From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Foundations... (Was Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!))
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:20:21 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <adams.715543098@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
> Sean: 
>>In other words - if I sit in my study and rationally figure out why we
>>have no free choice and then declare this to be a universal truth, I am
>>a determinist. 
> 
>>If I sit in my study and watch how I make choices and then say "By Gee and
>>Jay, this notion of free will is a myth! That's not how it works at all!"
>>Than I am not an "-ist" of any kind, I am just somebody watching the
>>workings of their own mind and challenging others to do the same. Maybe
>>your mind is different...I don't know...
> 
> I guess this entire thing revolves around a point of view.  Perhaps I am
> kidding myself that I really do have a free will.  And that said free will
> is simply a convenient fiction I use to insist that I have real control
> over my life.  Perhaps not.  

The single trickiest point here is : will you take a look at the matter for
yourself and see?  I can tell you free will is a myth, but that means nothing
unless you observe the workings of your own mind and see. 

I don't think you're "kidding yourself," rather it seems to me that free will
is such a basic component of our cultural programming that it rarely occurs
to us to question it experientially. We have declared the matter irresolvable,
and it is, by rational methods. Does the computer in front of you exist or not?
Try and prove it rationally. Wheee...what fun.... but if we observe without
trying to formulate a doctrine, than we can see certain things, although
we cannot know WHY these things are.  

> We're talking across frames of reference here, and I think that's the crux
> of the debate.  Unless we can define a common frame of reference, and
> discuss the issues from that common frame, we won't ever agree on this
> issue. (Not to say that we would agree even with a common frame of
> reference).
> 
> Observationally, your ideas might just be correct, but I think that is just
> perception. 

An interesting admission! The only response I could make would be: if you
want to know if they are correct, watch your own mind and see. 
 
> In other words, there are intangible proceses that you can't
> see that drive what you observe.

Maybe, but this is irrelevant to my point. I want to observe: do I have free
will or not?  Observation: No. _Now_ I can speculate about 
reasons why that may be.  

The usual process is to work the other way.  "I have an explanation of the
universe that requires determinism (or free will). Therefore we must be
determined (free)."  
    
> Sort of like Ptolomaic ideas about the
> planets. I'm NOT trying to say that your explanation doesn't fit the
> observed evidence, jut that I conclude differently.

If you will note carefully, I am offering no explanation at all for why we
are the way we are. All I am saying is that if you look at how our minds work, 
you see that the doctrine of free will is inaccurate.

Soooo....the question really is: are Sean's observations accurate?
If yes, free will is a myth.  After we see the accuracy or inaccuracy
of my observations, then we can argue about "conclusions" (which deal
with _explanations_ for the observed facts...) 
 
>Is it possible to choose something of which you have no conception?
>>In other words, in making a choice, you can only choose among the
>>possibilities of which you are aware. It was impossible for me to choose
>>to become a Zoroastrian at age 8, because I didn't even know that 
>>Zoroastrianism existed.
> 
>>So --- we can only choose among the things which appear to us inwardly,
>>and the decision occurs as a movement towards whichever of these things
>>appears best to us.   
> 
> This concept goes to my point about actual, logical possibilities.  It
> wasn't that you didn't have a choice, but that there was not actual,
> logical possiblity that you would do the thing you are speaking of.  That
> means that no choice was possible.

This is an extremely vague concept..."actual, logical possibilities."
I still don't know exactly what you mean by this. I've tried several times
to figure it out, and each time I think I have, you just restate the same
argument as a last defense...

What is an "actual" possibility? What makes it "logical" or illogical?
If something never happens, does that mean it was impossible? 

If I have two choices, and I choose A and reject B, does that mean that there
was never an "actual, logical possibility" that I would choose B?


>>Other example of "nature:"   sexual attraction, hunger (it definitely
>>feels better to eat when hungry than not to!) etc. etc...these are more
>>general human "nature" traits.
>
> Actually, I'd say more instinctual than anything...

To call them "instinctual" is to begin to theorize about explanations.
Right now, all I'm doing is making observations, so I'm trying to use
neutral words. 
 
>>>I sense a bit of Plato/Socrates here.  If I know the good I will do the
>>>good.  But not necesarily, for one man's good is another man's evil.  It's
>>>that definition thing.
> 
>>This is another issue, I think. These guys felt that if you cleared your
>>head sufficiently of nonsense, good would be the same for everyone.
> Exactly.  The cave analogy used in the Republic hits this right on the
> head.  We are completely guided by our views (frames of reference above)
> and unless and until we break free from them, we can't judege reality.

