structure, and every structure tries to hold itself as what it already is, to self-cohere, to self-value as FC calls it. Living things do that a bit differently and more complexly than non-living things, but everything does it. Existence from moment to moment is not given, it is something that is the result of the actions of beings. They act to keep themselves in existence, to resist and interpret outside forces and interactions in ways that are either beneficial or benign to themselves.

screw-tin-eyes wrote:

Silenus wrote:
To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is  a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.  


Which one is it?  

I would be interested to know.

Neither, as far as I can judge. You see, I didn't come up with those sophisticated terms. I dont know that wealth and status are separated categorically from beauty, dominance or symmetry.

Where it regards value ontology, to self-value means to be a standard. Where there is an "I" involved, i.e. an ego, an illusory construct, then this ego can pretty much devalue itself as it likes, but its behavior will still tend force it to be part of the selfvaluing, unless he commits suicide by holding his breath.

Breathing is rather obviously the enacting of the valuing oxygen. Oxygen is not our "self", there is no such thing as a "self", there is self-valuing. Itself-valuing, one might say. I think silhouette came up with that after I taught him the logic.

Anyway, for a human, selfvaluing, when it concerns a life-form, tends to be based on the value exchange we call breath.
We're not isolated. The Self is ones entire life including all that one touches. I dont think that amounts to "The All", that is vanity. It just means the Self extends far beyond what one is aware of or could normally endure. "Know thyself" basically means the same as "nothing in excess". Know how to know, that it is worthy of what you could become. That is one way to interpret it.

All being self-value. All posit their terms. Some are similar, some are repulsive, some are so symmetrically opposite that they become dependent, or were born of the same impulse. All of this is included for us humans, in taste. Smell, as the combination of breath and taste, is thus the most fundamental instrument of valuing.

Capable
The standard of a being's valuing itself is itself, its own existence. It is its own standard, which means that in whatever relation or interaction you want to talk about, it sets its own standard in so far as that which it already is is used to determine the measure of success or failure.


Is standard setting the methodology used to define levels of achievement?
 
Then there is the elephant in the room.

Oscar Wilde said, “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”

We all have inherent value, why the need to rate ourselves, we should just be ourselves.

The same reason that you can eat an orange but not a nail. "You" are defined as a capacity for consuming what is an orange but not what is a nail. When you negotiate an interaction between oranges or nails this inevitably comes into play.

Being oneself is the mosr difficult thing of all. As Hesse said, No man has ever yet been himself. But we approximate it, and that approximation is indeed somewhat amorphous and vaguely defined. And that is a good thing, it leaves room for change, exploration, growth, and mistakes. Almost all of our knowledge was arrived by accident on our part, and not linearly derived. Also, I don't think that we "rate" ourselves consciously very often, but we.do constantly do this at an unconscious or structural-psychological level.

And yes the basis for that rating can be comparisons to others and absorbing their ideas and standards, which then to an extent become our own, and also to an extent confuse the standards we already have. It's very complex, that is for sure. Most of what you are isn't what you "know", and it is primarily philosophers who test and push back the limit. But of course the limits is always there. And yet even when we are inside that limit, that which we are yet are unaware of it is still determining our values and our standards of value. This is why so much valuing is automatic-unconscious.