MONKEY WITH A SWORD

Many have written and concluded about the concept of free will. This blog will be among the many.

My perspective at present is this:

[in progress]

When considering Free Will as an individual you need to count the physical world and events taking place outside of perception as more than friction granting or not granting the individual the luxury of wish fulfilment and survival. Only counting yourself, you're a monkey with a sword.

If you are not a monkey with a sword, you ACT to protect your fellow humans and to a larger or lesser degree FEEL a co-dependency inside the eco-system that is the Earth.

THE WORKS

A minimum of 3 positions exist by which your actions can be qualified:

Position 1: Pre-determinism, 'Before, 'What you did': In this position your brain is seen as a computer, which continually sums up all experience to present your conscious mind with the most probable cause of action after the statistical sum (= the event), making your conscious mind less responsible for any action satiating a given need. If this is the explanation that suits you the best, events are unavoidable, as everything that has happened leads right up to any moment in an unbroken (possibly unbreakable) causality chain. You are thus free to do anything you want, because if it happens it will have happened. 

Position 2: Determinism, 'During', 'What you are doing': Here consciousness is seen as having the option to put value to an action, while it is being performed, thus potentially putting your conscious mind in charge of determining the whole shebang, as well as potentially being fully responsible for any consequences arising from your action to satiate a need. Causality chains may or may not exist, but you are ahead, pun intended, by way of your conscious mind to influence the outcome - by way of morality, caution, aggression, passivity, a burst of power, mirroring, in short: tactics, while the show is rolling. So called: Thinking on your feet.

Position 3: Post-determinism, 'After', 'What did you just do?!': Your self image, your choices, your abilities and your actions are one and the same and moreover constitute a part in a sum termed "WE", making everyone in the we that you most relate to, co-responsible for your actions to satiate personal need. You could also say that "WE make your actions non-gratis" and that part of your responsibility rests with your community of choice, even if means that they will judge you for satiating a need. In a sense you are free to do whatever you want - free will at its finest - from society's point of view, but society will also punish and reward you for your actions, as it sees fit. 

The third one is taken for granted as "natural" to any civilisation and societal construction, and forms the base for any consensual punishment decided and executed by the representatives of elected leaders, bio-rulership through parenthood, as well as self-appointed rulership in the big or in the small. But individuals accepting community judgement is really what forms the sum of human action that we call 'civilisation'. 

Post-determinism is at the same time synonymous with the opposition in any case, when someone cries: We want to be free! And the fight for liberation is really a fight to be accepted and taken into account on equal terms. A fight hopefully ending with talks, either directly, faction to opposing faction, or via representatives elected to speak on behalf of factions. 

FLUID ATTACHMENTS

In democratic societies humans do not work from agreement. Systematic acceptance of disagreement is the order of the day. Voters are either part of the majority, the minority or outside of "influence" in any given question, with an elite above the three possessing influence by containment of economic or informational wealth, labour control and weapons production. 

Participation in democratic vote give voters a chance to voice their opinion in a limited way, possibly to feel as part of the maintenance of a safe society respecting its individuals, the voters (democracy = the people's voice). Accepting disagreement in such a way simultaneously transfers power to the elite, whose job it then becomes to interpret the majority vote, by first and foremost protecting their own democratically given right to govern. 

Humans discussing the concept of free will have often been part of the elite determining the day-to-day-parameters of society. The WE of a society looses power, when individuals become aware of the (other) ways of the world, entering into a kind of growing-up phase, a fluid state of attachment, where they test the permissions and prohibitions of other societies. [2. saturnfase]

Because perception of "the we", i.e. society, is a fluid state for most of today's humans in this internet-connected world sharing information about all other cultures and nations in fine details, post-determinism is not counted a part of the discussion of free will. Apart from a few ultra-left and right wing dissenters, governmental dictated consensus and "democratically given power to punish" has been accepted as part of the package.

ATTACK THE BLOCK

A reason to exclude post-determinism in qualifying actions is that it transfers power to the elite powers, and away from experience. People in general learn more and more about each other, and when neither pre-determinism nor determinism can solve the problems of society, the either blame post-determinism (consensual rule, the rules of 'democracy') or the elite. And are 'blamed right back' by the elite for not considering the consensus. [det er mere kompliceret end som så] 

Many republicans in USA and other conservative libertarians around the world try to make it seem as if heads of state are in fact elders, and the mentioning of past deeds done by historical characters on the road to present day wealth and strength as a nation as in fact out of respect. This is a lesson learned from American Natives, which is not such a bad thing, and it IS blatant manipulation.

In the world's uniformly undemocratic societies humans need conform to the dictates of one ruler or a small ruling elite, or risk punishment. People are thusly not asked for their opinion on any matter. Whatever desire they may possess to express opinions of agreement, opposition, disdain or sympathy are crushed if thought to question the one-party-line. Even so, fluidity of attachment also exist in one-party nations and is thought of as the nerve by which the suppressed survive.

In a perfect world a society run by elders would not have an elite. But alliences with outside threats necessitate secrecy, often forcing elites into being. Even so, only societies led by elders, based on ancestor worship and societal functions filled by obvious ability, contain a nucleus pointing inwards towards a central community core counting all heads of the nation. 

Which is the cause for imitation in the created nation of America.

[HEADLINE]

Any society, which does not count its consensual responsibility in the causality of events following its member's actions, is a society without regard for its members as respect-worthy individuals.

If you would want to create a nation, just follow this lead; abuse how easily humans are led by campaigns speaking to base desires and fear, and you are on the direct road to a society of brainwashed robots.

On the other hand, take individual fear into high regard, and you will foster an outwardly timid, and inwardly cunning hell of manipulation of inter-personal alliances.

Walk a middle road or any road to the right or left, and to a degree you must control via consensual manipulation of behavior or by general empathy to create inner-self-censorship. This is what we have now in most countries: An elite striking up a balance between crowd control and smothering in the leadership if its nation.

Does this remind you very much of parents? Of father and mother?

'WE' MEANS 'SUM', NOT 'GOOD'

The debate of free will, yes?, no?, is a temporary struggle. Psychologist would probably call it individuation - breaking free of parental influence to FEEL an effect of actions not protected by either parent. Individuation can go on throughout one's whole life, but it is still temporary. At some point it stops mattering and you will find your role:

The purpose of individuation is coming to terms with the concept of WE.

Unconscious accept: Domination by WE. A child.

Conscious accept: Opposition to or agreement with WE. A youngster.

Consensual accept: Principal participation in WE. An adult.

THE RULING ELITE

Are the ruling elite on the inside or the outside? Do they constitute a necessary evil? To join or accept or oppose? With or without consequences? 

What is a monkey without a sword?