If we have no views, it is impossible to judge, as one has no standards to
judge by...judgement ceases to be an issue at that point. "Good" ceases
meaning "acceptable to my world view" and starts meaning <good> (as in
"I feel good...")  Is this another point, after all?
    
>>>>I chose <smirk> it because it seemed likely to me that I would be right is 
>>>>assuming that you would be incapable of abusing a child so viciously. Note-
>>>>I said INCAPABLE, and I meant it.  
>>> 
>>> Of course, I could do it simply to "prove a point", too.  
> 
>>Which of course would mean that it appeared better to you to prove your
>>point about free will than to not beat the child. You would have no
>>choice but to demonstrate how free you are! *laugh*
> 
> OK. I laughed here too.  But I get extra credit for a prediction to myself
> that you would respond in almost those EXACT words!  Deterministic!!! ;-)

Wise guy, eh? :)  Still, I think the point should be pretty clear. In fact,
I am a bit puzzled that you apparently don't see it...

>>to make a decision, and decide to make THAT one before you could make the
>>first one, ad infinitum...   Spontaneity means - it just happens.
>>Decisions "just happen."  We go one way, or the other. Strictly speaking,
>>this is all we can say. "Free will" is ultimately not so much false as it
>>is meaningless....
>
> I understand your point...refer to the frames of reference stuff above.

A "frame of reference" is an ideological world view. It allows us to 
draw conclusions about what we observe (as well as helping us select what
to observe and what to ignore.)  I am not drawing conclusions about 
my observations, merely reporting them. So the "frame of reference" stuff
is really not relevant. 

You say that you think we might be "talking across frames of reference."
I think a more accurate way to describe the situation would be:
I'm talking OUTSIDE a frame of reference (except for the English language,
which I need to communicate. I have no "second-order" frame of reference
operationally currently, however) while you are looking at things
from within a frame of reference. Your frame of reference says that people
who talk like me are within another frame of reference. Usually they are...
but ideologies rarely make allowances for people who are not interested
in being ideological. 

So...if you can...step outside your frame of reference for a while. Put it
on the shelf, it'll be there when you get back...:)

Take a look at things _without_ judging, and theorizing, and evaluating.
Just _look_ at how your mind works. Then, if you want to, go back to your
frame of reference and evaluate. However, if you do as I outline here,
you will find that your ideology's assertions about your mind will not
match what you see. Maybe...!  Ahh...look for yourself...maybe I'm just 
a disembodied solipsistic brain being fed intravenously on Alpha 
Centauri by small green men...you can never be sure about these things...

Re: foundations

>>> It is very, very difficult to discard a foundation on which so much is
>>> built.  Granted, I've changed the structure of the building radically, and
>>> remodelled it.  But I'm not prepared to completely raze the building and
>>> dig up the foundation.
> 
>>Could you explain why this would be so difficult? If you don't want to talk
>>about it that's ok.
> 
> Well, to answer the two questions, you may certainly ask.  As to the first,
> I'm not a Roman Catholic at this point.  I don't know where I stand, in
> reality.  I'm attending a Lutheran (ELCA) Church for the moment, but will
> most likely be leaving that church in the near future (various complex
> reasons, some theological, some not).  Where to next?  Back to church
> shopping again...that's how I ended up a Lutheran. ;-)

Have you thought about the Restored Pythagorean Unreformed Church...??? :)
(see post on this subject for details...!!!)
 
> As for the reason I'm not ready to dynamite the foundation?  Think about it
> for a minute.  Analyze the natural human reaction to this concept!  If one
> has constructed a belief system that one lives on life by on a certain set
> of principles, and then rejects that set of principles, everything more or
> less has to go.  And you are left more or less adrift.

The only consolation for being human is the fact that when all the belief
systems are gone, all the foundations evaporated, all the principles seen
to be fictional - we remain...and life goes on.  To me, that word
"adrift" is very beautiful, because when you are adrift, and you know
there are no shores to reach, because the ocean is limitless, and the shore
is just a dream from which you have awakened, then you can stop 
worrying and fretting, and at that point you notice that there are
seagulls in the sky, and clouds, and sunlight and water, and a lot of other
things you never really paid any attention to because you were lost in 
a daydream about distant shores - shores that must remain forever
speculative... yes, no one said being a human being wouldn't be weird!

> Talking about stuff like this is difficult.  But there is no chance that
> I'll be satsified until I work it out.  I've more or less refrained from
> making a claim to 'faith' in this entire thread, but that is, alas, where I
> fall in the end.  And I don't want to rely on that claim to 'solve' (read
> ignore) obvious contradictions and illogic.
> 
> So, just how easy would it be for you to dump this kind of basic
> foundation?  See what I mean?

