Friday, December 30, 2011

Sensitive to Free Will

Ta-Wan


Taoism by nature of Wu Wei and other ideas, perhaps especially those put forward by Chuang Tzu, leans more in favor of there not being actual free will. In many texts Taoism though does commonly say that we "Should" do this, "Should Not" do that so discount this claim unless we alter "Should" (/not) to "Ought" (/not)*.



Fatalism is the commonly inferred antithesis to free will and so people nearly always reject views on there being no free will as they fear and dislike the idea of fatalism. This need not be the case, however, as clearer alternatives exist. Fatalism still believes that something causes events and this half cause/effect relationship, which is still ultimately cause/effect brings us to a position not really answering anything. It is not only unsatisfactory to most is it also not a strong antithesis.

What I have seen in my own personal endeavors to answer these questions and in my readings of Taoism and Zen as they venture into these realms is that we are sensitive to events, that is all. This is a very magical and privileged vantage point on reality as we witness this unfolding show but do not direct it. It is an important place for anyone standing tight with a philosophy of Oneness such as Taoism to not allow for cause/effect, doer/done situations to enter their descriptions on reality as it is reiterated over and over that Tao does not lord over anything. If Tao does not, and we're all one, then we'd better accept that free will and cause and effect are not in perfect compatibility with Taoism.

That this universe, nature, these other people and all else appears around us and that we feel ourselves as something within all of that we are naturally in some uneasy predicament when we attempt to rectify this prickly subject. The answer though, for me at least and I don't know many who can relate their views on the subject to me, is one of magical wonder. Quite the same magic I believe Chuang Tzu and others felt when they viewed the world. We are little else than a sensitive spot in the universe. Imagining the universe as it is, large expanses of space, lumps of rock, voluminous fire balls, more space, places where chemicals mix and react, places where life dances, then we seem to be little tiny and very sensitive cells in the universal entity. We have our senses where we can touch things, touch compressions in air, touch chemical traces in the air, touch light as it bounces off things. We are also very sensitive to energy changes, emotional flows in our bodies and minds and I see that we are sensitive to Tao's flow, be that Chi or Te.

That is in fact all I believe we are and we are not entities with volition but entities who amongst sensing things that do appear to happen we are sensitive to what could happen or could have happened and in this we could, quite by comical inevitable accident be lead to believe that we are the fatalistic bystander or the doer of the acts - when we are neither.

We are a sensitive spot in the universe and we sense and feel its apparent movements. By privilege of our position we also get to seem to see and seem to interact with other sensitive entities as they too do the same.

~

* I'm attempting to differentiate between "should" inferring you; 'must, if possible, choose (not) to' and "ought" inferring that; 'it would be best if possible, but what can we do?'.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

5 comments:

  1. I have always leaned toward free will, most likely influenced by my upbringing in a Christian denomination that favored Wesleyan Arminianism over Calvinistic determinism. But after all, who doesn't prefer choice to being doomed in a situation?

    "That is in fact all I believe we are and we are not entities with volition but entities who amongst sensing things that do appear to happen we are sensitive to what could happen or could have happened and in this we could, quite by comical inevitable accident be lead to believe that we are the fatalistic bystander or the doer of the acts - when we are neither."
    This I like. Why should we be trapped in a free-will/fatalistic battle? Is that the only way to view the situation? Perhaps not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BR should watch the video and read again. She got defensive over the idea of fatalism when I even speak against it and so as with many posts missed the point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't recall ever saying anything about fatalism; I detest fatalistic world-views.

    The video was not included in the original post to which I responded in my 2:22 post ("My Tao"). (Ta-Wan must have read this response before it was published here; I will be charitable and assume it was on my own blog.) But the video seems to suggest that there is a sort of determinism, which sounds to me like fatalism. I think it warrants further discussion. Neuroscientists are as weird as anyone else. Weirder. We are far from understanding the mind/brain connection. fMRI and other brain imaging is interesting, but it is no more conclusive than monitoring heartbeat and fever to explain death...yet.

    "That is in fact all I believe we are ..and in this we could, quite by comical inevitable accident be lead to believe that we are the fatalistic bystander or the doer of the acts - when we are neither."

    And I have no problem with saying, yes, your point here escapes me. If we are neither, what are we? Please do not refer me to Tony Parsons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This post will probably scroll into the void before I'm done, but I should probably amend my comment:

    What I detest is fatalism in people who give up on things..."There's nothing I can do, it's my fate to suffer with this condition, to whatever."

    But there is a fate, a predetermined thing, that has to do with the cards you are dealt, the things that come with you in the world, genetic problems, socio-economic situations. You could give up, whine your way to eternity, succumb to fatalism, but there are options to act, to choose, to overcome your fate and change it. This is through the exercise of will, which I think is free.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your points seems mostly against fatalism which I am not in support of either. I'm not in support of determinism or fatalism which both require an ultimate cause which only god faiths and, strangely, athiestic science support.

    I'm sceptical of determinism and fatalism and my conclusion, for now, is that neither are the case. I'm more in favour of the conclusion that the mind can easily fill gaps so form the ideas of fatalism or determinism and it can not, without very open investigation, accept radically new ideas such as the entire universe being an aiveness interpreted by itself in trillions of ways each suiting a case and of no concrete substance. (It's not this that or nothing it's very likely 42)

    My ultimate view on any matter is that we can not even know, so when I say that "without any one else's input and given the best we do know, here are my ideas" - it is naturally to my amusement and bemusement when commentors miss that and voice VS one side of an argument that I personally have not even taken sides on, in fact when i side with neither and move to open a new door.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.