[MD] Anti-reductionism in the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Akshay writes --


 > I cannot deny that man cannot do what he wants. Our entire system of
> morality is based upon this notion -- that because a man chooses to do
> something out of his own will, he is to be rewarded or punished or 
> ignored,
> because he *deserves* to be given his share in return. This is the law of
> karma. But this does not conflict at all with determinism. Often, when we
> are discussing free will and determinism, we separate volition into mine 
> and
> not-mine, at least subconsciously. In reality, however, you and not-you is 
> a
> mistaken dichotomy, it is all continuous. You are only a discernible
> constituent of the universe, not an eternal part or fragment.
>
> My will is in complete harmony with God's will.  Even if I pretend to act
> against God's wishes, or to somehow rebel against his doctrines, that is
> still verily a part of God's plan.

Man's will IS what he wants.  Obviously, man cannot do (or be) everything he 
wants, for his being represents the value of his immutable source.   He 
"borrows" from this source to create his beingness.  But willing, in the 
sense of desiring, is the driving force of man's experience and 
achievements.  How can you deny this?  From the time you get out of bed each 
morning you choose what you want to do and how you want to behave.  I'll 
recommend a source to you.  Read James Fletcher Baxter's essay "Man is 
Earth's Choicemaker" which I have modified slightly in my website archive at 
http://www.essentialism.net/choicemaker.htm.  In it he says: "Man is earth's 
Choicemaker.  He is by nature a creature of Choice-and of Criteria.  His 
unique and definitive characteristic is, and of right ought to be, the 
natural foundation of his environments, institutions, and respectful 
relations to his fellow-man.  Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots 
are in the order of the universe."

> We *are* God. If we think that if it is God's will, why do I have to
> suffer for his decisions (like you going and murdering somebody and
> landing in prison), then the reply is that it is God also who is bearing
> the pain. God is not a foreign agent controlling us like puppets.
> He is verily us. To put it in a more Christian-friendly way, I and
> my Father are one.

In order for us to have free will, we cannot be God (Essence).  The essence 
of man is Value, and this can only be experienced differentially, by the 
individual subject.  As such, man is "outside the loop" of Absolute Essence. 
He must be separated (i.e., negated) from the source to become its 
autonomous agent.  To reject this cosmic principle is to deny the meaning or 
purpose of cognizant experience.  Christ submitted himself in an almost 
mystical way to the Will of God to fulfill the Judaic prophecy of the 
Messiah.  This alleged statement has been interpreted by Catholics and other 
absolutists to mean that Jesus was God incarnated, whereas my understanding 
is that it would have been a reminder to the Master's disciples that he was 
carrying out God's Will and would not depart from it.  Total submission to a 
creator in not normal practice in the Christian world, and it would 
certainly not be the kind of behavior demanded by a moral deity.

> We are humans, a tiny part of this universe. If we had any choice at all, 
> it
> would mean that there would be a break in the chain of cause and effect,
> because momentarily, until we make a choice, a lot of causes have stopped
> acting.  It seems ridiculous to me that the entire chain of causality of 
> the
> universe breaks down when I'm contemplating whether to have another slice 
> of
> pizza or not. Free will is only an illusion, nothing more. Will is 
> something
> we know, and what we know is always conditioned by space, time and
> causality.

I understand your reasoning which, again, is grounded in physical reality. 
But physical reality is what we construct from essential Value, and the 
"conditioning" limitations you refer to are the dimensional mode of human 
experience.  Man's reality is a relational world of passing events, each of 
which is divided by nothingness. Man himself is an existential nothingness 
(negate).  The only thing that holds this system of finite appearances 
together is the value of the absolute source.

If I'm not mistaken, karma is a concept exclusive to Hinduism and is tied to 
the notion of causation.  According to Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy, "As 
law, karma would be identical with physical causation or causality while 
working with equal vigor in man's psychic and thought life.  As such, it is 
the unmitigated law of retribution working with equal precision in 'good' 
and 'evil' deeds and thoughts, thus determining the nature and circumstances 
of incarnation."

So, you see, by your Hindu leanings you force the issue of cause-and-effect 
on finitude, just as the objectivists do.  Like the objectivists, you fail 
to recognize that it's only because we experience events as a time continuum 
that we intellectualize reality as a causal system.  Absolute reality isn't 
relational and doesn't change: Essence is immutable.  Only the awareness of 
its individuated negate changes, which is how the Value of Essence is 
realized.

> Even the so-called tendencies (i.e., the idea that your choices are being
> only influenced by some habits and not absolutely determined by them) are 
> a
> product of the Law and hence even if you manage to break away from those
> tendencies, to break away from tendencies was itself a tendency, only that
> it so happened that this tendency to break away was stronger than the
> tendency to stay in. It was the Law which decided which tendency would 
> win.
> Even though you decide which dress to wear today, your decision itself has
> been preprogrammed by the Law/God, hence you are merely an instrument or, 
> as
> is said in Sanskrit, nimitta, for the event.

You can only apply laws "after the fact", so that 'before' and 'after' have 
no significance in the metaphysics of Essence.  "Tendencies" reflect 
relational values in space and time, which is how we sense them.  But the 
value of the Absolute Source is "pre-intellectual", which means that it is 
not affected by the conditions of finite experience.  The conclusions we 
draw from experience are therefore invalid as applied to metaphysical 
reality.  As you say....

> The whole debate of free will and determinism is founded in
> the intellect, hence you have to resolve it by intellectual means
> or a higher level of evolution.

You see, I don't believe in an extra-corporeal intellect.  Intellection is a 
cerebral-neural process that is secondary to awareness or value-sensibility. 
I see the order of cognizant comprehension as starting with pure value, 
which is the sensibility of "otherness" (the primary existential dichotomy). 
This sensibility is individualized in man, whose brain and nervous system 
convert it into conscious phenomena (the things and events of a space/time 
world).  These things and events don't "determine" him; he determines them. 
As Baxter says, man is the choicemaker of his reality.

> Hinduism has no word for free will, simply because it is non-existent. 
> Refer
> to my causality note at the beginning of this post. Of course, in Hinduism
> the central goal of life is liberation, by achieving which one is freed 
> from
> the bondage of causality. Hinduism speaks of the law of karma, that you 
> will
> reap what you sow.

I respectfully disagree with this premise.  Reaping and sowing are what we 
do in the life experience through the exercise of free choice.  Since 
behavior represents the value-sensibility of the proprietary self, 
ultimately it's not what we do but what we value that determines our 
essential reality.  As free agents of this sensibility, we each come to 
realize our unique "value complement" in the Oneness of Essence.

Thanks for your troubles, Akshay.  Your argument is beautifully articulated, 
but it's based on a worldview that conflicts with mine.  The central thrust 
of Essentialism is that man is the free and autonomous agent of his 
universe.  Each individual's experience is a singular event--a "value 
pattern", to use Pirsig's vernacular--and since we pass through finitude 
only once, retribution and rewards are not meted out in subsequent 
reincarnations.  I remain convinced that value-sensibility is the 
teleological principle which gives meaning and purpose to existential 
reality.

Best regards,
Ham