Comrade, even if you decide you WANT to dump your foundation you will
find that that's just the START of the fun...! 

I wish you good luck in your attempts to find some kind of peace of mind,
for it sounds like that's what this is really about. You want to get
everything straight - and you don't want to cheat. It sounds like you
may have the kind of mind that has trouble resting if it suspects it has
not gone as far as it can.  I was going to advise you to hang in there,
but that would be kind of silly. If you are the kind of person who
cannot rest until you reach the End of the Line, whatever it may be,
then you will get there. If you are not, then you will cheat, and 
accept some set of speculative doctrines as absolute, you will settle
for a dream of distant havens rather than staring at the weird and relentless
beauty of the ocean upon which you are adrift.

So to speak...:)

>>>'Paulist' is the usual epithet...I honestly came very close to rejecting
>>>the whole of Pauline writing, but I did not.
> 
>>Considering the stuff we've talked about, could you explain why? 
> 
> Yeah, as I had said, there is other stuff than just clear logic and
> intellectualism.  The family issue is important here, for discarding this
> particular foundation would likely lead to results that I don't even want
> to contemplate, based on a set of comman basic beliefs.  Some things aren't
> worth discarding, even when they don't make complete sense.
> 
> Kind of round about and vague...does that get the point across clearly
> enough?

Yes, I think it does...my parents would flip if they knew what I really
thought. They would be very hurt. Devastated, in the case of my mother.
I just keep my mouth shut and smile a lot...one might hope for better,
but, as Dogen Kigen put it, flowers die, even though we love them; and weeds
grow everywhere, even though we do not love them.

>>Yes...you insist that if evil is possible, it must be actual, or it wasn't
>>really possible. This strikes me as a bit weird. Personally, it
>>seems pretty obvious to me that something can be possible without ever
>>actually occuring.  
> 
> But if it never occurs, was it really possible? ;-)  Look at yourself and
> your own example of beating a child! ;-)

You're starting to sound like me!  To solve this one, we have to get to the
root of what we mean when we say something is "possible."

You can't talk about objects in the past as being "possible" or "impossible..."
Once an event has occurred/not occurred, probabilistic analysis is
meaningless. It either did, or it didn't happen.  

With regards to the evil-less creation I described...you insist that evil
must have an "actual, logical possiblity of existing." 

Well - here's where the decision would have been made: when God 
had used his foreknowledge to see who would ultimately reject him and
who wouldn't - at that point evil has an actual possibility of
existing. "Will I or won't I create the sinners..." muses God.
Evil is a possibility about to be either actualized for all time, or 
about to miss it's one chance at actually existing - it HAS that chance...!
But in my version of creation, God says "Nahhh....that would be too mean.
I won't do it."
      
Rats! Evil HAD it's chance of existing, but it didn't happen. Only the
saints get created - the people who have a CONCEPTION of evil but who
reject it wholeheartedly. It's so...so...vulgar, they say to themselves,
I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
 
Free will AND an actual, logical possibility of evil - in the same creation!
Howzat??? :)  (pant, puff, pant, puff)  Only the people who freely choose
salvation get created!  I realize this aspect of the discussion
is academic at this point...still, I'd LOVE to get you to admit that
this is right! (puhhhhleeeez???) :)

>>>You have a point about following the doctrine to its logical conclusion.
>>>And yes, I did mean it the way you took it...and I have a tough time
>>>supporting my own *$&#&$( conclusion.  Wonderful.
> 
>>It was thinking about things like this that led me to the startling
>>conclusion (possibly misguided, of course) that Paul was not only an 
>>ordinary man, but an extreme rationalist of a horrifying kind. That's just
>>me though. Everyone else in the world seems to think that just because
>>Paul spouts "love! love!" non-stop he was a sensitive person. We forget
>>what a ruthless bugger he was before he got religion. 
>
> I constantly remind people of this...he was an SOB.
>

Right on, brother. Can't repeat that enough these days. Paul is probably
the most influential man in history...
 
>>> Intellectual honesty sucks.
> 
>>It always does at first, that's for sure. But - humans have always felt that
>>the closer they got to truth, the closer they would get to happiness.
>>I am not convinced that this is entirely misguided...:)
> 
> Neither am I, man, neither am I.

"Jesus said: `He who seeks shall find; he who finds shall be troubled. He who
is troubled shall be astonished, and he will rule over the All.'"

(...probably not an exact quote - my brother swiped my copy of Gospel of Thomas
so I had to do that one from memory. Can you believe that? Stealing a man's
only copy of the Good News!!! I'm gonna get that guy...)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca